PDF Version

June 6,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVIII No. 39

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR.

SPEAKER (Osborne): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Today I would like to recognize in the Speaker's

gallery, Mr. Charles Hapgood most of you know him as Chuck he was a

Commissionaire here for many years. Mr. Hapgood retired from the Corps of

Commissionaires at the end of April.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

joined the Commissionaires in 1991 following a 28-year career with the Canadian

Armed Forces, where he served at various bases in Canada as well as Cyprus and

Germany.

In 2001, he was assigned to the House of Assembly and

became the Commissionaires' site manager here in 2007, a position he held until

his retirement.

We'd like to extend thanks to Mr. Hapgood for his years

of service to the House of Assembly and we wish him well, him and his wife,

Patricia, a happy and healthy retirement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

MR.

SPEAKER:

For

Members' statements today we have the Members for the Districts of Lewisporte

Twillingate, Cartwright L'Anse au Clair, Conception Bay East Bell Island,

Placentia West Bellevue, Virginia Waters Pleasantville and Topsail

Paradise.

The hon. the Member for Lewisporte Twillingate.

MR.

D. BENNETT:

Mr.

Speaker, this past Saturday, I had the privilege of attending the official

opening of the Twillingate, New World Island, Dinner Theatre with other Members

of this hon. House.

I have to commend Ernie Watkins and Cathy Brown for the

beautiful job they have done in creating a first-class theatre and on the

construction of their new cottages.

It was a full house with 180 people in attendance.

There were tourists from six different provinces, various parts of the United

States, and other countries. Patrons attending the dinner theatre were served a

home cooked meal, choosing from lobster, chicken, salmon or cod.

The Twillingate New World Island area has some of the

greatest actors and singers in the province, and this theatre had everyone

tapping their feet, clapping their hands, singing along and laughing throughout

the evening.

It is through the creative thinking and financial

investment of tourism operators in the area that the industry continues to grow

and they have been successful in extending their tourism season.

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

congratulating Ernie, Cathy and all the tourism operators in the Twillingate

area for helping to promote and preserve our great culture.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

Member for the District of Cartwright L'Anse au Clair.

MS.

DEMPSTER:

Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House to recognize

three individuals from my district who have made the most of a valuable

opportunity for personal growth.

In September 2010, the first karate club in the

Labrador Straits region opened in Pinware. Since that time, a devoted core of

students have participated in karate training, attending local tournaments and a

competition in St. John's at which they garnered 22 medals for their region.

On May 30, three students of Pinware Karate School were

awarded a black belt a very big achievement within the sport of karate. To

earn this honour, they had to demonstrate a high degree of skill and fitness.

The three students were subjected to an arduous serious of workouts, and had to

demonstrate eight katas.

They passed this examination with flying colours,

demonstrating determination, willpower and devotion to the sport. They made us

proud. Obtaining black belt in karate is a prestigious honour, and it is the

first time such recognition has been bestowed in the District of Cartwright

L'Anse au Clair.

I ask all hon. Members to join me in congratulating

Kyle O'Dell, Colton McClean, and Sarah Pike on their remarkable achievement and

their noteworthy first for the district.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for the District of Conception Bay East Bell Island.

MR.

BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I stand today to recognize and thank the

Kiwanis Club of Bell Island for taking a leadership role in supporting local and

provincial organizations. This past weekend the Kiwanis Club on the island took

the lead to support the Janeway Telethon by co-ordinating the community's

ability to donate to the Janeway. The organization with support from students of

St. Augustine's Elementary and St. Michael's High set up hot dog stands where

for a donation individuals were given a hot dog as a thank you. The community

supported the project by coming to the high school or the ferry terminal to make

donations.

I have to note a special 10-year-old young man, Mr.

Cody Newell, who for the past number of months donated all the money he received

as gifts or chores he had done. Cody arrived at St. Michael's high with a bag of

money he had collected in the amount of $340. The total collected through the

hot dog donation stands amounted to $6,200.

I ask all Members to join me and thank the residents of

Bell Island, the Kiwanis Club and Cody.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Placentia West Bellevue.

MR.

BROWNE:

Mr.

Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the lives lost and families left behind

as a result of one of Canada's worst bus crashes, some-36 years ago.

On May 28, 1980, a bus travelling in Saskatchewan

carrying CP Rail workers met a tragic fate. While in transit, the bus was side

swiped by a car, falling on its side and then struck by a tanker truck.

Twenty-two young men lost their lives, many of them from the Burin Peninsula.

Each year, the community of Rushoon hosts a memorial

service and wreath laying in memory of those who lost their lives and in honour

of the eight men who survived. Again this year, I was moved to participate in

this annual service of remembrance. I thank the organizers and the town for

taking on this difficult task to ensure that the memory of these men are never

forgotten.

I ask all hon. Members to join me in thanking the

organizers of this event and, indeed, in sending our love and prayers to those

who survived and the families of those left behind.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for the District of Virginia Waters Pleasantville.

MR.

B. DAVIS:

Mr.

Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise in this hon. House today to

recognize Rodney Drover, Principal of Virginia Park Elementary School. He has

the honour of being selected as one of four educators to represent Canada, the

Canadian Teachers' Association, Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers' Association

and the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Sierra Leone this summer.

Principal Drover will depart, along with the rest of

the Project Hope team, for Sierra Leone on July 1, and will spend the month of

July working with approximately 250 teachers. He will facilitate literacy

development, helping to provide direction to an educational system that has been

devastated by the country's ongoing turmoil.

As part of the team's work in Sierra Leone this summer,

they have been trying to figure out a way to honour each and every teacher for

their amazing courage, resiliency and optimism they bring to teaching. Their

plan is to hand every teacher that participates in the program a written letter

offering them hope and support. This project will be called Project Hero.

I ask all hon. Members to join me in congratulating

Principal Drover, who is in our gallery today, for his hard work and wishing him

safe travels in his journey this summer.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for the District of Topsail Paradise.

MR.

P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Club of Avalon Northeast. This club, Mr. Speaker, serves the Towns of Conception

Bay South and Paradise and was founded in 1989 and currently has a membership of

38 women and men.

As a result of its collective efforts, this dedicated

group has earned a reputation of doing more than expected for a club of its

size. The Rotary Club of Avalon Northeast has been instrumental in making

significant contributions to the development of Manuels River Hibernia

Interpretation Centre, the Topsail Beach Rotary Park, the Rotary Paradise Youth

and Community Centre, the Richard Parsons Memorial Park, as well as a number of

other very important community projects including the CBS Monument of Honour,

CBS Library Early Literacy Program, Lifestyle Clincs, Choices for Youth Momma

Moments, Chamberlains Park, Parson's Field and many more.

Mr. Speaker, this club provides the local community

with a variety of projects, also including high school scholarships, the junior

achievement and DARE programs.

Mr. Speaker, in reflection of all this, I ask that all

hon. Members join me in congratulating and thanking the Rotary Club of Avalon

Northeast on its continued efforts and contributions to our communities.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

The Commemoration of the First World War and the Battle of Beaumont-Hamel

MR.

SPEAKER:

Today for Honour 100, we have the Member for the District of Torngat Mountains.

MR.

EDMUNDS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will now read into the record the following 40 names

of those who lost their lives in the First World War in the Royal Newfoundland

Regiment, the Royal Newfoundland Naval Reserve or the Newfoundland Mercantile

Marine. This will be followed by a moment of silence.

Lest we forget: Denis Tucker, John Charles Tucker,

Joshua Tucker, Walter Tucker, Frank Paine Tuff, Jabez Tuff, James Roy Tuff,

Ralph Tulk, Leonard John Tupp, John Turpin, Herbert Twiner, Abram James Twyne,

Pearce Upward, Hemnon Vail, Francis J. Vaughan, Joseph Vaughan, Oscar A.

Vaughan, John Francis Viscount, Leo Michael Voisey, Richard Patrick Voisey,

Herbert Vokey, Philip Vokey, Edgar Wade, Albert F. Wagg, Henry C. Wakely,

Douglas Walsh, James Walsh, Michael Walsh, Michael Francis Walsh, Patrick Walsh,

Thomas Walsh, Gilbert Walters, Garland Warford, Albert J. Warren, John Henry

Warren, Joseph Ross Waterfield, Jonas Watkins, Robert James Watkins, James

Pittman Watts, Rupert King Watts.

(Moment of silence.)

MR.

SPEAKER:

Please be seated.

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

MR.

TRIMPER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm pleased to rise in this House today to recognize

June 5-11 as Canadian Environment Week.

Mr. Speaker, a healthy environment is essential to the

physical, social and economic well-being of all Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians.

The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is firmly

committed to protecting the environment and my department is undertaking

valuable work on many fronts.

Our comprehensive

approach to the challenges facing our environment today includes action to

reduce greenhouse gas emissions, protect natural areas and wetlands, and ensure

the sustainability of our flora and fauna, while finding opportunities to

capitalize on the emerging green economy.

Mr. Speaker, I know

that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador stand behind us in our efforts to

protect the environment, and in fact, this morning I met some very inspiring

young people who will carry that commitment into the future.

The students at

Beachy Cove Elementary School in Portugal Cove-St. Philip's, are future leaders

in the field of environmental stewardship, and this morning we signed a

proclamation together to launch this special week.

Mr. Speaker, I

invite all of my colleagues here in this hon. House to join me in celebrating

Canadian Environment Week.

Thank You.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR.

PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'd like to thank the minister for the advance copy of

his statement. We join with the government in recognizing June 5 to 11 as

Canadian Environment Week. Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have always had a

close connection to the natural environment. We have a keen appreciate for the

land and its well-being. We know that its condition and strength will help

determine our physical, social and economic well-being. It's all interconnected,

Mr. Speaker.

I encourage everyone, not only during this week, but

all year round to find ways to create positive change, inspiring increased

environmental stewardship in your own communities and provinces.

This past weekend I had the pleasure of participating

in the 3 Hour Challenge in CBS which had a great turnout in protecting our

environment.

Together, Mr. Speaker, we can make a difference.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

MS.

ROGERS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister of an advance copy of his

statement. The word environment wasn't even mentioned in the budget, nor was a

climate change plan or carbon pricing. The new plan to cut large industry

emissions won't come into effect for years. Rare plants are threatened by the

layoff of wardens to protect the plants and their habitat. The laws around

Muskrat Falls prevent anyone from producing green energy for sale on the Island.

A backward move certainly.

I thank environmental activists for their leadership.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR.

SPEAKER:

Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR.

