May 30, 2018
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLVIII No. 27
The
House met at 10 a.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):
Order, please!
Admit
strangers.
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader and gentleman who's celebrating his birthday today.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would
call from the Order Paper, Order 2, third reading of Bill 22.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Minister of Natural Resources, that Bill 22, An Act To Amend The
Smoke-Free Environment Act, 2005, be now read a third time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the said bill be now read a third time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
This
motion is carried.
CLERK (Barnes):
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Smoke-Free Environment Act, 2005. (Bill 22)
MR. SPEAKER:
This bill is now read a third
time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the order
paper.
The hon.
the Member for Topsail - Paradise.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Am I too late to speak to it,
Mr. Speaker?
MR. SPEAKER:
Did you want to speak to –
MR. P. DAVIS:
Third reading.
Third
reading on the smoke-free – if I've missed my chance, I've missed my chance, but
…
MR. SPEAKER:
You'll require leave.
I'll ask
the Member if he wants you to speak.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Leave.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay, please proceed.
The hon.
the Member for Topsail - Paradise.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
appreciate it; I thank the minister and Members opposite for leave to speak to
the Smoke-free Environment Act, 2005.
I just wanted to, very, very briefly, on the Smoke-free Environment Act, to
thank the Members opposite for their indulgence and their co-operation – I feel
the wind in here today, Mr. Speaker – just to speak to it.
On all
of these acts, I want to reiterate here of course, the importance of
discouraging people from smoking, which is what the environment act was really
considered for in the first place. I'm glad they're including marijuana under
the Smoke-free Environment Act because then it will be included in the process
of discouraging people from smoking any types of substances.
I just
wanted to take a moment to thank the government. I think it's a good thing for
them to include it in the Smoke-free Environment Act. Part of their legalization
of marijuana and processes in this province should always have the oversight of
discouraging people from smoking any types of substances, and putting it here I
think is the first step in doing that.
So I
thank them again for leave just to comment this morning.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
No
further speakers.
I am
going to repeat, is the House ready for the question?
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
This
motion is carried.
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Smoke-Free Environment Act, 2005. (Bill 22)
MR. SPEAKER:
This bill is now read a third
time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order
Paper.
On
motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Smoke-Free Environment Act, 2005,” read a
third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 22)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I call Order 3,
third reading of Bill 23.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Minister of Health and Community Services and Deputy Deputy
House Leader, that Bill 23, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act, be now read
a third time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the said bill be now read a third time.
The hon.
the Member for Topsail - Paradise.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I have a
few more comments on this one than I did on the last one.
We had a
good exchange yesterday in the House in Committee on amendments to the
Highway Traffic Act. We had a lot of
questions to ask and we were here for a couple of hours in Committee. For most
of it we had a good exchange, at least most of it we had efforts from government
to answer some of the questions. I'm still not clear on some of them and I just
wanted to make a few comments in third reading on it.
One of
the aspects of this that's troubling is the government is about to pass a
provincial law for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians that I don't believe you're
equipped right now to be able to enforce. That one being on zero tolerance for
drugs for novice drivers, drivers under 22 and commercial drivers. Zero
tolerance means a person under 22, a novice driver or a commercial driver cannot
have any presence of THC – which is the active drug in marijuana – while
operating a motor vehicle.
There
are two types of THC: there's active and then there's residual, which can be
detected, I understand right now, up to 60 days or longer after use of
marijuana. Right now for roadside screening for police there's no federally
approved screening device available right now in Canada. The federal government
is still going through the process.
I've
heard some comments from Members opposite being critical of Conservative Party
of Canada senators who they say got it hung up in the Senate. We know on Monday,
and we hear news reports Monday night, that the results of the Senate taking –
the Senate is quite often seen and is supposed to be the body has a sober second
thought, is the way it's quite often worded, on bills and legislations from
Parliament.
The
independent Liberal Members, as well as the Conservative Party of Canada
senators, unanimously agreed to over two dozen amendments from reviewing the
federal bill that's going to impact legalization of marijuana. The fact it is in
the Senate seems like they're doing good work. If they have two dozen bills
unanimously agreed to, which will now go back to Parliament for further review.
One of
the federal regulations is being able to detect quantities – nanograms – of THC
or the active ingredient in marijuana for drivers. In Newfoundland and Labrador,
the government has done a very good thing by creating zero tolerance, at least
for novice drivers, drivers under 22 and commercial drivers. But the problem
exists that the province is about to pass this legislation when there is no
roadside ability to determine for low quantities of THC if the provincial
legislation is being upheld.
Federally, the offences begin when there are two nanograms – when it comes to
the actual levels – of THC per millilitre of blood. That's when the offences
begin. Two to five is a maximum of $1,000 fine; five nanograms or more is a more
serious offence or higher fines. Then, there are also the 2.5 nanograms or more
when you have 50 millilitres of alcohol in the blood or more.
Provincially, having zero tolerance, which means anything above zero up to two
nanograms or more, would be the provincial level. If you have less than two
nanograms – if you have one nanogram, as an example, you haven't committed a
breach of any federal laws, any Criminal
Code of Canada laws, any of the laws that are being dealt with in Parliament
and the Senate, but you would have breached the law of zero tolerance here in
this province.
The
problem exists that right now the province does not have a mechanism to
determine on the roadside if a person has one nanogram which would be a
violation of zero tolerance. There's no way for them to determine that because
the roadside screening devices are not approved federally and do not exist in
the system right now. Police agencies have to procure them, obtain them. Police
agencies have to develop policy and they have to train officers in their use
before they'll be able to determine that. Some people have suggested it could be
a fairly long time for that part of the legislation to be able to be upheld.
When we
were in government I remember the Opposition saying to us: You can't pass
legislation you can't enforce. I remember Opposition Members making those
comments to us: You should never pass legislation – I suppose you can because
we're about to, but you shouldn't pass legislation if you can't enforce the
legislation. Sometimes what will happen is legislation will get passed in the
House, but it won't receive Royal Assent or come into power until a point in
time that all the checks and balances, equipment and training and so on is in
place to be able to make sure that people abide by that law.
The
second aspect of the Highway Traffic Act
bill, which I believe is worthy of discussion here today, is the aspect of
education. I asked government yesterday if they could give us an idea of what
their plan is on education and how they plan to educate people. I asked
ministers yesterday: Tell me what two nanograms means. What does that mean? I
raise it because people generally know that if you go out somewhere for a meal
with a partner, friend, spouse or something – you're having an evening meal
somewhere, if you go to a restaurant downtown and you have a meal – generally
speaking, you can drink an ordinary beer, or most people will believe they can
drink an ordinary beer. They have their meal, they have coffee and desert and
they'd be safe to drive home.
I know
many of us will say and encourage people: Do not drink anything before you
drive. That's an easy, solid rule to follow, but the reality is that many, many
people will do that. They'll go to a social setting, they'll have a drink or a
glass of wine or a beer and feel very safe that you're not going to fail a
Breathalyzer test or be impaired – especially if you're accustomed to drinking
alcohol – by that one beer, one drink.