HAGGIE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm pleased to rise in this hon. House today to

recognize yesterday as National Cancer Survivors Day. With advances in cancer

prevention, early detection and treatment, more people are recovering and living

longer lives following a cancer diagnosis.

Cancer survivors and their families joined

representatives of Eastern Health, the Dr. H. Bliss Murphy Cancer Care Centre,

the Canadian Cancer Society, Young Adult Cancer Canada and others at a community

walk to celebrate the day.

Our government continues its work in close

collaboration with the regional health authorities, school districts and

community partners to support programs and policies aimed at prevention. This

includes smoking cessation programs, sun safety campaigns and other healthy

living initiatives under the Cancer

Control Policy Framework . Eastern Health's

Cancer Transitions: Moving Beyond Treatment Program and the Canadian

Cancer Society's Defy Cancer Program

are two more examples of meaningful efforts to support survivors.

National Cancer Survivors Day is a celebration of life.

It is an opportunity for survivors to celebrate and acknowledge those who have

supported them along the way.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR.

P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy of his

statement today. Mr. Speaker, we share in the government as well in

congratulating all who have won their battle with cancer. Also, for those who

are continuing through treatment and dealing with cancer, we give them our

greatest encouragement.

I say to all cancer patients or survivors that once

you've been diagnosed, every day after that you are a survivor. I continue, and

I encourage them to continue their battle.

I also want to take a moment to thank the Canadian

Cancer Society, also the Dr. H. Bliss Murphy Cancer Care society and all other

groups that represent and support cancer patients in our province. Mr. Speaker,

we know that one particular group, those who represent breast cancer patients

and survivors, are very troubled by the recent cuts to the Breast Screening

Program. We hope that this is not going to be a new trend for this government.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

MS.

ROGERS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy of his

statement. As a cancer survivor, I am very thankful to all those in the medical

field, including doctors, all levels of nursing, lab techs, researchers, home

care workers and more, who have dedicated their lives to treating and curing

cancer patients and preventing cancer with passion and compassion.

I also thank all those agencies and groups who have

dedicated their work and volunteer time for the same. I thank our families and

friends who care for us during these tough times.

MR.

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MS.

ROGERS:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Seniors, Wellness and Social Development.

MS.

GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr.

Speaker, I rise today to recognize June as Seniors Month in Newfoundland and

Labrador. It is a time to show our appreciation for the many contributions older

adults have made, and continue to make, in our province.

My mandate from the Premier includes the development of

legislation to create a Seniors' Advocate Office. I am pleased to say that

Budget 2016 provides funding to

establish this office. It will be independent of government to report to the

House of Assembly, and be a strong voice for seniors and their families as we

look to address system-wide issues which impact older adults.

Budget 2016

provides $63.7 million for the Newfoundland and Labrador Income Supplement to

help eligible low-income seniors, individuals, families and persons with

disabilities. We have also increased the Low-Income Seniors' Benefit by $12.7

million in Budget 2016 , bringing the

total annualized investment in the Seniors' Benefit to $57.9 million. Many

seniors in our province will benefit from these two programs.

We continue to support seniors to live healthy,

independent lives while participating fully in their communities.

I ask all Members to join me in celebrating June as

Seniors' Month and recognizing the many contributions of seniors throughout our

province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.

MS.

PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'd like to thank the minister for an advance copy of

her statement. We join with the government in recognizing June as Seniors' Month

in Newfoundland and Labrador. We all appreciate and recognize the tremendous

value of our seniors' contributions in our communities and province.

While Seniors' Month is to be celebrated,

Budget 2016 is definitely not. It is

through the actions of this government and their choices, seniors will be

negatively impacted. The elimination of the adult dental program, the axing of

coverage for over-the-counter medications, increased taxes, higher insurance

premiums, increased fuel costs the list goes on and on.

It's the height of irony that this government would

slash funding and programs for seniors while at the same time create an

MR.

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MS.

PERRY:

office to advocate for them.

They won't listen to anyone else; I don't know why they

think we should believe they'll listen to their advocate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

MS.

ROGERS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy of her

statement. We have the fastest aging demographic in the country. We have the

highest percentage of seniors on OAS, GIS living in poverty because with rising

rents, they have little left to live on. We have seniors begging begging for

rent supplements. Government has taken away seniors' access to many

over-the-counter medications. I am surprised the minister can stand and say we

should appreciate seniors, considering what her government is doing to them.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier stated last week that he would

release the Justice report on Nalcor's severance issue.

I ask the Premier: Will you now release all of the

documentation related to this matter here in the House of Assembly?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Government House Leader.

MR.

A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Certainly, there was an opinion put together by the

Department of Justice and Public Safety, which was provided to the Premier's

office. That, in turn, led to the involvement of the Auditor General. At this

time, the decision will be not to release that opinion due to the implications

it may have on solicitor-client privilege.

That information has been provided, along with

everything else, to the Auditor General for that review, which we're looking

forward to the conclusion of.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR.

P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Another day in the House and another day we get a

little bit more information.

I'll ask the Premier this: All of the documents you

provided to Justice, which led to the opinion, will you now table that in the

House as you committed to do?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Government House Leader.

MR.

A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Certainly, I think that a number of documents have been

released to the public now. I'm unsure as to what remains, but the important

thing to remember here is as we go through this matter where we're investigating

the payment of severance to Mr. Martin, all information has been provided to the

Auditor General so that we can have that report done, and that we look forward

to the release of to see what happened there. We look forward to that report.

Any information that the AG requires will be provided as soon as the request

comes in.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR.

P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier has said he'd release the documents here in

the House as soon as he could. The Auditor General is on the record as saying

that it doesn't interfere with his work that he is doing.

I'll ask the Premier this: You said earlier all of the

documents have been provided, then you said they hadn't, and now we're hearing

today from your minister they have. Premier, can you confirm that all of the

information has now been provided to the Auditor General?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Government House Leader.

MR.

A. PARSONS :

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

All information has been provided to the Auditor

General, but again, the important thing to remember is if there is other

information that the Auditor General requires, he'll certainly make a request

for that. Again, this is a process that will take some time.

One of the things that the Auditor General also has the

power to do is to question individuals through subpoenas. There are a number of

things that will happen throughout this process and if any information is

required I do want to reiterate to the Member opposite that it was certainly

never a case of the Auditor General being influenced, but it is certainly a

matter of the process being prejudice by the release, especially of the opinion.

That's certainly I don't think something that anybody wants, including the

Auditor General.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR.

P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We know the government has chosen to release certain

pieces of information and certain parts of the documentation, but they certainly

won't release it all so the people of the province can have a clear

understanding about exactly what had taken place here, and now they are saying

they're not going to release the information.

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to ask the Premier this: We're

told that just days before Mr. John Green was appointed by you as interim chair

of the board, he created an agreement on Mr. Martin's severance for the Nalcor

board. So I ask the Premier: When did you find out that Mr. Green was actually

involved in the severance? When did you find it out, Premier?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

MS.

COADY:

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

Mr. Green is a knowledgeable, dedicated, experienced

board of director. He was on a subsidiary board, the Nalcor Energy Marketing

Board. We asked him if he would come from that board to rise to the Nalcor

Energy Board, in an interim basis of course. We want to go through the

Independent Appointments Commission, which we are in the process of doing, to

ensure we have a very full board of directors for Nalcor. He's very experienced.

He was working with McInnes Cooper; however, Mr. Speaker, he stepped down from

his role with McInnes Cooper to take on this responsibility. As an experienced

board member, he would know all about the conflict of interest rules.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR.

P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We know the minister now is going to answer for the

Premier, but I asked the Premier and we still don't know the answer.

So if the Premier won't answer, maybe the minister will

tell us the answer to the question: When did the Premier find out that Mr. Green

was involved with the severance agreement?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

MS.

COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Green's involvement in any of this work with

McInnes Cooper is with McInnes Cooper and with the board of Nalcor. It

wouldn't be with this organization. It wouldn't be with the government.

As I've said, Mr. Green is an experienced,

knowledgeable member of the board of directors. He knows what his role is. He

took on this responsibility on an interim basis as chair of the board of Nalcor

Energy. We're very thankful that he has done that. We look forward to having a

new board in place once the Independent Appointments Commission has the

opportunity to do its work.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR.

P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister, who's very quickly gaining the reputation

of not answering questions, again has not answered the question. I'm certainly

not questioning Mr. Green's qualifications or abilities, Mr. Speaker, to be on

the record. I'm certainly not questioning that.

Maybe the Premier can tell us or confirm for us that

the interim chair of the board of directors was the individual who provided the

legal opinion and wrote the settlement agreement regarding the former CEO of

Nalcor. Maybe the Premier can confirm that for us.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, it was subsequent to the appointment of Mr. Green

that there was information provided. Mr. Green, as the interim chair of the

board of Nalcor right now, certainly he was working with the law firm that was

providing advice to the former board of Nalcor at the time. That information was

part of the process that he was involved in, as the minister said. He was

working with the firm that had been providing advice. We are very pleased that

he was able to step up to become the interim board of Nalcor. It's a role that

he's played with some of the affiliates and subsidiaries, boards of Nalcor. He's

now involved there and is doing his job as interim chair of that board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR.

P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier's question and answer is not completely

clear to me, so I'm going to ask him again.

Are you saying that you didn't find out or you did know

that he provided the advice at the time that you appointed him as chair?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The appointment of the I have not spoken to Mr. Green

prior to his appointment or since his appointment really. This is an appointment

that actually occurs that we allow and of course we expect our ministers to

occur to be involved in. This is what happened here.

I was not directly involved with Mr. Green before or

after and I have no intention to be. He now sits as the interim chair. We look

forward to the Independent Appointments Commission to get the new board in place

as quickly as possible. This will be on a permanent basis.

That's the process that's been outlined there in his

former capacity as a lawyer that was providing advice to the former board of

Nalcor. That is what he did. We have reached out to government to ask and invite

Mr. Green to come in an interim role. That is exactly what he's done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR.

P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier says he leaves it with his minister, so

I'll ask the minister if she knew that Mr. Green had created the agreement and

provided the legal opinion before he was appointed as interim chair of the

board.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

MS.

COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On April 21, we were pleased to be able to put in place

an interim board of directors with Mr. Green as chair. We've all recognized,

including the Leader of the Opposition, that he's an experienced, dedicated

board member.

His role with McInnes group or what he had done

previously to that, we did not discuss it. Obviously, we discussed the fact

around the conflict of interest. He stepped down from his role at McInnes Cooper

and we are very pleased to have him as the interim chair of the board of Nalcor

Energy.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR.