Of
course, the more drinks and beverages you have, the more likely you are to be
impaired to a level that would be considered to be criminal, or that your
blood-alcohol content would be above the legal limits. There are really two
aspects. Are you impaired? No matter what your level is, you could be impaired.
There are also legal per se limits that have been legislated federally – and
here, provincially, rules as well in provincial law – about how much alcohol you
can have in your system before you can drive.
I know
of circumstances where people have blown three and four times the legal limit,
very high, high levels of alcohol, but it was very hard to detect that they were
intoxicated because they consume so much alcohol on a daily basis they become
adjusted and used to it. The legal limit is 80. I've had people blow 250, 260.
I've had people that had alcohol levels of over 300 and look at them and say I
can't believe this person is this high.
I
remember a gentleman one time who had told me he drank a bottle of rum a day.
Actually, he had an accident with a police car while he was on the way to work.
He blew over 300 but never expected to really be that high. On the other side of
it, if someone has never, ever drunk and had a glass of wine, it may have an
impact on you. A glass of wine will have a greater impact, quite often, on an
older person than a person of middle age.
The
problem here is on drugs, trying to determine the level of drugs because zero
tolerance means zero. There's going to be a testing process. Does it pick up the
residual that can be detected for 60 days, or more, later? Does it only pick up
the active THC? There's no device available right now on a roadside to determine
if a person is between zero and two, which is what the provincial legislation is
going to say.
That's a
little bit of a problem that we had hoped the government could explain how
they're going to deal with that, but I really haven't heard the answer to that
until the licences are ready. It could be a year, it could be two years before
it happens – it could be three months – but they don't seem to have an idea on
that.
The
other aspect of the Highway Traffic Act
bill, the smoke-free workplace bill and the cannabis act – all of them – I
believe is on education. I know the Minister of Justice said that they've talked
about education for two years. They've been talking about the legalization of
marijuana and education has been a part of it. We asked them what their plan is
on education and we don't know what it is.
I would
expect the government has a plan right now for laying out an education plan. I
found one on the Government of Canada website which has a graphic here. It has
some highlights of very high-level factors that are designed, that people can
read really quickly and get an understanding of the dangers of driving. Don't
drive high is the headline on it. Your life can change in an instant.
Fast
facts it's referred to: 50 per cent of cannabis users don't think that it
affects their driving much, while one in five don't think it has any negative
impact at all. We know that's not right, so bringing in these new laws,
increasing the availability of cannabis to all members of society 18 years of
age and older, also comes with an inherent responsibility on government to make
sure people understand what the risks are.
We know
from the history of marketing and advertising that you have to send that same
message repeatedly – over and over and over again, sometimes for a long period
of time and a repeated number of times – before people start to get the message.
We do it in politics when we go out and ask people to vote for us. We don't put
out one sign; we'll put out hundreds of signs because we want people over and
over and over to support us in an election.
It's the
same kind of thing. Don't smoke weed or use marijuana, don't use cannabis, weed,
whatever you want to call it, hash, hash oil – don't use them and drive a motor
vehicle because there are risks. Even though 50 per cent of cannabis users don't
think it affects their driving much.
One-third, 39 per cent of those who have used cannabis in the past year have
driven within two hours of consuming cannabis. I've heard people talk about a
four-hour range because cannabis is different than alcohol. When a person
consumes alcohol if you stop drinking in a moment, generally speaking, your
alcohol levels in your blood will continue to rise for two hours after and then
they'll start to drop off. Generally speaking, if you're drinking and drinking
and drinking constantly and you stop, blood will continue to absorb alcohol for
two hours later; your alcohol levels continue to go up and then it starts to
come down.
So four
hours later, after stopping drinking alcohol, you could be where you were when
you stopped drinking four hours before. It takes a long time for that alcohol to
drop off. I'm told that with cannabis, with marijuana, with weed, it's different
than that. That as soon as it's smoked and absorbed, then it starts to drop off
very, very quickly. Within a few hours later, the effects of marijuana could
wear off, where alcohol can last for many, many hours.
So this
point says 39 per cent of those who used cannabis in the past year have driven
within two hours of consuming cannabis. What I just explained, I think is the
reason for that. One hundred and forty-nine is the number of fatally injured
Canadian drivers who've tested positive for cannabis in 2014 – 149 – before
legalization. We know that the chiefs of police in Ontario just very, very
recently held a press conference and raised a flag to say, well, it's going to
increase.
My point
in doing this, Mr. Speaker, is just to again make the point which I believe is
very important. The government needs to start today with educating and
advertising. From the school levels, to young adults, to older adults, all
levels of society, so that everybody understands. Messages we've seen in the
past – if you're having a party and you're serving alcohol or serving drugs,
people holding that party have a responsibility as well. If you have someone
leaving your house or social event, we all have a responsibility to say please
don't drive; do you realize how much you drank, or how much you smoked or how
much you've consumed with drugs or alcohol. Please don't drive.
We do
that today. But I think it's an important point that we need to continue to hit
home to people, especially now with summer upon us. We wouldn't say it today
according to the wind blowing; we can hear over our heads here. But with summer
coming on us, it's a time when people start to barbeque, they go to social
events, they'll sit at an outside table at a restaurant and it's a warm day, so
the tendency is quite often to consume more and so on, and it's important to
continue to hit those messages about safe usage of all alcohol, all drugs, and
especially when it comes to driving.
So, Mr.
Speaker, if the government has any information they can help shed light on for
advertising or education, I'd be more than happy to hear what it is; and as
well, zero tolerance doesn't seem to me – we haven't actually been able to find
out if they have a way today to enforce that zero tolerance. If they do, I'd be
more than happy to hear the explanation, and I think people want to hear it as
well.
Thank
you for acknowledging me on this.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I just
wanted to provide a few comments here to third reading of this bill. There's one
point I'll certainly agree with the Member opposite on, is that obviously
education and awareness are going to be so important; it's going to be paramount
to this process that we need when you have a policy shift like this, and when
you have a fundamental change in basically how we've grown up and how we've
learned, when you take something from illegal to legal, that there is going to
be a lot of education that is necessary. That part I agree with.
The fact
is that is it incumbent upon government, as well as all of our partners, our
agencies, parents, everybody has to play a role in this and to educate
themselves. We have to work with our federal partners to ensure that we provide
the materials and provide the information because if not people, as they do with
other things, may sometimes reach out to sources that are not always accurate.
That's where I think we can play our role and get the accurate information out.
One
thing that's hard to do, though, is that we cannot advertise about rules that
are not actually legislated yet. We know that when it comes to our provincial
rules and laws that we are laying out and debating here right now, that we have
to get that done first. The other part is when we talk about the limits, the
nanograms two to five and so on, it's coming through the federal legislation.
It's hard to talk about that and say that we're going to put out brochures and
awareness in online sites on that when it's not actually done yet. We don't know
where it's going to go.