P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm sure the Auditor General will look deeper into that

matter.

Mr. Speaker, at 3 o'clock this morning posters asking

for the resignation of the Premier were removed from the Parkway.

I ask the Premier: Were employees of the provincial

government instructed to remove these posters calling for your resignation?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

MR.

HAWKINS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the Member for the question. Obviously, this

morning it was an operational decision to remove those signs. It's certainly not

something that we as a minister, I had discussion with. There are hundreds of

operational decisions made on a daily basis throughout the Transportation and

Works Department.

Obviously, Mr. Speaker, as well, the first that I

noticed that it had happened was through a media inquiry this morning.

Immediately we checked into that situation. Obviously, the direction did not

come from me as minister. Had it come to my level, the decision might have been

different than what it was.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR.

P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for his answer.

So, Minister, are you confirming that taxpayers'

dollars were used to remove these political posters in the middle of the night?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

MR.

HAWKINS:

Mr.

Speaker, as I said, it's an operational decision. We make hundreds of

operational decisions on a daily basis. There is money expended on operations.

In this particular case, there have been signs that had

previously been put around the park area in the past that has been removed. So

this is not different. As a matter of fact, it was contracted out with a

different contractor to remove them.

Again, as I said, it was not a decision that came from

me as minister. Had it gotten to my level, the decision might have been

different, but it was removed. It's a practice that has happened in the past, so

that is no different today than what happened in the past.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR.

P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'll ask the minister: Who made the decision and who

gave the direction?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

MR.

HAWKINS:

Mr.

Speaker, I think it was pretty clear where it came from. It was an operational

decision. We made hundreds of operational decisions in Transportation and Works

on a daily basis. Many of them, unless they are of a high-level nature, never,

ever get to the ministerial level. I have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, this one did

not get to a ministerial level. It was a decision that was made it's an

operational decision.

If I remember correctly, I have not been around this

table for very long, but I know in the past there have been decisions made,

there have been signs that have been put around the park area that have been

removed. I would suspect this was no different. It was a decision that

non-executive level members decided last night to have those removed.

Again, it was not a ministerial decision, neither was

it a Premier's decision. It's a decision that was made on an operational level.

That's the way it is.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR.

HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, according to the Canadian taxpayers'

association, Newfoundland and Labrador is the most expensive place in the

country to drive.

I ask the Minister of Finance: What is the maximum

price you're willing to allow the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to pay?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

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

MS.

C. BENNETT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As we discussed in this House last week during the

debate around the changes that were made to the gas tax, we are faced with an

unprecedented situation in this province, a $1.8 billion deficit that would have

been $2.7 billion had we not taken any action. It was the decision of this

government to implement gas tax changes.

As I mentioned in this House last week and actually

shared with Members opposite, we have a system in place in the Department of

Finance to provide information to me on a weekly basis. Last week when the

prices were changed, my understanding from officials is that the price actually

was a half a cent higher than the five-year average, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR.

HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the minister indicated last week in debate

there was discussion about a regulatory regime put in place to cap gas price.

What process was looked at and why, at the end, could it not be implemented?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

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

MS.

C. BENNETT:

Mr.

Speaker, when I spoke here in the House last week and as I will certainly say

here in response to the Member opposite's question, our government made the very

difficult decision to increase gas tax. It is our intention to monitor the

situation throughout the summer. This was always a temporary decision, as we

announced in the budget. We have made it clear to the people of the province

that we will review where the tax increase would put gas prices as a whole in

the province, and we would look to make changes hopefully in time for the

supplemental budget in the fall.

However, I had also confirmed in this House that should

we see something unprecedented happen with gas prices, Cabinet holds the

accountability to be able to make a decision and we will.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR.

HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, again to the minister, I just want to

clarify, last week in debate she said they viewed a regulatory regime to cap gas

price, but she said the process couldn't be implemented. I ask her what was the

regulatory regime you looked at and why couldn't it be implemented?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

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

MS.

C. BENNETT:

Sorry to the Member opposite, I was having difficulty hearing you when you asked

a question a couple of minutes ago.

What I referred to last week was we had actually looked

at whether or not we could create a mechanism inside the legislation or in

regulatory terms where we could have a gas tax that would float as the

foundational price of gas changed. As the Member opposite may know, gas is

actually a combination of a number of items, not the least of which is the price

of crude.

We looked at that alternative and from a legislative

perspective, we were told that that wouldn't be a feasible option so we made

sure we put other mechanisms in place, which is confirming that Cabinet can make

a decision. As long as we reduce the tax under 16 cents, we have the ability to

do that, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR.

HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, federal Minister Foote suggests that

negotiations on the deferral of the equalization payments started merely a week

before the announcement, but the Minister of Finance publicly stated that it

began in December.

I ask the Premier: Who is correct and when did the

actual negotiations begin?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

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

MS.

C. BENNETT:

Mr.

Speaker, as I mentioned in this House, we had discussions that I was present for

with federal Minister Morneau back in February. I can provide the Member

opposite with the exact date. It would have been during the Northern Lights

Conference.

During that conversation, we had a discussion with him

on a long list of items that are very important to our province. We were very

pleased with the federal government's decision to defer the equalization

repayment, one that the former government saw fit to take that obligation on

this year and we didn't agree with that. We'll certainly be looking forward the

fruits of the other conversations we've been having with our federal

counterparts.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR.

HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I say to the hon. minister I may be

incorrect I thought I heard her on a night line show indicating that in December

there were meetings and in January there were meetings as well, and that's when

the actual negotiation began.

I ask the Minister of Finance: How much was paid on the

equalization repayment loans just negotiated and started with the federal

government to defer the payments?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

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

MS.

C. BENNETT:

Mr.

Speaker, I can provide the Member opposite with the exact amounts. The payment

structure is such that I understand that payments are retained by the federal

government from other funds that we pay the federal government. There have been

two payments, my understanding is. Those payments will not be reimbursed to the

province, but the federal government has pushed forward the remaining amount,

and we are certainly going to be taking advantage of that extra cash.

I'm really pleased that we are able to put in that

Deficit Levy and respond to the needs and concerns of the people of the

province, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR.

HUTCHINGS:

Mr.

Speaker, if the Premier and Minister of Finance knew they were negotiating with

Ottawa to defer payments, and they've made payments since, why would you have

gone through that process? Why wouldn't you have included that in your budget

if, in fact, the discussions started back in December and January?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

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

MS.

C. BENNETT:

Mr.

Speaker, the answer is quite simple. We wanted to make sure that we weren't

counting our eggs before they hatched. It is important that in a negotiation you

make sure that you have the details completed. And in this particular case, as

soon as the information was confirmed through the federal government and in

communications with the provincial government, we were able to act on it.

When we completed the budget, at that time, we did not

have clarity, nor did we feel it would be prudent to reflect anything like that

in the budget. That's why we were very pleased, as soon as we found out the

information, that we went to the people of the province and shared the

information with them.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.

MS.

PERRY:

Bill 35 will be debated in the House of Assembly this afternoon.

I ask the Minister of Seniors and Wellness: Based on

research, is vaping a safe alternative to smoking that actually can help people

quit smoking and reduce their risk of illness?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Seniors, Wellness and Social Development.

MS.

GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr.

Speaker, we don't know the long-term effects yet. There's been a significant

amount of research done. Our objective is to protect the public and protect the

health. We're putting in place a bill that is going to do just that. The

research will be completed and continue to be completed. This will also be

debated later on today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.

MS.

PERRY:

Last year, the House of Commons received a report on vaping. It recommended

collaborative action between Ottawa and all the provinces.

I ask the minister: Can you provide an update on what

action has been taken to date with this report?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Seniors, Wellness and Social Development.

MS.

GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr.

Speaker, we are going to continue to work with the federal government as we move

this legislation forward. In actual fact, on May 19, 2015, the now Leader of the

Opposition said that their plan was to bring this legislation to the House of

Assembly. They also did a comprehensive review, so we've continued with that

review.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.

MR.

KENT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the Minister of Transportation and Works: What

private contractor was used for his Parkway poster patrol overnight?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

MR.

HAWKINS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the hon. Member for his question, even though

it was a little bit slighted and slanted. As I mentioned previously, our

workers, following practice it is within a park. They were following practice

as been historically they have removed signs. It's not something new.

So what they did last night, Mr. Speaker, is what

they've done previously as a practice in removing signs within the park. I

understand that there are other signs throughout the city that are still on the

posts. It was removed in the park.

As I said before to the hon. Member, there was nothing

that came to my level on that as a decision. As I said before, if it had, it

might have been a different decision. I don't know really the policy, whether

they should be removed or not, but that's something I will look into, Mr.

Speaker (inaudible).

MR.

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.

MR.

KENT:

Mr.

Speaker, the minister is saying it's a historic practice to hire a private

contractor in the middle of the night to go out and remove posters on the

Parkway. There are still some of those signs up at the top of Allandale Road in

the park. Prince Philip Parkway is maintained by the City of St. John's.

Why would government hire a private contractor that

remains unnamed to remove posters in the middle of the night?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

MR.

HAWKINS:

Mr.

Speaker, again, as I said, this was an operational decision that was made on an

operational level, and they were following what they have normally followed. It

is not uncommon to have contracting to do some of the work.

Last night, the same thing happened with regard to this

particular situation. My department, the officials within that department making

operational decisions on a daily basis, not uncommon to do that, decided that

would be a course of action they took. They did not move it up to the level of

ministerial, which I'm assuming they would have thought they were doing okay

because it was practice in the past to be able to do that.

So as a result of that, Mr. Speaker, when it came to my

attention this morning from the media request, it was an area I wanted to look

into. And as a result of that I am answering today as truthfully and honestly as

I possibly can.

MR.

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.

MR.

KENT:

So,

Mr. Speaker, the minister is throwing officials under the bus, or in this case,

under a white van.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Who in your office

directed that the posters come down? Was it Kelvin Parsons, or was it someone

else?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, as was previously mentioned by the minister, this

was an operational issue. I can assure Members opposite and Members in all

parties of this House of Assembly, as the minister just mentioned already,

there was no one from the

Premier's office that was involved in this at all. Simply, it was an operational

issue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.

MR.

KENT:

Mr.

Speaker, as of this morning, over 12,000 people have signed a petition calling

for the Premier to resign immediately. Due to antiquated rules in this House, an

online petition cannot be presented.

Will the Government House Leader commit to addressing

this issue when our Standing Orders Committee meets this summer?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Government House Leader.

MR.

A. PARSONS:

Yes, certainly, Mr. Speaker, I look forward to changing a number of the Standing

Orders to allow the Member opposite to tweet freely in this House of Assembly

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

A. PARSONS:

and certainly we look forward to making a number of changes that the previous

administration had 12 years to do and did absolutely nothing about during their

12 years in government.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

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

MS.

MICHAEL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to come back to the Minister of Transportation

and Works with regard to this work in the middle of the night. We can't even get

our roads plowed in winter in the middle of the night.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS.

MICHAEL:

ask him: How can he justify this action happening in the middle of the night?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

MR.

HAWKINS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the Member for the question. As I said, and

stated before, this was an operational decision that was made last night.

Subsequent to the question the other hon. Member made

in reference to the fact that we're throwing our workers under the white van.

That is totally uncalled for, totally inappropriate. We respect and we regard

our workers, whether they're our employees, whether they're our contractors who

are doing work on our behalf. They are number one, Mr. Speaker, and we certainly

recognize them.

So the decision that was made was an operational

decision. As I said before, it did not come to a ministerial level. As a result

of that, Mr. Speaker, I did not make that decision, nor did the Premier's office

make that decision. If it had come to me, Mr. Speaker, I might have made a

different decision.

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 say to the minister, what's disgraceful is people's

freedom of expression has been taken away from them. That's what's disgraceful.

I ask the Minister of Transportation and Works: Will he

tell this House what company was contracted and how much did it cost in the

middle of the night to have those posters taken down?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

MR.

HAWKINS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will certainly answer the question. We did have a

contractor. It is a contractor that does work for us on a regular basis. The

cost was somewhere around $200 to remove those signs. That's the amount that was

expended on that last night, Mr. Speaker, or early this morning.

Again, from my department, from where I'm looking at

it, my understanding is there's not a policy we have within government. That's

something we need to look at. I know previously, and I think that's why the

employees reacted as they did, because it has been past practice that when signs

have gone up around the park area, they have removed them. I think it's a

practice they've done in the past.

With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, I think the

employees acted on what they did before. I respect that decision and I will

certainly work with them as we

MR.

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

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

MS.

MICHAEL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the Minister of Transportation and Works: Will he

bring into this room and table the receipt that shows the name of the

contractor, the bill and the receipt showing how much money was asked for and

paid?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

MR.

HAWKINS:

Mr.

Speaker, I don't think that's going to be a big issue. I think we are

transparent. We are open. We make sure that any expenditures are there. I,

personally, have absolutely no problem with doing that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

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

MS.

MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I'm asking the Premier now: Did he or anyone involved

in any way with his office direct or have anything to do with the removal of

protest signs from light poles early this morning in the vicinity of the

Confederation Building?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Obviously, I just answered that question to some

Members opposite. No, no one was involved from the Premier's office in the

poster removal on the Parkway or in Pippy Park last night. That was not a

decision that came from the Premier's office. It was an operational issue, as

the minister just clearly pointed out. So the answer simply is no one from the

Premier's office was involved in the removal of those posters last night.

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 ask the Premier: Does he not have a problem with an

order to have work like this done in the middle of the night when we can't even

clear our highways in the middle of the night in winter?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

MR.

HAWKINS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I don't know why it's so difficult in the middle of the

night. I mean work is done in the middle of the night all over the province. As

a matter of fact, with the 24-hour snow clearing

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh,

oh!

MR.

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

I've ruled in the House on several occasions that the

only Member that I wish to hear speaking is the Member recognized to speak.

The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

MR.

HAWKINS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With regard to the 24-hour snow clearing, that's an

implementation that has not happened yet. It's something that will be happening

next winter. Again, it's measures that are taken. We have been very clear in

this House, and given the rationale and we've been open and we've been clear

and we communicated that. We realize there are only certain areas of the

province that had 24 hours. I'm sure the hon. Member opposite will be concerned

about rural Newfoundland, and all the other areas of the province that don't get

24-hour snow clearing. I'm sure she's speaking about that.

So, Mr. Speaker, that's just an area we're looking at

and we will continue to follow through on that commitment.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

time for Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Stephenville Port au Port.

MR.

FINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Natural Resources,

the following private Member's resolution:

WHEREAS Terry Fox began his Marathon of Hope on April

12, 1980, in St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador with a dream of creating

awareness of cancer and raising $1 million to find a cure; and

WHEREAS Terry Fox at the age of 21, and having had a

leg amputated due to bone cancer, endeavoured to run across Canada covering

5,373 kilometres over 143 days, the equivalent of a 42-kilometre marathon each

day until he was forced to stop due to a recurrence of cancer; and

WHEREAS after the first 25 days, and with growing

encouragement from residents along the way, Terry Fox stopped in Channel-Port

aux Basques where that town alone raised $10,000; and

WHEREAS the generous people and response from the

people in Port aux Basques fired his imagination and a new fundraising goal of

$1 for every Canadian was set; and

WHEREAS in the past 36 years, more than $650 million

has been raised in Terry Fox's name to support cancer research; and

WHEREAS Terry Fox and his family continue to be an

inspiration to school children and communities throughout Newfoundland and

Labrador, Canada and the world; and

WHEREAS Terry Fox's courageous journey began in

Newfoundland and Labrador and gave his dream a momentum that endures;

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that this hon. House supports

the second Sunday after Labour Day in each year throughout Newfoundland and

Labrador to be proclaimed as Terry Fox Day.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Government House Leader.

MR.

A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Pursuant to Standing Order 63, the private Member's

resolution just entered by the Member shall be the one to be debated this

Wednesday.

Also, pursuant to Standing Order 11, I move that this

House do not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, June 7.

Further pursuant to Standing Order 11, I move that this

House not adjourn at 10 p.m. on Tuesday, June 7.

MR.

SPEAKER:

Further notices of motion?

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

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

MS.

C. BENNETT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm not sure this is appropriate, but the Member

opposite, the Member for Ferryland asked me a question during Question Period

and I just had the information now. The amount of the equalization repayment

that was paid in February was $4.5 million. I wanted to provide that information

to the Member.

Thank you.

MR.

SPEAKER:

Further answers to questions for which notice has been given?

Petitions.

Petitions

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

MS.

ROGERS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the

undersigned residents humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS a Deficit Reduction Levy is an extremely

regressive surtax, placing a higher tax burden on low- and middle-income

taxpayers; and

WHEREAS surtaxes are typically levied on the highest

income earners only, as currently demonstrated in other provinces, as well as

Australia, Norway and other countries; and

WHEREAS government states in 2016 provincial budget

that the personal income tax

schedule needs to be revised and promises to do so;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly

pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge government to ensure that the

Deficit Reduction Levy be eliminated and any replacement measure be based on

progressive taxation principles, and that an independent review of the

Newfoundland and Labrador provincial income tax system begin immediately to make

it fairer to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I have at least 300 signatures again here

on this petition that people have filled out and that they have mailed to our

offices. Here we have people from Bay de Verde, Botwood, Peterview, a number of

places here in the province Westport.

Mr. Speaker, people are saying that they want an

overall review of our taxation system and of fees that are levied against the

people of the province. People know that the levy that government put through

this budget was a knee-jerk reaction. It wasn't well thought out because we can

see how government has partially repealed some of that levy; that they've moved

up the income ladder in terms of who now will pay the levy.

It's not now until you reach over $50,000 a year as an

earner that your amount for the levy will be reduced. It just goes to show how

ill-thought-out the whole approach to progressive taxation was for the people of

the province, how ill-thought-out the levy was, and now government is just going

to take parts of the levy away. Really, what they're doing is tax reform on the

fly.

Mr. Speaker, that's not what we need as a province. We

all know how incredibly difficult the fiscal situation is for the province,

nobody is denying that, but to do this piecemeal in this way now is showing that

government has no control, no plan and no strategy (

a) on how to deal with the

revenue crisis that the province has, which also part of this revenue crisis is

an employment crisis because we have the highest unemployment in the whole

country and it's growing.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR.

PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the hon. House of Assembly in the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the

undersigned residents humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS the education of our children is the most

important and vital investment that can be made in the success of our children;

and

WHEREAS the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador

should be choosing educational options that will provide all students of our

province with a higher standard of education and enhance learning for our youth;

and

WHEREAS the government's decision to make cuts to

teachers and to our educational system will have a negative effect on the

students;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly

pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge government to reverse this

decision effectively immediately.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, that's a portion of the petitions I

received from my district, various school groups, addressing their concerns.

They come to me and they brought me in ever so many petitions, so I've presented

a chunk of them here.

Their concerns, I narrowed it into a broader comment,

because their concerns are Intensive Core French. It's the cutback on teachers;

the implementation of full-day kindergarten where schools in my district are

struggling with capacity issues wondering if they're going to be ready;

multigrade teaching the full gamut of educational costs and effects to

education are being expressed by concerned parents and educators in my district.

Colleagues of mine have presented similar petitions

from their districts. So this is not just a certain area, this is across the

province that people are speaking out, and they're speaking out en masse. This

is a fairly large group CBS is a fairly large town, one of the largest towns

in the province. So you're looking at even a larger subsection and this is right

from one end to the other, and it includes the Member for Harbour Main's

District, people from her district, and as well as my colleague, Topsail

Paradise.

These cuts, people have a lot of concerns. We get up in

the House day after day after day and express those concerns. They seem to be

going unanswered or on deaf ears, but people are speaking out. We're bringing

their voice to the House of Assembly, which is never a bad thing to do.

Unfortunately it seems like a lot of it is going on deaf ears, but I don't

really believe, regardless if they decide to ignore us, the voice of the people

overrules all the rest of our voices.

My one voice here today, Mr. Speaker, is speaking for

hundreds in my District of Conception Bay South, so I do call upon government to

start paying attention to these individual concerns throughout the province.

Thank you very much.

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 for 70 years, the Pouch Cove library has been

the centre of the community; and

WHEREAS the Pouch Cove library offers a variety of

services in addition to loaning books; and

WHEREAS the services are used by a large portion of the

residents of Pouch Cove, many seniors and young families;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly

pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge the government to immediately

direct the Provincial Information and Library Resources Board to reverse the

decision to close the Pouch Cove library.

And as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, the Pouch Cove library is, like the

petition says, a central part of the community. The council in Pouch Cove saw

the value of the library and for the last number of years has been putting

resources into the library for extra hours because they realize that there is so

many people in the community using it. They had an after-school program that the

town itself gave the money to keep the library going, just to pay for that.