Again, I
cannot control that. That's the Senate. That is our Parliament. So we have to
see that, but once that comes out we have to be ready to move. I agree with what
the Member is saying. Once it comes out, you have to be ready to go from there.
And again, if things stay the same as they are now that's one thing. If they're
different, then you have to be ready to adjust course and move forward.
This is
not an education process that's going to last a couple of months. This is an
education process that's going to last some time. That's going to bring me back
to the other point that I do disagree with the Member opposite. When we say that
people have a general idea of their limits with alcohol, I disagree. Given the
impaired driving stats from this province and from this country, people don't
know their limits.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. A. PARSONS:
The only same limit is to have zero in your bloodstream. For us to suggest that
people have a good understanding, well given the fact that just about every day
we're seeing it on the news, I'm getting a press release from the RCMP picking
up an impaired driver, I'd say no. I'd say they don't.
In many
cases people are waking up the next morning thinking that they're good to go and
they're still impaired. It's still in their system. We've been dealing with that
for decades and people still haven't learned or they're choosing not to listen.
So to
think that we're going to transition here seamlessly, no, but I think we can
learn from the lessons here. We can learn from the mistakes and that comes back
to the education which we will get out. But you can't inform somebody about
something that has not yet been determined, and there's going to be a lot.
The
police are going to play a huge role in this, the medical community; the
education community are going to play a huge role in this. But again I come back
to our impaired stats right now on something that's been legal since before we
joined Confederation, and we still have people every day choosing to make that
stupid mistake – and that's the word I'll use, that stupid mistake of getting
behind the wheel impaired.
Now, a
couple of stats that I do want to put out here, because we've listened to
statistics and we talk about impaired statistics. Statistics Canada, when we
want to talk about – and again, we don't know. It's the same as when we talk
about financial projections on cannabis, we can't exactly send the auditor in to
the crowd that's currently selling cannabis and say show us the stats. We don't
know. We can anticipate, we can make best guesses based on the due diligence
that we have, but the fact remains we're going from the illicit market to the
legal market.
What we
can do is based on statistics that have been gathered by Statistics Canada –
Statistics Canada talked to people and they asked people about current use of
cannabis and plans for use post-legalization. Seventy-nine per cent of Canadians
– 79 per cent – so we're getting up to almost four-fifths said that legalization
would have no impact on whether they would try using cannabis or increase their
cannabis use; that's an important stat. The University of Calgary just put out
their own evidence series on this, related to legalization, and the study looked
at the experience of other jurisdictions which had legalized use, and page 15 of
that study, the headline is Canada can expect negligible or modest increases in
cannabis use.
It's not
a fear; it's not a misconception. It's still a possibility; it's within the
realm of possibility that the day it becomes legalized everybody goes down to
the store and tries it. That's a possibility. But there's also the very strong
possibility, based on the evidence that we can gather from other jurisdictions,
that that will not likely happen. Personally, based on my studies and what I
think – I think there may be, obviously, a spike. I think we've seen that spike.
So when
you look at other jurisdictions, Colorado and Washington, prevalence of use by
adults increased post-legalization. Washington State and Oregon, prevalence of
use by adults actually decreased slightly or remained flat. So again, we could
go the route of Colorado and probably increase; I think that's a very strong
possibility. And again, every place will be different, every province will be
different. But we can only base that on what actually happens.
One of
the other things too is we talked about the Government of Canada came up with
this – we wanted to legalize, to regulate, and to restrict cannabis for
non-medical purposes. One of the reasons is that we already know that there's a
pretty high percentage of our population that is using cannabis, including our
youth. That's why we've gone with the no tolerance from 22 and under or novice
drivers; 22 and under and novice drivers there is zero tolerance. I think that's
the right move.
I mean
there are a lot of statistics that one could find out there. What I think is
that we've achieved a very strong balance out there when it comes to this
legislation, which when we take nonpartisan outside sources such as the Atlantic
trucking association and such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving, nationally, are
saying: What you've got here is good, very good, amongst the top in the country.
I take great assurance in knowing that these people, outside of government,
independent of government, free to say that what we have is no good or good and
they've said it's very good.
The
other thing I come back to is that education and awareness is important but
that's going to be a process that starts immediately, before legalization,
during legalization and after legalization. We have to continue that, because do
you know what? Let's talk about something when we talk – I agree with the Member
marketing is key.
We talk
about seat belts. I had one of the Members opposite during the
Smoke-free Environment Act talk
about when seat belts became legal. You'd think years later that it would be
common sense, yet our deaths in this province in road accidents because seat
belts weren't used have increased. They've increased in the last 10 years. We
had a very successful campaign out there, the Buckle Up campaign. You drive into
the gateway to the province, Port aux Basques, when you get off the boat, the
first sign there: Buckle Up. The sign is right there. We had great campaigns.
You
would think that you eventually don't have to keep putting that message in, but
the statistics given to me by the RNC say, no, unfortunately and sadly, that's
not the case. So do you know what? That's something we have to deal when it
comes to road safety in general.
You
think people would realize that, yes, driving at 100 kilometres an hour while
snap chatting is probably not safe. You'd thing that. You'd think that driving
100 on four lanes of highway, traffic going both ways while texting, you think
people would get that, but, unfortunately, they do not.
I have a
sad feeling that even with the excellent legislation that we have here, people
will not get message. So what can we do? What we can do is have strong
legislation, backed up by excellent enforcement and reinforced by strong
education and awareness that we continue over a period of time. That's what we
have to do, that's what we're going to do. On that point, I will agree with the
Member opposite.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I'm not
going to take much time. I know we're in third reading and we did a lot of
discussion yesterday when it came to a lot of questions that we did have.
I want
to ensure the House Leader and the Minister of Justice that I think we're on the
same page. I believe that everyone in this House is looking at this piece of
legislation and thinking it's a good piece of legislation and that the questions
we asked yesterday were around making sure that proper mechanisms were in place.
I agree
with the minister and I agree with my colleague from Topsail - Paradise that
this piece of legislation, it's important that we get it done right. I'm glad
that associations like MADD and the Atlantic trucker's federation and different
groups like that are on side, but I do have some concerns with the role of the
federal government more so than anything else, what they're going to introduce
with the new mechanism that needs to be put in place so we can do the proper
testing at the roadside. Those were a lot of the questions that I had yesterday.
Our
caucus is fully supportive of this bill. We will be voting for this bill. We
agree with MADD and we agree with different groups out there that anything we
can do to make our roads safe and ensure that people, whether it's drug
impairment, whether it's medication impairment, whether it's alcohol impairment,
we don't need them on our roads and we have to keep those people off our roads.
We all want to get home safe in the nighttime and we want to make sure our loved
ones get home safe in the night.
So, to
agree with the minister and to agree with my colleague that this is a good piece
of legislation, we'll definitely be supporting it. We had some questions
yesterday, I think we spent a couple of hours yesterday here asking some
concerns, but they were legit. I'm sure government has the same concerns when
they talk to their federal counterparts and talk to different groups right
across Canada, different provinces.
I'm sure
that there will be some changes down the road to the legislation as we go
forward. I want to just say that our caucus is supportive of this bill, but
we're really supportive of making sure that our law enforcement people, who we
appreciate, have the proper tools to be able to do their work and that the
education part, which we talked about yesterday, that we start right at a very
low level with children in our schools and that part gets played.
The
minister just mentioned, as soon as you get off the ferry in Port aux Basques
the first thing you see is: Buckle Up. Those things are important. We're not
going to change everybody. While the minister says we'll still have somebody
that's doing this or doing that. No matter what happens, there will be people
that will be driving under the impairment of drugs and that's just a fact of
life.
We need
to make sure that we have everything in place to ensure that everyone's educated
on that it's illegal, and also that our enforcement people have the proper tools
to do the job.
I just
want to say that our caucus is, basically, on the same page. We all want to make
sure that our roads are safe for the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank
you very much.
MR. SPEAKER:
Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
The
motion is carried.
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Highway Traffic Act. (Bill 23)
MR. SPEAKER:
This bill is now read a third
time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order
Paper.
On
motion, a bill, “An
Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act,” read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the
Order Paper. (Bill 23)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I call Order 4,
third reading of Bill 24.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation, that Bill 24, An
Act Respecting The Restraint Of Salary And Extinguishment Of Severance Pay For
Non-Represented Public Sector Employees And Statutory Officers Of The Province,
Bill 24, be now read a third time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the said bill be now read a third time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
This
motion is carried.
CLERK:
A bill, An Act Respecting The
Restraint Of Salary And Extinguishment Of Severance Pay For Non-Represented
Public Sector Employees And Statutory Officers Of The Province. (Bill 24)
MR. SPEAKER:
This bill is now read a third
time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order
Paper.
On
motion, a bill, “An
Act Respecting The Restraint Of Salary And Extinguishment Of Severance Pay For
Non-Represented Public Sector Employees And Statutory Officers Of The Province,”
read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill
24)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I call Order 5,
third reading of Bill 25.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Minister of Transportation and Works, that Bill 25, An Act To Amend The
Other Post-Employment Benefits Eligibility Modification Act, be now read a third
time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the said bill be now read a third time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
This
motion is carried.
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Other Post-Employment Benefits Eligibility Modification Act. (Bill 25)
MR. SPEAKER:
This bill is now read a third
time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order
Paper.
On
motion, a bill, “An
Act To Amend The Other Post-Employment Benefits Eligibility Modification Act,”
read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill
24)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I call Order 6,
third reading of Bill 26.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development, that Bill 26, An
Act To Establish The Innovation And Business Investment Corporation, be now read
a third time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the said bill be now read a third time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
This
motion is carried.
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Establish
The Innovation And Business Investment Corporation. (Bill 26)
MR. SPEAKER:
This bill is now read a third
time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order
Paper.
On
motion, a bill, “An Act To Establish The Innovation And Business Investment
Corporation,” read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order
Paper. (Bill 26)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Minister of Natural Resources, for leave to introduce a bill entitled, An
Act To Amend The Management Of Greenhouse Gas Act, Bill 27, and I further move
that the said bill be now read a first time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded by
the hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment that he shall have
leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Management Of Greenhouse
Gas Act, Bill 27, and that the said bill now read a first time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against?
The
motion is carried.
Motion,
the hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment to introduce a bill,
“An Act To Amend The Management Of Greenhouse Gas Act,” carried. (Bill 27)
CLERK:
A bill,
An Act To Amend The Management Of Greenhouse Gas Act. (Bill 27)
MR. SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
first time.
When
shall the bill be read a second time?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
Thank
you.
On
motion, Bill 27 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that the House
resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 20.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the
Whole to consider the said bill.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against?
The
motion is carried.
On
motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, the Speaker
left the Chair.
Committee of the
Whole
CHAIR (Warr):
Order, please!
We are
now considering Bill 20, An Act Respecting The Control And Sale Of Cannabis.
A bill,
“An Act Respecting The Control And Sale Of Cannabis.” (Bill 20)
CLERK (Murphy):
Clause 1.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 1 carry?
The hon.
the leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It's
indeed an opportunity now to speak to Bill 20. We've gone through some heavy
debate over the last number of days on this important piece of legislation and
we're making progress here to be ready for the legalization of cannabis here and
we've had some good dialogue and we've gotten some clarification.
We have
a number of questions. Some of them may have been discussed and I know they have
been. We had a great briefing with staff last Friday and we did throw out
scenarios and that, but to have it on record and to get some more clarification
on where we are I'm going to ask the minister for some clarification on certain
things or group of ministers here who may be responsible for it.
Just a
couple of things here; we noted that the orders of cannabis will be placed or
cancelled only by authorized employees of NLC, which is a legitimate process.
Who will these people be, what positions, and how many will there be? Has that
been (inaudible)?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I can
honestly say I didn't get down into the weeds on that aspect of the bill.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. OSBORNE:
I trust NLC to – they're currently dealing in a controlled substance and
currently have buyers and people who are responsible for making shipment orders,
and I anticipate the same will happen with orders of cannabis.
CHAIR:
The hon. the leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I thank
the minister for that. I knew eventually somebody would get down in the weeds
when we started answering questions. I appreciate that. I suspect that'll be
used all morning.
Under
section 8, outlining information sharing, I know we had some discussion about
that because there's going to be information as part of it.
Has the
Privacy Commissioner been consulted about the information that's going to be
relevant to the cannabis laws?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Yes, it's my understanding that there was wide consultation on the information
sharing. It's my understanding that the information sharing will be with the
federal government for the purposes of taxation and our share of the excise tax
and so on. Information could be shared with law enforcement to ensure that if
there a concern of illicit activity, there may be information shared with law
enforcement officials as well.
CHAIR:
The hon. the leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I do
appreciate that and I do understand where the minister is coming from. But just
to be clear: Has there been a discussion with the Privacy Commissioner regarding
the sharing information with federal law enforcement, or the federal government
around taxation?
CHAIR:
The hon. the hon. the
Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Yes, I apologize. I thought I
answered it that yes, there was consultation and then I went on to elaborate.
But yes, the Privacy Commissioner was consulted.
CHAIR:
The hon. the leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Minister.
Section
9(1) reads: “The corporation may issue to a person an authorization to sell or
otherwise supply cannabis to a retailer in the province.”
I ask
the question: Has the NLC issued any authorizations yet? Will any other
suppliers besides Canopy Growth be allowed to sell to local retailers?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
I'm not sure if they've
supplied other authorizations but on the second part of the question, yes. There
are other businesses looking at setting up in various areas of the province and
NLC will be open to purchasing from those corporations as well.
CHAIR:
The hon. the leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Minister, are there any time frames on – and I know, and I've had a couple of
other entities or businesses come to me, particularly in my district, asking
about the process. They've gone through it. I've know it's a federal regulation
where there's a federal licensing process to be able to produce cannabis. I've
gone through that process.