This library is in the municipal building, so they

don't pay any light. They pay no snow clearing. Like I said, it's in the

building, so the town already pays for all this. It is a very small cost but a

large cost to the Town of Pouch Cove to continue to keep it going.

I spoke to people in the library area there and they

tell me that it's not only the people, young people, but they find that there

are a lot of seniors that come in there and they need some direction. Today, we

know that there are a lot of things done online and you can get a lot of

information. Seniors want to know how to do this and how things can be done, and

they use the library to get this information and to just navigate through the

different systems.

The librarian is there all the time to assist. It's a

huge part of this community. There is also a program there for preschoolers,

grandparents and parents and they take their children there in the morning to go

through a program where they read to the children. This library is one of the

more used libraries in the whole province. The community really uses it.

I can't understand why government are doing this to the

province for such a small cost. I urge government, please, to reconsider what

you're doing to rural Newfoundland and these small libraries that are so vital

to our communities.

Thank you very much.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

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

MS.

MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the

undersigned residents humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS government has once again cut the library's

budget, forcing the closure of 54 libraries; and

WHEREAS libraries are often the backbone of their

communities, especially for those with little access to government services

where they offer learning opportunities and computer access; and

WHEREAS libraries and librarians are critical in

efforts to improve the province's literacy levels which are among the lowest in

Canada; and

WHEREAS already strapped municipalities are not in the

position to take over the operation and cost of libraries;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly

pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge government to keep these

libraries open and work on a long-term plan to strengthen the library system.

And as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, today, the petition I have in my hand has

been signed by petitioners from CBS, from Torbay, from the Southern Shore, Mount

Pearl, Portugal Cove, all over the greater St. John's area and beyond, Flatrock

as well. People are concerned at the really backward move this government has

taken.

Mr. Speaker, in developing countries they put so much

effort into having books available and library services available to people. In

many places they have little trucks that go around with mobile libraries because

they consider libraries so important, especially for literacy and for growth of

their economy, growth of who they are as a people.

You also have in small villages, from village to

village, carts drawn by animals. I've seen them. I've seen the stories in some

of the organizations that raise money for developing countries. The effort they

put into having books available to their people is unheard of. Here we are doing

this backwards step of closing libraries.

In debate the other night when a lot of people may not

have been following, I quoted from an

article that was in

The Globe and Mail by Professor Riddell from Queen's University

where she talked about libraries today are not being closed because of

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh,

oh!

MR.

SPEAKER:

(Inaudible).

The hon. the Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS.

MICHAEL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate that as I try to bring forward concerns of

the people of the province.

Professor Riddell pointed out that the new age we're

moving into is not a reason for closing libraries. As a matter fact, they have a

role to play in our digital literacy and that as individuals and as a society.

She actually says in the

article that it is absolutely

wrong. It is erroneous to indicate that libraries need to close because they are

no longer needed. They are needed even more so now because of many people in

rural areas not having access to Internet and to the digital life they have to

take

part in.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

The

hon. the Member for Conception Bay East Bell Island.

MR.

BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the

undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS the current 2016 provincial budget impacts

adversely and directly the education programs of Beachy Cove Elementary in

Portugal Cove-St. Philip's; and

WHEREAS parents request a delay in the implementation

of full-day kindergarten at the school until September when, at such time, the

new five to nine school in Portugal Cove-St. Philip's will be open; and

WHEREAS the student population of Beachy Cove

Elementary is growing exponentially and this growth is sustainable into the

future; and

WHEREAS parents request the reinstatement of the

previous teacher allocation formula for Beachy Cove Elementary for this year and

subsequent school years to service the growth in enrolment and to be able to

provide all students with equal opportunity to enrol in the French immersion

program;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly

pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge government to reinstate the

previous teacher allocations and delay the implementation of full-day

kindergarten in order to provide the children of Beachy Cove Elementary the

right to a quality education.

And as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I've presented this on numerous occasions,

and had the privilege of a number of parents and some of the students from

Beachy Cove being in this House of Assembly and being part of the protests for

the I love education process. They continuously outline the fact that this is

going to be detrimental to the education process, not only in Beachy Cove

Elementary, because they realize they're speaking for all students in this

province.

They're outlining the concerns that parents have,

educators have and former educators have. They're asking about a number of

things here; one, the delay of implementing around issues because of the

costing. Being able to use that money to be better invested in reducing the

class caps, and ensuring that access to specialized programs, particularly

around the intensive French immersion, is part and parcel of it and that, as a

result the use of gymnasiums and cafeterias then could be freed up for proper

use; also around busing issues and the challenges around that being added.

They've even in the discussions and I've had the

privilege of talking to some of the people connected to the School Lunch Program

and the challenges they're going to face. So we're going to impose an added

number of students in the school system with an expectation that parents have

and the school system have that these kids for lunchtime are taken care of. Now

there are no resources for a volunteer organization and I have to stress that,

a volunteer organization which took a lead in this province over the last

decade to ensure students, no matter of their economic situation, had nutritious

foods while they're in school.

We all know, and every bit of research will tell you,

that if a kid is hungry in school there are challenges around their education.

There are challenges for them because they can't focus. It makes every sense in

the world. As part of that process, we're encouraging and the students and the

parents at Beachy Cove Elementary are noting that.

There are also a number of issues and I read a piece

in the paper this past weekend from a former superintendent of a school board

where he questions the integration of classrooms. He talks about are we now

going to base the scoring achievements on the present system where it was a

one-grade system or is it going to be changed and lowered. That's not acceptable

here. I'll have an opportunity to speak to this again in the future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR.

SPEAKER:

Before I recognize the hon. the Government House Leader, we had a message sent

up from the Broadcast Centre. Some Members apparently when they're speaking are

stepping slightly away from their mics, and it's not possible for the Broadcast

Centre to pick up the volume and have it properly broadcast. So I remind Members

to try and speak toward your mic.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR.

A. PARSONS:

was going to say thank you, Mr. Speaker certainly no complaints from us,

depending on who that speaker was.

I would call from the Order Paper, Order 3, third

reading of Bill 23.

MR.

SPEAKER:

is moved and seconded that Bill 33 be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion

that Bill 33 be read a third time?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR.

SPEAKER:

All

those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

MR.

A. PARSONS:

I could just clarify, I think I called Bill 23.

MR.

SPEAKER:

Sorry, Bill 23. Order 3, Bill 23, you're correct.

Bill 23.

CLERK (Barnes):

bill,

An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act No. 6. (Bill 23)

MR.

SPEAKER:

Bill 23 has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass

and its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill,

An Act To Amend The Revenue

Administration Act No. 6, read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as

on the Order Paper. (Bill 23)

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Government House Leader.

MR.

A. PARSONS:

Mr.

Speaker, I call from the Order Paper, Order 4, third read of Bill 33.

MR.

SPEAKER:

is moved and seconded that Bill 33 be now read a third time.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR.

A. PARSONS:

Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just want to speak to this just for a second.

During Committee on this bill last week, the Opposition

House Leader asked a question. I think the question was: Do you have any data

regarding the number of infractions? Have they gone up on handheld devices? Have

we seen an increase or a decrease? At that time I undertook to get the

information and provide it.

What I can say is what I've heard from the RNC is that

in 2013 there were 715 infractions. In 2014 there were 556. Unfortunately, from

January 1 to December 31, 2015, there were 1,352

summary offence tickets issued

to operators of vehicles. Obviously, it's our hope that this number will

decrease during the calendar year of 2016. I think that those individuals who do

so will see increased penalties as a deterrent. That's the goal we set out, and

that's what we wanted to see and achieve.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR.

SPEAKER:

it the pleasure of the House that Bill 33 be now read a third time?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR.

SPEAKER:

All

those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

CLERK:

bill,

An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act No. 2.

MR.

SPEAKER:

This bill has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass

and its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill,

An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic

Act No. 2, read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order

Paper. (Bill 33)

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Government House Leader.

MR.

A. PARSONS:

Mr.

Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Education, for leave to introduce a

bill entitled, The Schools Act 1997, Bill 38, and I further move that the said

bill be now read a first time.

MR.

SPEAKER:

is moved and seconded by the hon. the Government House Leader that he shall have

leave to introduce Bill 38,

An Act To Amend The Schools Act, 1997 and that the

said bill be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the minister shall

have leave to introduce Bill 38 and that the said bill be read a first time?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR.

SPEAKER:

All

those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Education and Early

Childhood Development to introduce a bill,

An Act To Amend The Schools Act,

1997, carried. (Bill 38)

CLERK:

bill,

An Act To Amend The Schools Act, 1997. (Bill 38)

MR.

SPEAKER:

This bill has now been read a first time.

When shall the bill be read a second time?

MR.

A. PARSONS:

Tomorrow.

MR.

SPEAKER:

Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 38 read a first time, ordered read a

second time on tomorrow.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Government House Leader.

MR.

A. PARSONS:

Mr.

Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Natural Resources, for leave to

introduce a bill entitled,

An Act to Amend The Income Tax Act 2000 No. 5, Bill

17, and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

MR.

SPEAKER:

is moved and seconded by the hon. the Government House Leader that he shall

leave to introduce Bill 17,

An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act 2000 No. 5.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the minister shall

have leave to introduce Bill 17 and that the said bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR.

SPEAKER:

All

those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance and President

of Treasury Board to introduce a bill,

An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act 2000

No. 5, carried. (Bill 17)

CLERK:

bill,

An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act 2000 No. 5. (Bill 17)

MR.

SPEAKER:

This bill has now been read a first time.

When shall the said bill be read a second time?

MR.

A. PARSONS:

Tomorrow.

MR.

SPEAKER:

Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 17 read a first time, ordered read a

second time on tomorrow.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Government House Leader.

MR.

A. PARSONS:

Mr.

Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills, for

leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Income And Employment

Support Act And The Student Financial Assistance Act, Bill 37, and I further

move that the said bill be now read a first time.

MR.

SPEAKER:

is moved and seconded by the hon. the Government House Leader that he shall have

leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Income And Employment

Support Act And The Student Financial Assistance Act, Bill 37.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the minister shall

have leave to introduce the said bill and that it now be read a first time.

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR.

SPEAKER:

All

those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and

Skills to introduce a bill,

An Act To Amend The Income And Employment Support

Act And The Student Financial Assistance Act, carried. (Bill 37)

CLERK:

bill,

An Act To Amend The Income And Employment Support Act And The Student

Financial Assistance Act. (Bill 37)

MR.

SPEAKER:

This bill has now been read a first time.

When shall the said bill be read a second time?

MR.

A. PARSONS:

Tomorrow.

MR.

SPEAKER:

Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 37 read a first time, ordered read a

second time on tomorrow.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Government House Leader.

MR.

A. PARSONS:

Yes, I call from the Order Paper, Motion 7. I would move pursuant to Standing

Order 11 that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. today, Monday, June 6.

Further, Mr. Speaker, I would move Motion 8, pursuant

to Standing Order 11 that the House not adjourn at 10 p.m. today, Monday, June

MR.

SPEAKER:

has been moved that the House do not adjourn at 5:30 today.

All those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR.

SPEAKER:

Those against?

Carried.

It is further moved that the House do not adjourn at 10

o'clock this evening.

All those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR.

SPEAKER:

Those against?

Carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR.

A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would call Order 6, second reading of Bill 35.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Seniors, Wellness and Social Development.

MS.

GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr.

Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Health and Community Services, that

Bill 35,

An Act To Amend The Smoke-Free Environment Act, 2005 And The Tobacco

Control Act, be read a second time.

MR.

SPEAKER:

is moved and seconded that Bill 35 be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill,

An Act To Amend The

Smoke-Free Environment Act, 2005 And The Tobacco Control Act. (Bill 35)

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Seniors, Wellness and Social Development.

MS.

GAMBIN-WALSH:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to stand in the House today to open the

debate on these important legislative amendments. The proposed amendments to the

Smoke-Free Environment Act, 2005

and the

Tobacco Control Act will further protect the public, in particular,

children and youth, from the harms of flavoured tobacco products including

menthol and hookah smoking and the potential harms of electronic cigarettes and

e-cigarettes.

Our government has committed to preventing and reducing

smoking and to promote healthy living throughout our province. I believe that

legislation and regulation that helps to reduce the prevalence of and prevent

smoking throughout our population is certainly a step toward a healthier

Newfoundland and Labrador. Successive governments have taken a comprehensive

approach to reduce smoking over the years. As a society evolves and attitudes

have changed, our legislation and regulations around smoking have changed, Mr.

Speaker.

Since the introduction of the

Smoke-Free Environment Act

and the

Tobacco Control Act in 1994 that

prohibits smoking in indoor public places and workplaces and prohibits the sale

of tobacco to persons under the age of 19, several other key actions have been

undertaken. Smoking has been banned in bars, including patios, decks and bingo

halls. Restrictions have been placed on how tobacco products can be displayed,

stored and promoted at retail. Smoking has been banned in motor vehicles while

persons under the age of 16 are present. Designated smoking rooms have been

removed from workplaces.

Those efforts have seen very positive results, Mr.

Speaker. Overall, smoking rates have decreased in Newfoundland and Labrador from

over 28 per cent in 1999 to just under 20 per cent in 2013. The news is better

for those aged 15 to 19. Smoking is down from 30 per cent to 12.4 per cent, Mr.

Speaker. For young adults aged 20 to 24, it is down from 37 per cent to 28 per

cent.

While much has been done in the last 20 years to

restrict smoking in public places and to discourage young people from taking up

smoking, we can't let down our guard. We are concerned about the potential harm

to public health, particularly relating to children and youth resulting from

e-cigarettes, the availability of flavoured tobacco products and the impact of

smoking other products like hookah.

The amendments we are debating today mark the next step

in the evolution of Newfoundland and Labrador's efforts to prevent and reduce

smoking. Preventing and reducing smoking remains a priority. Government is of

the view that the advent of flavoured tobacco products, e-cigarettes and the use

of hookah could lead to more young people taking up smoking.

According to the World Health Organization, all tobacco

products are harmful and are a leading cause of disease and death worldwide. Our

Health Canada reports that each year smoking kills an estimated 37,000

Canadians, making smoking the country's leading cause of preventable disease and

death. Unfortunately, Newfoundland and Labrador continues to have among the

highest smoking rates in Canada, at approximately 20 per cent for those aged 15

years and older. We know that despite past and ongoing efforts to curb smoking,

children and youth are still experimenting with tobacco and starting to smoke.

I would like to take a few moments to walk through the

changes we are proposing in this bill. Amendments to the

Smoke-Free Environment Act, 2005

and the Tobacco Control Act

will strengthen measures to protect people from the harms of flavoured tobacco

products and hookah smoking, and the potential harms of e-cigarettes. These

amendments will prohibit the sale of flavoured tobacco products including

menthol. The ban will apply to cigarettes, cigarillos, fine-cut tobacco and

smokeless tobacco that have a characterizing flavour such as candy, bubble gum,

fruit, menthol or represented as being flavoured.

With respect to e-cigarettes, proposed amendments will

prohibit the sale of electronic cigarettes to persons under the age of 19. It

will prohibit the sale where the sale of tobacco products is currently

prohibited. It will prohibit use in indoor public places, workplaces and in

motor vehicles when occupied by a person under the age of 16 and regulate the

promotion, including advertising and display of e-cigarettes, in the same manner

that the province currently regulates tobacco promotion and display.

Our amendments related to e-cigarette aim to strike a

balance between minimizing potential health risks from these products, while

acknowledging the same individuals seek to use these products to quit smoking.

With respect to hookah, proposed amendments will

prohibit the sale of non-tobacco shisha products to persons under the age of 19;

prohibit the sale where the sale of tobacco products are currently prohibited;

regulate the promotion, including advertising and display, in the same manner

that the province currently regulates tobacco promotion and display; and

prohibit hookah smoking of non-tobacco shisha products in indoor public places

and workplaces, including any existing hookah establishment.

Coming into force dates, the following changes will

come into force upon the amendments receiving Royal Assent: prohibition on the

sale of e-cigarettes and non-tobacco shisha to persons under the age of 19;

prohibition on persons under the age of 19 from entering or working in a hookah

establishment; and prohibition on the use of e-cigarettes in indoor public

places, workplaces and in motor vehicles when occupied by a person under the age

of 16. All other changes will come into force on July 1, 2017.

We have delayed the implementation date for several of

the amendments in recognition that businesses will need time to adjust to the

new legislation. The changes we are making to our legislation are closely

aligned with several other jurisdictions in Canada, including the other Atlantic

provinces. We will be joining with Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Alberta, Quebec

and Ontario in banning flavoured tobacco.

Our amendments respecting e-cigarettes will make our

legislation similar to that of seven other provinces, including the Atlantic

provinces, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba and British Columbia. In 2015, the other

Atlantic provinces banned the use of the hookah water pipe in indoor public

places as have several Canadian municipalities, including the cities of Toronto

and Vancouver.

We realize that e-cigarettes are often promoted as a

device to help people quit smoking, but we also realize they also hold the

potential to have the very negative consequence of introducing the smoking

culture to young people who wrongly assume there are not negative health

effects.

The truth is we don't really know what is in the vapour

that people are inhaling. There is no regulation and no substantive research as

to the long-term health effects. Having said that, we recognize that adults may

wish to use the product to help them quit smoking traditional cigarettes, and so

we are balancing the rights of those individuals against the need to minimize

Vaping e-cigarettes look an awful lot like smoking and

could serve to normalize smoking again. That's something we've worked very hard

to stop over the years. Regulating e-cigarettes, as we do cigarettes, and

regulating their sale and promotion is the latest step in this effort.

In Newfoundland and Labrador and other provinces, most

licensed tobacco retailers, such as gas stations and convenience stories, sell

e-cigarettes. There are also several speciality stores, vape shops, where

e-cigarettes and nicotine e-juices are sold.

Under the proposed amendments these specialty stores

will be treated similar to tobacco shops, provided the only business conducted

is the sale of e-cigarettes and associated products. By regulating and not

banning e-cigarettes, this approach balances the need for adults who want to

access e-cigarettes to help them quit smoking, or as an alternative to smoking

children and youth, their potential to re-normalize smoking and undermine

smoke-free policies in indoor public places, workplaces and motor vehicles.

Adding flavours to tobacco products makes them less

harsh and more attractive to young people. They're often packaged in brightly

coloured scented packaging, again appealing to young people and increasing the

possibility that they will experiment with this product. For these reasons, we

are concerned about them serving as the gateway to tobacco addiction for youth.

Tobacco smoking during youth increases the likelihood

youth will become regular smokers at some point in their lifetime. Research

shows that menthol cigarette smoking is how many young people are introduced to

smoking. Research also shows that menthol cigarette smokers find it very hard to

quit smoking.

Hookah smoking uses water pipes to smoke specially made

tobacco and non-tobacco products called shisha. Shisha is a sticky, sweet

mixture of tobacco and/or other plant material, molasses and other flavours. The

mixing of tobacco and non-tobacco products with flavours like fruit, chocolate,

cherry and bubble gum have made hookah smoking more palatable and popular.

Shisha is heated with charcoal in the head of the

hookah. The smoke passes through the base to the water bowl and is smoked

through an attached hose or hoses. Hookah tobacco shisha smoke contains many of

the same harmful toxins as cigarette smoke and has been associated with lung

cancer, respiratory illness, low birth weight and gum disease. Smoking

non-tobacco shisha products is not a safe alternative to smoking shisha products

that contain tobacco.

Madam Speaker, the availability of non-tobacco shisha

to youth is a cause for concern as smoking non-tobacco shisha increases the risk

for smoking related cancers, heart disease and lung disease, as well as

infectious diseases such as meningitis, hepatitis and influenza, if smoking is

shared. Second-hand tobacco smoke from hookah pipes is also a risk for

non-smokers, including employees of hookah establishments. The permitting of

smoking any product in indoor public places sends an inconsistent message

regarding smoking inside business establishments. Therefore, it is time to

address the issue, as many other jurisdictions have, and ban the smoking of all

shisha products from all indoor public places.

Madam Speaker, I know that other Members of this hon.

House will be speaking to this legislation today as we move through the second

reading and Committee stages. I encourage all Members to support these

amendments which are designed to prevent and reduce smoking, particularly among

young children and youth throughout our province.

I will have more to say when the time comes to close

debate on the second reading.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER (Dempster):

The Speaker recognizes the hon. Member for Fortune Bay

Cape La Hune.

MS.

PERRY:

Thank you so much, Madam Speaker.

I'm pleased to have an opportunity to lead the debate

on behalf of the Official Opposition on Bill 35,

An Act to Amend the Smoke-Free

Environment Act, 2005 and the Tobacco Control Act.

As the minister has outlined both here and in the news

conference earlier today, Bill 35 is a sizeable piece of legislation that

attempts to address several issues at once. And it is unfortunate that we are

not dealing with those issues individually because they are not the same, Madam

Speaker. As I get into my speech, I will elaborate on why I'm making this

commentary.