Has NLC
had any major presentations to business people who may want to avail of that? I
know it's a federal regulation but keeping in mind if they get their licensing,
then obviously NLC has to be engaged with the purchasing of that product for
sale.
Has
there been a public presentation, an engagement? Does the NLC meet with
businesses who may be inquiring about the process?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
The initial legislation we
put in place in November, changes to the
Liquor Corporation Act, essentially gave NLC the ability to start dealing in
the business of cannabis and put out the RFP. This legislation is much more
detailed. It's my understanding that some of what you're asking about signing
with corporations or suppliers, part of what is in this legislation will allow
them to do that legally. So they'll have the ability, once this legislation is
done.
It is my
understanding from some discussions with the NLC – I have no intention of
micromanaging the NLC. I don't think any minister – I shouldn't go that far. I
don't think it's been the general practice of ministers to micromanage NLC
anymore than we would micromanage Nalcor or micromanage Eastern Health. We have
a CEO in those organizations and we have an executive team in those
organizations to do that.
I do
have a great deal of confidence in the fact that they've been involved in
controlled substances for decades and the fact that they're able to deal in
controlled substances, I have faith that any dialogue they have – but it is my
understanding that they are open to dealing with other businesses that set up in
the province. They're not only open but they're hopeful that there will be other
suppliers set up in the province as well and they will work with those
suppliers.
CHAIR:
The hon. the leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I agree
with the minister that the NLC are very competent, very capable and very
successful in being able to ensure that things are done in a safe manner and it
does benefit the taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Section
18 outlines where the board shall not issue a licence. One of these areas where
this applies is where “it would not be in the public interest having regard to
the needs and wishes of the public in the community in which the place or
premises of the cannabis store or cannabis retail location will be located.”
I ask
the minister: How will the public interest, needs and wishes of the public be
adjudicated? What about parents who are concerned about stores close to their
child's school?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
This language is very similar
to the language that's under the Liquor
Corporation Act in how they deal with liquor outlets and liquor agencies.
There is legislation in place to protect against minors from entering into tier
one or tier two stores. They're simply not permitted, even with adult
supervision, minors are not permitted in tier one or tier two stores, which is
different than even alcohol stores. If it's a completely dedicated alcohol
store, minors are still permitted in under adult supervision. So this is even
more stringent.
When it
comes to tier three or tier four stores, minors are permitted in those stores,
similar to what they would be with the liquor outlet store or convenience store
that sells beer.
What I
can say is that there are liquor outlets, there are liquor stores and there are
convenience stores that sell beer in much closer proximity to schools then
cannabis outlets. The regulations around cannabis are going to be even more
stringent than the regulations around alcohol.
Cannabis
in a convenience store, for example, will not be visible to anybody. A customer
will have to ask a clerk to – similar to a cigarette wall, I'm not saying that
they're going to be exactly like a cigarette wall, but similar to a cigarette
wall where customers can't see a package of cigarettes. They have to ask a clerk
to open a door on a cigarette wall so that the customer can pick their brand of
cigarette.
I won't
say there haven't been any instances, but we haven't had any earth-shattering
social issues with the fact that beer is available and minors can actually open
a beer cooler door and touch a box of beer in a convenience store because there
are regulations around the fact that minors cannot purchase beer and they have
to be ID'd. The regulations around cannabis will be even more stringent.
CHAIR:
The hon. the leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I thank
the minister. I do agree and I do understand that every safeguard and due
diligence has been done, previously, around alcohol and tobacco and the e-vapes,
but also now as we look into the sale of cannabis. The issue here is – and we
all have received it from our constituents and public service organizations –
there's a bit more apprehension here because it's so new. People are not quite
sure of the impact. They're not quite sure on the uptake. They're not quite sure
of the criminal element, what impact it may have.
So
there's a little bit more apprehension, but I'm glad to hear that the
organization, the agency is extremely cognizant of ensuring not only the present
liability issues but the present responsibilities of ensuring that visibilities
around tobacco and e-cigarettes are not available to people who shouldn't be
accessing them and are not an enticement because you can look through the window
and see it. So I do acknowledge that.
I did
have some people phone me and ask me about the clarification between the
different tiers. Unless I'm wrong, the tiers one and two are, as the minister
just outlined, extremely controlled. There's an extreme set of regulations and
polices and laws that need to be adhered to. From visibility of the products, to
who can access it in that particular building, to how it's locked up and
secured. The tier three and four which are, as the minister said, part and
parcel where we now still have cigarettes in a convenience store or in a gas
station, we still have beer that is in coolers as part of that. The minister is
right – and I hope this continues – that we haven't seen a dramatic negative
impact because the visibilities are there. We're still hopeful that will happen
in the cannabis world.
In the
tier three and four there's a little bit more apprehension because of how
they're going to be promoted and the access and these types of things, but,
again, very diligent inspectors here from Service NL and the Liquor Corporation
about following and adhering to rules and regulations and laws.
One of
the things I did like when we had the briefing was around the severity of the
fines and potential imprisonment, in some cases, and particularly around losing
your licence. So it would be a big risk for a business to make a $20 bill and
give up a potential million-dollar business because they just thought it would
be a quick fix of a few dollars.
So I
think the punishment there, or the incentives to follow the rules and
regulations, are well in play. I like the fact that we've gone to that level.
Some did say it's pretty extreme when we're talking $100,000 fines. Well, they
would be levied, I would think, in companies that are dramatically capable of
doing it but who've shown a full disregard for following the rules and
regulations and putting safety of our citizens in peril.
Section
18 also outlines – and this is (f)(ii) – that the board may not issue a licence
where it may cause inconvenience to a place of worship, school or hospital. So I
ask: Was this considered in the previous RFP process in which we're talking
about, the ones – and it was a little confusing at the time, but I'm glad it's
clarified now, that they were just what we consider a pre-qualifying application
process and now they have to go through the same process. I just want it on
record to see if that was talked about when the first call for proposals went
out.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
This wording is very similar
as well to the wording in the Liquor
Corporation Act. I think the only difference is in the
Liquor Corporation Act we say church
and in this act we say place of worship because I think there is more diversity
in our places of worship today, but similar wording to what's in the
Liquor Corporation Act.
Yes, it
is my understanding that these things were considered. In fact, there was a
point system set up when people applied for their licence and the closer they
were to a school, they were deducted points. So if somebody had a very, very
strong application but was within 600 metres of a school or 300 metres of a
school, they'd have points deducted because of their proximity to a school.
It was
considered, and in a conversation with the NLC, these things were heavily looked
at. The application was merit based, part of it was their proximity to places
like schools or places of worship.
CHAIR:
The hon. the leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. BRAZIL:
I thank the Minister for
that.
This
leads into the next process, because we just want to clarify, and we've had some
discussion around this, that the 23 that are now still active and the four for
Canopy Growth – because one has since withdrawn – had gone through an original
RFP.