The vaping issue should certainly stand alone because

it raises unique issues that we need to be addressing, not just provincially but

as a country and a nation as a whole. Madam Speaker, Opposition Members received

a briefing on this bill which, as I stated, is quite comprehensive, just Friday,

and here we are today in second reading and perhaps Committee of the Whole. So

we do feel like it is being rushed through fairly quickly. And over the course

of this weekend, in addition to the briefing we had on Friday, we received a lot

of emails, both from people who are in support of the bill and people who had

some questions and concerns about the bill, Madam Speaker, and it is our view

that all voices and all concerns need to be considered. We have heard, as I've

said, that the bill has its supporters but we also know that there are others

who believe strongly that this particular bill, as it is presently written,

doesn't really strike the right balance that some people feel it should have.

Then there are the vast majority of the 530,000

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians that we all represent here in the House of

Assembly. The vast majority of the people who we represent and who will be

impacted by this bill do not yet know the details or implications of this

legislation because they have not had the opportunity to hear about it or to

talk about it or to have input into this legislation.

So like so much legislation in this sitting, it was

rushed into the House, out of the blue, by a government that is saying to us

trust us; we know what we're doing. We all have apprehensions about that,

particularly in light of things these last few weeks. That's, of course,

absolutely not the way that the Legislature is supposed to work.

The government departments may have been consulted but

we, as legislators, must also be provided with the opportunity to do our own due

diligence and consultations. Rushing through legislation without proper scrutiny

and public consultation is not always the responsible way to make laws in the

province not on any matter, but especially on a public health matter.

The government gave the Opposition parties a briefing

on the bill this Friday. It gave a press conference on the bill this Monday

morning, and it expects the Opposition parties to vote in support of the

legislation on Monday afternoon. Does that sound like due diligence? It

certainly doesn't sound like due diligence to me, Madam Speaker.

If it were a simple housekeeping legislative measure,

then maybe this approach might be appropriate. For some bills, that is the case,

but this is absolutely not such a bill. This is a bill that may have health

implications if we go too far in one direction, and it may have other health

implications if we go too far in the other direction.

This is one of those bills that demand that we strike a

very fine balance. There is another reason that we need to be sure we get this

right the first time because similar legislation in other provinces, which they

have modeled this legislation after, is now being challenged in the courts. The

question that none of us know the answer to is: Will those pieces of legislation

actually stand up in court?

What would the implications for us be if certain

provisions in this legislation are struck down? What are the legal opinions on

what the province is doing? I think certainly for all of us, as legislators here

in the House, we feel like we should and need to see these legal opinions.

Here is another concern that needs to be addressed:

Where is Health Canada on all of this? I've spent the weekend reading through

the report done by the Standing Committee on Health, which has taken some time

to review this matter, and it's quite a comprehensive document that has many

questions as well, Madam Speaker.

Here, we have a matter that crosses jurisdictional

lines. Health Canada definitely has the role and probably should be taking the

lead role. Last year, the House of Commons received the report of the Standing

Committee on Health regarding vaping. It recommended collaborative action by

Ottawa and the provinces.

What has become of that? I asked the question today,

Madam Speaker, during Question Period, but we never got an answer. We really

would like to know, what is the status of the report? What has been done with

the actions and recommendations coming out of that? Why are the provinces acting

individually and bringing in a patchwork of laws and regulations when it makes

much more sense for us to be working together? Those are just some of the many

questions, and these questions are merely about the process itself.

Under second reading today, we will be proposing an

amendment to send this legislation to a legislation review committee for proper

public consultation and analysis. Because we have an obligation as legislators

to do our own due diligence, and a process of public hearings is the means by

which legislators all across this country, and federally, and in other

countries, normally arrive at decisions on important and contentious matters

like this one.

The Liberals promised legislation review committees in

their 2015 red book. In fact, here's what the red book actually said, A New

Liberal Government will make better use of existing committees and seek

opportunities for further nonpartisan cooperation. Another quote, Legislative

review committees are well-established in Canada at both the provincial and

federal level. These committees review proposed legislation, offer amendments,

and call expert witnesses to provide information. They are an effective way to

strengthen the role of elected members and reduce unnecessary partisanship in

legislative debates.

So far, we have not seen this government keep that

promise, and hopefully this is going to be the place they make good to start on

that commitment, and it would be nice to see a commitment actually brought to

fruition.

This is certainly a bill that warrants broad

consultation and review. Even if it doesn't result in any changes to the

legislation as it's currently written, such a process will open up a wider

public debate about vaping and smoking, and that is something that is badly

needed in the province.

I think that one thing we all agree on, on both sides

of the House, is working toward a smoke-free environment is the ideal type of

situation we would all like to have for our loved ones.

It will raise public awareness of the new restrictions

that government intends to impose. That, we feel, is very important as well,

Madam Speaker. The public should be aware of what are in these bills before they

are passed here in this hon. House.

It will educate parents and youth, smokers and others

about vaping. It will help us, as legislators, to strike the right balance. That

is particularly important when it comes to vaping.

Here is why the vaping issue is particularly important

and here's the crux of the issue in the simplest of terms. On one side of the

debate are those who are saying that vaping leads to smoking. On the other side

of the debate are those who are saying that vaping helps people to quit smoking,

but the issue is far more complicated than that. It is something we need to be

talking about.

Should vaping be more or less accessible? Where is the

greater harm? I believe the vaping aspect of this bill is the most significant

and controversial, but as I said, it's not the only provision.

Before I address the vaping aspect in greater detail,

let me mention the other provisions of the bill which also raise some questions.

I'll start, Madam Speaker, with menthol cigarettes. This bill will allow the

sale of certain flavoured cigars, but prevent the sale of menthol cigarettes.

The rationale is that menthol is a flavour that appeals to youth, but the cigars

tend to appeal more to adults. Is that the right judgment call? I think we

should ask the public about that, or at least let them know that as of July next

year they will not be able to buy menthol cigarettes in Newfoundland and

Labrador.

Menthol cigarettes have been around for decades and, no

doubt, there are smokers who use them regularly. Come next year, people may be

able to buy marijuana cigarettes and, of course, that's yet to be seen but

they won't be able to buy menthol cigarettes. Some people may question why that

is the case. We know that banning things doesn't make them unavailable. We

certainly know that, Madam Speaker. It just opens the door to an underworld.

Will the measures to ban flavoured tobacco products

fuel a black markets in products that won't be sold or taxed in retail stores?

Is that something we should be concerned about? Do law enforcement officials

have a view on this? That's something we don't know as legislators, Madam

Speaker, and something we would like to have some consultation on. Will this

approach have its intended effect, or will it actually result in quite another

unintended opposite effect?

The second issue that I'd like to draw some attention

to is the hookah lounge. Another aspect of this bill is the ban it will impose

on hookah lounges in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. There is only

one such lounge in the province at present and it's in downtown St. John's. It

was set up legally. This bill will essentially drive it out of business, at

least as a hookah lounge.

We realize that the cities of Toronto and Vancouver,

along with some provinces, are also banning hookah lounges. Hookah use is

prevalent in the Middle East and North Africa. The patrons of the local hookah

lounge are not exclusively from these regions, but for some people from these

cultural communities, that lounge may be a cultural haven, and removing it may

be viewed as culturally insensitive. We certainly would like to do some

consultations with these people to find that our firsthand, Madam Speaker.

In Toronto, some lounge owners have raised objections

about insensitivity. Public hearings would give the operator and the patrons the

opportunity to make their case publicly. If in the end the decision to close the

lounge is the same, at least they will have had the opportunity to make a public

case and be heard by the legislators who will ultimately be making the decision.

It is not just what we do, but how we do it, that is important. So by all means,

let's give them the opportunity to be heard by sending this bill to a

legislation review committee for public hearings.

Another issue, Madam Speaker, is marijuana legislation.

It is impossible to talk about smoking legislation without considering what may

happen next year when Ottawa is expected to bring forward its own legislation

with respect to marijuana. This bill does not even deal with that, nor should it

be expected to, but people are talking about it and we need to be listening.

It's one more issue, similar to the issues in this bill, that we really need to

open up a public dialogue about.

I do not envy parents whose children are struggling

with all these issues. It must be very, very confusing for young people. We

certainly empathize with them. Opening up a dialogue will help us identify the

issues on which people need clarity.

Now, we're back to the issue of vaping, where clarity

in this bill is desperately lacking. Governments in this country are all over

the place taking steps forward, backtracking, undecided on what to do.

A House of Commons Report of the Standing Committee on

Health was issued in March of 2015. It was entitled,

Vaping: Towards A Regulatory Framework For E-Cigarettes . It's an

excellent report that everyone involved in this discussion should read from

front to back. It calls for concerted federal-provincial action, with Ottawa

taking the lead. That's certainly not the approach we see here in the form of

Bill 35.

Let's consider where that report came from. On

September 29, 2014, a letter from the Minister of Health to the Chair of the

House of Commons Standing Committee on Health stated: Due to a lack of evidence

on the benefits or harms of e-cigarettes, it would be helpful for the Standing

Committee on Health to study their potential risks and benefits, seek advice

from a variety of health stakeholders, and provide a report.

So the Committee on October 7, 2014 adopted the

following motion to set out its terms of reference for such a study: That,

immediately following the Committee's consideration of the draft report on

marijuana's health risk and harms, the Committee undertake a study of no fewer

than five (5) meetings on e-cigarettes beginning with a briefing from government

officials and that this study focus on the following areas:

(

a) The potential risk, benefits and challenges

associated with these products domestically, including the renormalization of

smoking, and use as smoking cessation aids;

(

b) The pros and cons of ways in which different

jurisdictions both domestically and internationally have chosen to regulate

these products; and

(

c) Options for realizing any benefits and addressing

any significant health and safety risks.

While recognizing that business referred to the

Committee by the House such as Government legislation or Estimates will take

precedence in scheduling over this study. And that the Committee report its

finding to the House.

So the Committee went about and did its business. The

Committee held eight meetings with 33 witnesses, including federal government

officials, health officials from other levels of government, manufacturers of

electronic cigarettes and related devices, users of the devices, stakeholder

organizations, and medical experts.

The Committee heard from several witnesses that

electronic devices intended to replace combustible cigarettes are not new,

having first been introduced in 2007. However, as also described by witnesses,

the technology surrounding these devices has changed over time, and continues to

evolve rapidly.

Health Canada officials told the Committee that

although these devices are not regulated, those that contain nicotine have not

received the necessary approvals from Health Canada. A warning from Health

Canada to consumers to avoid the use of such devices was issued in 2009.

The Department reported that 741 shipments containing

electronic cigarettes were 'recommended for refusal' at the Canada-United States

border between 1 April and 30 June 2014, while many retail outlets received

'cease and desist' letters related to the sale of such devices from the

Department.

In recent months, however, there has been increased

attention given to electronic cigarettes, with a number of provincial and

municipal jurisdictions having considered regulation, some legislation having

been introduced and/or enacted, and data suggesting that use of these devices is

increasing, including by young Canadians.

In addition, the World Health Organization (WHO), of

which Canada is a member, reported on an October 2014 Conference of the Parties

to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, inviting members dealing

with electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) 'to consider taking measures

in order to achieve at least the following objectives, in accordance with

national law:'

(

a) prevent the initiation of ENDS/ENNDS by

non-smokers and youth with special attention to the vulnerable groups;

(

b) minimize as far as possible potential health risks

to ENDS/ENNDS users and protect non-users from exposure to their emissions;

(

c) prevent unproven health claims from being made

about ENDS/ENNDS; and

(

d) protect tobacco-control activities from all

commercial and other vested interests related to ENDS/ENNDS, including interests

of the tobacco industry.

The WHO also issued an invitation to the signatories

of the framework convention 'to consider prohibiting or regulating ENDS/ENNDS,

including as tobacco products, medicinal products, consumer products, or other

categories, as appropriate, taking into account a high level of protection for

human health.' In their appearance before the Committee, Health Canada officials

suggested that current research results are not sufficient as a basis for

determining appropriate regulatory responses.

Witnesses before the Committee addressed the issues

identified in the original motion, covering the effectiveness of the status quo

in Canada and in other countries with respect to regulating electronic

cigarettes, the extent to which these devices are known to put users and others

at risk in health terms, the extent to which they are effective in reducing harm

to users and others, whether and to what extent they may serve as a 'gateway'

for users to combustible tobacco, concerns with access to the devices by youth

and other non-smokers, and whether they may be effective in reducing or

eliminating the use of combustible tobacco now and in the future. Additional

issues raised frequently by witnesses were the need for more extensive research

to provide sufficient evidence on the impact of electronic cigarettes, and how

electronic cigarette use could impact tobacco control, particularly on whether

it would 'renormalize' smoking.

So here are some of the things that the Commons

committee reported. While there was widespread agreement among witnesses that

insufficient evidence exists to reach a clear conclusion with respect to health

risks or benefits associated with the use of electronic cigarettes, there were

different

interpretations of the limited evidence available.

Differences of opinion about health risks or benefits

included risks imposed on users and upon bystanders.

Witnesses also discussed risks to individuals who are

in close proximity to users of electronic cigarettes. Opinions varied in terms

of what those risks might be and the appropriate response to them. While there

have been significant restrictions on the use of tobacco where bystanders might

be exposed to 'second-hand' smoke, no such restrictions exist with respect to

electronic cigarettes. As Dr. Milan Khara pointed out, protecting bystanders

from the effects of second-hand vapour was one of the recommendations made by

the WHO.

The Committee heard that there is not sufficient

evidence about what impact, if any, electronic cigarette use might have on

bystanders. Some witnesses cited research demonstrating only a minimal impact,

while others raised concern about possible or probably negative impacts.

Virtually all witnesses identified the apparent

reduced harm to the users of electronic cigarettes containing nicotine compared

to the users of combustible tobacco cigarettes. As discussed in the previous

section on health risks, however, there were concerns about whether the

reduction in harm for smokers justified the risks of introducing a new product

with nicotine. For example, the Committee heard from one witness:

Although (electronic cigarettes are) less risky than

tobacco, this is by no means a harmless product. Although we believe it should

be made accessible to all smokers who look to reduce the harm they might suffer

from their addiction, it should definitely not be a way to banalize nicotine

addiction or nicotine use.

Other testimony suggested the substantial costs to the

health care system related to the results of smoking are sufficient reason to

consider the substitution of electronic cigarettes for conventional cigarettes,

regardless of the impacts on reductions in nicotine consumption or ultimate

cessation of use of either device:

Tobacco use remains the leading preventable cause of

disease and premature death in Canada and approximately 85% of lung cancer

deaths. International models have shown that by getting tobacco users to quit,

cancer mortality can be significantly reduced. Emerging evidence suggests that

nicotine-containing e-cigarettes may be a less harmful nicotine product

containing fewer carcinogens than combustible cigarettes and other tobacco

products. As such, nicotine-containing e-cigarettes may be a product that could

help smokers reduce their health risks, and may help them to quit.

Witness before the Committee suggested that electronic

cigarettes are effective smoking cessation devices. In addition, the Committee

received letters from users of these products indicating that their use has

resulted in a reduction or elimination of smoking tobacco cigarettes. Still

other witnesses and other stakeholders identified the potential of electronic

cigarettes to support smoking cessation.

The testimony before the Committee on the 'gateway

effect' focussed largely on the extent to which electronic cigarettes are being

used by individuals who have never smoked, including youth, and by youth more

generally.

Data on youth experimentation with electronic

cigarettes were provided by witnesses. For example, Health Canada officials said

that an Ontario study showed in 2013 'nearly 15% of students in grades 9 to 12

were reported to have tried e-cigarettes.

Witnesses identified advertising of electronic

cigarettes targeted to youth as a significant concern, often citing candy

flavoured electronic cigarettes as being particularly appealing to youth. Other

witnesses have told the Committee that such flavours are not intended to target

youth, and that the availability of a variety of flavours is important in

encouraging smokers to switch to electronic cigarettes. For example, one witness

expressed the opinion that flavourings are not being used to target youth,

noting that 'we have evidence that demonstrates that the flavour of descriptors

of our products do not appeal to non-smoking teens, but do appeal to smoking

adults.' Finally, one witness expressed the importance of flavours: 'banning

e-liquid flavours represents an effective ban on e-cigarettes, as all e-liquid

is flavoured, including tobacco flavours.'

The Committee heard much testimony on the role that an

electronic-cigarette use could have on undermining the gains made by tobacco

control efforts, both in Canada and internationally. This phenomenon is referred

to as the 'renormalizing effect' .

The extent of youth experimentation with electronic

cigarettes varied across provinces and countries; however, almost all witnesses

agreed that all such experimentation should be discouraged and that sales of

electronic cigarettes, with or without nicotine, be prohibited to people under

the age of 18.

Daniel David (Chair of the Board, Electronic Cigarette

Trade Association) told the Committee that most electronic cigarette shops

require proof-of-age identification for people who appear to be under the age of

25, and Boris Giller (Co-founder, 180 Smoke) explained to the Committee that for

Internet purchases, Canada Post and other couriers can verify age at delivery.

A dissenting opinion on this age restriction was

offered by Dr. John Britton who added the following caveat: '[w]hilst I entirely

agree that limiting access to young people is probably a good thing,

particularly if we have young people who are otherwise going to smoke, it would

make far more sense to have them use an electronic cigarette.'

At the same time, witnesses told the Committee that

harm reduction for current smokers could be hindered by overly restrictive

access to electronic cigarette and that making electronic cigarettes less

accessible than tobacco products would deter smokers from choosing this less

dangerous alternative. As described by one witness, steps to make these devices

less accessible than tobacco products would 'provide a competitive advantage for

tobacco cigarettes.' Another witness said I think that if you're really looking

at it from a public health standpoint and you want consumers of traditional

tobacco products to have access to electronic cigarettes, they need to have as

much access as they have to tobacco. My feeling is that if a smoker can walk a

block to get their pack of cigarettes, they should be able to have access to

electronic cigarettes within that same distance.

Another witness has

made more comments, Madam Speaker. Among witnesses and stakeholders who

supported access to electronic cigarettes for current smokers, there were

bringing forward varying approaches and identifying varying approaches.

So you can see from

just the witnesses I have mentioned so far to the World Health Organization,

there is certainly a lot of variety in people's opinions on this whole issue. In

fact, many witnesses propose that devices with nicotine should be available

without a prescription. So you have many varying opinions and points of view.

Others suggested

that to be effective in reducing harm or supporting smoking cessation, the sale

of electronic cigarettes should be accompanied by expert advice and training in

the use of the devices and other related products, including nicotine-containing

liquid.

The Committee

heard from Health Canada officials, public health officials, and other witnesses

that there is a paucity of scientific evidence on many aspects of electronic

cigarettes, including the following issues identified in this report: health

impacts on users and bystanders; the gateway effect (particularly for youth);

the renormalization effect; and smoking cessation. The Committee heard that

requirements imposed by Health Canada for the authorization of electronic

cigarettes with nicotine for sale in Canada, and similar requirements in the UK,

are too onerous on producers, and that further research on the health effects of

electronic cigarettes, possibly independent of the manufacturers or distributors

of electronic cigarettes and related products, is needed. Therefore, the

Committee recommends:

RECOMMENDATION 1:

channels, and that these funds be allocated to independent research on the

health effects of electronic cigarettes and related devices, and their impact on

the uptake of nicotine products by youth and on other tobacco control efforts.

All of the

witnesses who raised the issue of regulating electronic cigarettes agreed that

some type of product and industry regulation is needed. So, Madam Speaker, even

though there are

differing points of view as to how we move forward,

everyone does agree that some type of regulations are needed. What exactly these

regulations should look like, I think the argument is strong that we still need

more time and more research to be undertaken.

A variety of approaches have been taken around the

world with respect to regulating electronic cigarettes including regulating

them as tobacco products, regulating them as therapeutic products, and

regulating them as consumer products. Some witnesses stated that provisions

relating to federal tobacco regulation should apply to electronic cigarettes,

while one witness suggested that regulating them as therapeutic products would

be appropriate. So, again, you can see the many differing points of view.

The majority of witnesses who spoke on the subject of

regulation, however, felt that regulating them as tobacco products or as

therapeutic products would be problematic for a number of reasons because

electronic cigarettes are unique products that fit neither the tobacco nor the

therapeutic regulatory model. A regulatory model designed specifically for

electronic cigarettes would therefore be appropriate.

The majority of witnesses who spoke about how

electronic cigarettes should be regulated expressed the opinion that none of the

existing frameworks (tobacco products, therapeutic products, or consumer

products) would be suitable for regulating electronic cigarettes, and two of the

witnesses who proposed regulating them as tobacco products suggested that that

approach only be an interim solution until a new regulatory framework is

established.

Many witnesses expressed the opinion that the

regulatory approach needed to be