Now,
just so that we're clear, and the minister I think has stated this but I want to
clarify to what degree. All these 23, and I would think including the four
Canopy Growth retail locations, will have to go through the stringent processes
outlined in the legislation when it comes to the location, the municipality
regulations, the feedback from public forums from citizens and these type of
things. I just want to confirm that that's all.
I've had
people who want to fill out the application to apply but they want to know are
they at a disadvantage because somebody else didn't have to follow the same
regulatory process, or will not have to follow as they go forward? Can I get you
on record to explain that?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
That's what this legislation is for. On a go-forward basis, including the
applicants who've already been given their pre-qualification, still have to go
through the remainder of the qualification process.
CHAIR:
The hon. the leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Under
section 19 it outlines the application process for a retail licence. This is
what it states, a part of this notes that with an application must come
“evidence that the place or premises to which the licence will apply has been
approved in writing by an inspector.”
The
question I have here, for all those successful applicants of the RFP, did they
have to provide this? I've note you've noted that, but my question is: Who is
the inspector? I'm confused on who this inspector is that they're noting in that
piece of legislation.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
I don't know the inspector's name, but –
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. OSBORNE:
That, I'm not entirely sure.
There are inspectors with NLC. There are inspectors with Service NL. These
inspectors oftentimes cross paths. They'll probably both have the ability to do
some of this work. We can certainly find out if Service NL or if NLC
specifically will be carrying out this part of the inspection, but both
organizations have inspectors.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just
want to go back for clarity, Minister, and the question from my colleague in
regard to section 21, the notice of intention to apply for licence. It says: “An
applicant for a licence shall give notice of his, her or its intention to apply
for a licence by publishing a notice before filing an application with the
corporation.”
That
particular provision triggers others in relation to section 22, in relation to
an objection. “A person may object to an application for a licence by filing an
application with the board in writing before the deadline for filing an
objection and in a manner prescribed by the regulations.”
Then it
goes on to say in section 23: “Where an objection is filed … the board may hold
a hearing to … submissions of the applicant and the person who filed the
objection.”
I know
you've said on a go-forward basis, and also there was reference my colleagues
said of the 23 retail outlets that were selected – I think there were 24
selected out of the 80 applicants and now it's 23. Just to be clear, those 23
applicants today, what's the timeline for them to make the public aware –
because that triggers the other avenues here to have objections heard and
determination made by the corporation whether hearings would be held.
What's
the timeline for these 23 – I think you referenced preliminary approvals – to
make that notice to trigger what you have outlined here in the legislation
starting with section 21? What's the trigger-point for those 23 – so those that
have pre-approval will start the process to adhere to the legislation when we
pass it.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
I did get from an official –
to the previous question, the inspectors will be NLC inspectors. Just to answer
the previous question, the inspectors will be NLC inspectors.
Anybody
has to go through a pre-approval process. Even on a go-forward basis there's a
pre-approval process. If we have another applicant under the extended RFP, they
will have to go through the pre-approval process. Once that happens, under this
legislation it has to be advertised for three weeks in – it has to be posted in
conspicuous places within the municipality. I believe it is three conspicuous
places within the municipality that it will have to be posted. It will also have
to be posted in an obvious or a conspicuous place at the storefront at the
location in which they're looking for a licence.
The
timelines in how quickly this can be done, I guess in large part – those three
weeks would be involved, but in large part it also goes hand in hand with the
applicant as well and how quickly they process their paperwork beyond the three
weeks. The three weeks is something that is very rigid. It's there, it's three
weeks; it has to be advertised for three weeks, but how quickly they can get
through the process depends on other permitting, municipal permitting, whether
or not they need modifications to the building, whatever the case may be. The
building, the premises still have to be inspected and approved for the use that
it's intended.
CHAIR:
The hon. the leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
That
clarifies that. I thank the minister for that.
Can
retailers apply for a retail location at any time or only when the NLC issues
RFPs?
I'll
give an example. Retailers who are not successful in this recent RFP, how long
will they have to wait before they can apply again or is there a restriction on
the timeline?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
They may be able to apply
again. I guess it depends on whether or not the NLC put out another RFP. I know
that – not getting into specific cases, I wouldn't do that. I wouldn't do that
to a particular applicant, it would be unfair. Any applicants who have not been
chosen can request in writing and the NLC will provide in writing why they
haven't been chosen.
We have
heard from different applicants and heard of cases in which applicants have not
been approved for a licence where other applications have been approved. What I
can say in that particular case, these were looked at on a merit basis. There
was a point basis. In some areas some people may have scored very, very strongly
and in some cases they wouldn't have scored as strongly as other applicants.
The NLC
had chosen the applicants with the highest score. Other applicants may have been
very close but may have been second, or other applicants probably didn't even
meet the threshold in what the NLC would have considered a minimum threshold in
points. I believe it was 60 points was the minimum threshold. If you didn't meet
the 60 points, whether there was another applicant or not, you wouldn't even be
considered because you needed to meet a minimum threshold with NLC on their
point rating system.
CHAIR:
The hon. the leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Just so
I'm clear, and I think the minister did make it clear. If an applicant – and the
threshold is 60 – for example, didn't have one of the components that were
necessary in the RFP but have since been able to rectify that, there's nothing
restricting them from making an application and then being reviewed again in the
process to see if they qualify for that level, that threshold?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Yes. Again, it depends on an
RFP. The NLC will limit the number of applications they accept and part of that
– again, we're getting into a business that we honestly don't know what the
sales volumes are going to be. We're making best estimates on what we believe
the sales volumes are going to be.
They've
limited the number of locations to try and help ensure that those locations have
a better chance of success. If we put too many locations in a municipality or in
an area, everybody suffers because they simply won't have the volumes if the
volumes aren't what we anticipate they will be. If they're well over what we
anticipate, they may look at putting additional locations, but it is on an RFP
basis. Somebody simply wouldn't be able to apply to the NLC and say I want to
put a location in such-and-such a place. The NLC would have to put that out to
an RFP in any event so that it's fair to everybody.
If
somebody made their intentions known to the NLC that they wanted to put a store
in a location that there wasn't a store, the NLC would have to put it out to an
RFP to give everybody an opportunity.
CHAIR:
The hon. the leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. BRAZIL: Thank
you, Mr. Chair.
Fair enough – I'm just trying to clarify. We had 80-plus
applicants and obviously 24 were selected; 28 locations of which it's down to
27. I'll give you an example in my district. Bell Island doesn't have one. I'm
not quite sure if somebody applied and may have gotten turned down because they
didn't meet the criteria. If indeed they did, would they now have the ability,
without having the delay and wait for an RFP to go back and say I've rectified
or I have these three other things that I didn't have before – and it could be
the location, it could be the security and it could the financing, whatever it
may be – to now put in an application so that there would be a retail outlet
that could supply cannabis on Bell Island, keeping in mind the restrictions and
that?
I just want to clarify if there's any restriction. If there
are people who get inquiries or us here in any caucus, or your own Members, that
somebody says I applied but I got turned down because I didn't meet the
criteria, but I've since been able to improve that – there's nothing in
Glovertown, for example, and there's nothing in Wesleyville or whatever, can I
now go back or do I have to wait for the next call?
CHAIR: The hon.
the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
What I would recommend for any Member of the Legislature who gets an inquiry, or
from any member of the general public for that matter, if they have an interest
in an area where there isn't a store or they believe an area is under-serviced,
I would suggest that they contact the NLC. If an area is deemed to have an
adequate representation of stores, they'll relay that on to the person. But if
an area is deemed to be an area that is under-serviced the NLC, I'm sure, would
entertain the expression of interest by the individual.
It is my understanding that they would still have to go out
to an RFP so that the process is fair to everybody. But if there's an area that
they've gone looking for an RFP and somebody failed, by all means, that
individual should contact the NLC. If they're able to strengthen their
application, they'd have an opportunity just like anybody else.
CHAIR: The hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl North.
MR. LESTER: I am
not honourable?
CHAIR: Not
honourable?
MR. LESTER: No.
In reference to the
Natural Products Marketing Act which is a general act that covers
agricultural production in the province, there's no reference to cannabis
production. And production is part of the sale, so I question the minister: Will
there be amendments made to the Natural
Products Marketing Act to directly reference cannabis?
CHAIR: The hon.
the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Yes, that's not my act. I won't speak for the minister responsible for that
particular act, but the minister may want to answer.
CHAIR: The hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE: Thank
you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Chair, I'm just wondering in terms of the retail, and
particularly in terms of tier three, tier four, I guess they would be called.
I'm thinking of perhaps a store more than likely in a rural area because I think
in most of the urban areas it's probably in Loblaws and places like that. I'm
just want to take this scenario – if somebody went to a store and it would be
probably a convenience store and they probably have a liquor outlet and they
have different things in there, I'm assuming, to make it work because we've been
told that if someone had a stand-alone cannabis store, it probably wouldn't be
sustainable. It would probably have to be part of a mixed use.
My first question is: If somebody goes to purchase
cannabis, is this cannabis going to be in packages like a cigarette package or
some kind of a bagged package, or would there be situations where there would be
some kind of a bin, container, or whatever with cannabis in it and someone
actually takes out scales and starts weighing out marijuana? Is that possible or
is it all in bags and containers, first of all?
CHAIR: The hon.
the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
It's my understanding that they will all be in sealed containers.
CHAIR: The hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE: Okay,
thank you for that. I appreciate that.
I guess my next question along that is if it's in a
mixed-use store – for argument's sake – would there be a separate area within
that store for the cannabis sales so we did not have the situation – because I
know right now at a retail store, as an example, cigarettes are in a cabinet and
you can't even see the cigarettes. They are hidden, so to speak, and someone
goes up to the counter to get them.
Would this be a similar situation or would there be a
separate area so that we wouldn't have a situation whereby – I think I used the
example the other day where maybe you go to a Marie's or somewhere like that and
there are two cash registers side by side, so you have a little child here
getting a few candy counted
out, and then there's someone right next to them there handing over cannabis. I
think there should be a separate counter away from the other parts of the store.
Is that
how it's going to be or not?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
I know I'm simplifying it, but I'll give a brief explanation of the four tiers.
Tier one
is a stand-alone store, similar to a Sony store or that type of thing. You go in
and it's specifically dedicated to cannabis and cannabis-related products. Tier
two would be a store within a store, similar to –
AN HON. MEMBER:
A liquor store at Dominion.
MR. OSBORNE:
Yeah, similar to a liquor
store at Dominion, so a store within a store. Tier three would be a separate
area. For example, if you went into a Shoppers Drug Mart and you see a postal
outlet within Shoppers Drug Mart, that's got its own counter. That counter is
specifically designated to Canada Post.
Tier
four would be similar to a convenience store with a cigarette wall where it's
not in public view. It would never be in public view, but you go in, you'd ask
for a product, they'd have to open up a wall similar to a cigarette wall,
retrieve the product and then put it through the cash register.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.
MR. LESTER:
I asked the minister for agrifoods if he could answer this question, please.
In
reference to the Natural Products
Marketing Act, it specifically said that products that are controlled or
administered under a specific act do fall underneath the
Natural Products Marketing Act.
Will we
be putting terminology in that act to directly reference cannabis?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. BYRNE:
I appreciate, Mr. Chair, the hon. Member giving notice of the question earlier.
It's not
information that's currently available to me, but I will certainly get back to
the Committee with that information as soon as it is available to me.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.
MR. LESTER:
A secondary piece of legislation which is provincially held is the Right to Farm
legislation. It's basically legislation that protects farmers from what we call
nuisance complaints that would be any activities that could be considered normal
agricultural production and their adverse effects on neighbours or other
people's activities, property values such as that.
Will we
be referencing cannabis under the Right to Farm legislation as well?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
I can add to the best of my
knowledge on this I understand that cannabis growth is federally regulated, so
I'm not sure if that would come under provincial legislation or regulations. The
federal government controls the growth of cannabis.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. LESTER:
The right-to-farm legislation
is not actually the permit to grow a product; it's actually a legislative
protection that enables farmers to conduct their business without the threat or
the encumbrance of unnecessary nuisance complaints. As it stands now, I would
think that cannabis production probably is outside what could be considered
normal agricultural practices. It is indeed a crop, of course, and I think
that's something that we're going to have to consider.
From
what I gather, the government has not considered that. Will that be in their
plans to amend the right-to-farm legislation to include cannabis?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. BYRNE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.
I
appreciate the question from the hon. Member and, as well, the previous reply
from the Minister of Finance. There are federal regulations around the
production of cannabis in terms of both safety and security. Those elements will
obviously be paramount. On the provisions of the right-to-farm provisions,
obviously that is taken on a case-by-case basis.
The
paramountcy of the federal legislation obviously would be in place here in this
particular situation. If there was an individual circumstance, where outside of
the federal jurisdiction, outside of the federal regulation there was an
overlapping or consistently parallel circumstance related to the right to farm,
we'd examine that on a case-by-case basis within the provincial legislation and
the provincial regulations. But that is not necessarily tied to this particular
product.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. LESTER:
I'm still a little bit
confused as to whether the government is going to recognize the production of
cannabis as an agricultural activity in the Province of Newfoundland and
Labrador. I do understand that the minister is on record as saying they would
not be eligible for any – well, Canopy Growth will not be eligible for any
agricultural programs – but I think we really need to be clear as to if we're
going to protect this product and production of this product under either the
right-to-farm legislation or the Natural Products Marketing Act,
there has to be a decision whether we're going to recognize this product as
agricultural production.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. BYRNE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.
All
federal, provincial and territorial ministers, all departments of agriculture
across the country have made a determinate opinion or conclusion that the
production of cannabis is not covered or would not be an eligible activity under
the Canadian Agricultural program. As such, it is limited in terms of the
eligibility for such funding.
Any
specific incident or occurrence would be under examination on its merits.
However, I will point out to the hon. Member that the relevance of the
particular question in terms of this particular legislation, that we're
reviewing before Committee at the moment, is not encompassed within this
particular legislation which is what is the subject of this Committee of the
Whole.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. LESTER:
I would like to differ in
opinion on the minister when it comes to the production is not under the purview
of this legislation, because it is. In order for us to enable it to become
legalized we are, therefore, sanctioning the production in our province.
To the
point of personal possession and production at home, I ask the minister: Will
the individuals who choose to do that be designated to purchasing their seeds
from a sole source via NLC, or will they be allowed to purchase seeds from
wherever they so choose?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
That's a very good question.
The seeds for the production of the plants, I'm not certain on that, but I'll
get an answer while we're still in Committee. My officials are listening to this
and we'll have the answer for you.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. LESTER:
The reason why I asked this, of course, is because different genera of plants
have different qualities; therefore, the THC level in one particular variety of
plant can vastly differ from another. You could have a plant that is of
comparable toxicity to that which is being provided by the province, or you
could have something that is far more potent and that possibly could pose a
health risk. Not only is the seed a variation in the amount of THC, it's also
the production method.
Will
there be any regulations or references to the method of production in people's
homes that could further guarantee that we're not having a super plant as such,
versus a plant similar to that of what we are controlling and legalizing?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
I have the answer for the Member there.
Seeds
will have to be regulated by the NLC. The seeds for the growth of plants within
somebody's private residence would have to be regulated by the NLC. The seeds
for cannabis still fall under the same rules for sale and purchase. Based on
that, I think the risk of having a super strain or a super plant would be
limited.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.
MR. LESTER:
I didn't really see any punitive measures outlined in any of the legislation as
to the personal production and the restriction of using government-approved or
designated seed sources. As well, the production practices, that's nowhere
addressed.
Has your
department put any thought into how we, as a province, and we, as a Legislature,
can put safety protocols in place that would ensure the product that people are
producing at home is safe and comparable to that of what's going to be available
in your stores?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Any piece of legislation that goes through this House is followed up by
regulations.
The
regulations sometimes follow the legislation based on debate in the House: can
be added to, or changes made to regulations. That's the entire purpose of this
debate. Officials listen, and listen intently, to the debate. It may guide in
the development of some of the regulations. The issues that you're talking about
would be covered under regulations.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.
MR. LESTER:
Will that be under the purview of Health Canada? Will Health Canada be approving
the strains of seeds that will be allowed to be produced at home or will that be
the NLC?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Yes, production is regulated by the federal government. Any strains that are
approved for growth would also be approved by the federal government.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm just
wondering if you can give us, Minister, an idea of how security works with all
this. If you look at regular farms, people that are growing – like my colleague
here from Mount Pearl North – it's pretty wide open. In theory, anyone could
just sort of just walk in off the side of the road and start hauling up a few
carrots if they wanted to.
So I'm
just wondering in terms of growing marijuana, not the four in your house, but
growing marijuana at a production facility and so on, I'm assuming that there
must be very, very strict security measures in place to protect people from just
walking in and just hauling up plants and so on.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
I can say to the Member
that's not something that's covered under this particular piece of legislation.
In fact, it's not even under this department. I'll endeavour to get the answer
for you, but as far as I know, the only production that's been approved in this
province, to date, is indoor cultivation.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE:
I'd appreciate it, Minister.
If we could just get some idea, I'm just wondering. I know there's only been one
approved, but I'm just sort of wondering how it would work in terms of – because
someone asked me that, actually, yesterday, I think it was, that it wouldn't
just be out there wide open, that anybody could just go in and grab plants or
kids could. I'm sure that's not the case but I was just looking for some
clarification.
I
assume, as well, with retail shops and so on, there would be requirements in the
RFPs to make sure there's proper security because, obviously, that would be,
potentially, a pretty popular target for break and entries and so on, if there
was a shop there that's full of cannabis. So maybe you could comment on that as
well.
I guess
the other thing is I'm just wondering what process – when we went through the
RFP process, I know there were X number of people applied, 50 odd or whatever it
was and then there was 20 odd that was approved. There were ones that were
approved and others that weren't. I'm not sure if the ones that weren't approved
couldn't have been approved, it was just a choice, perhaps, to go with this one
over that one for whatever reason. I'm wondering what consideration, if any, was
given for local shops because a lot of these shops we know have gone to Loblaws.
Certainly, as a business, they can certainly apply for a shop just like anybody
else can apply for a shop. We know that they're going to employ someone at the
counter or whatever, same as anyone else would, but the difference is if it was
local, if it was a local shop or so on that did it, in theory, the profits and
so one derived from it goes back into the local economy as opposed to going to
the shareholders of Loblaws on the Mainland somewhere.
So I'm
just wondering what consideration, if any, was given some sort of preference for
local entrepreneurs versus Mainland outfits such as Loblaws.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
What I can tell you, first of
all, we'll try to keep things relevant to this particular bill. I will try to
answer your question that's not relevant to this, but at some point we've got to
try to stick to the bill.
Production is federal. I understand the note I just got back is that production
is federally regulated and there are very stringent security measures around
that, but again, I shouldn't even be speaking to that. It's not this
legislation, it's not my department. It doesn't come under the purview of this
particular legislation.
As far
as the retail outlets that were approved, I can tell you, as somebody who has a
great deal of pride in this province and what this province can do, every time I
see a sign for an Ontario or a Quebec construction company in this province, it
grates my nerves, but, unfortunately, that's the RFP process. While I would
prefer to see a local construction company have their sign up on projects that
we see in this province and in this city, we don't control that because of
interprovincial trade and interprovincial labour and so on.
The same
as this, the NLC did not distinguish between a local applicant or a national
applicant. They based it on its merits. There were no points for local versus
national. The applicants put their applications in, they were based on the
strength of the application. I don't know for sure but I would suspect, because
some of the national retail outlets have the money, the ability and the
expertise to sit down, fill out an application and put what's required. I do
know that one of the local people that was not screened in – because I asked for
some examples as why would this versus that – and it was partially based on
security measures and the lack of security that was detailed on their
application.
It's
very unfortunate. If that person has the ability to get in writing why they
didn't get it, if they're interested in applying again, can improve their
security measures and ensure that the security is there that the NLC require on
their application process, they would perhaps be successful.
I would
have liked to have seen more local applicants, just like I'd like to see local
construction companies as opposed to the Ontario or Quebec construction company
signs that I see. I find it always disappointing when I see that, but based on
the fact that it has to be merit based, it has to be fair and when an RFP goes
out, you can't simply choose a local company because that's what you want. It is
based on merit.
CHAIR (Reid):
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE:
I thank the minister for that
explanation. I certainly agree with him that it is very disappointing, albeit I
understand the restrictions he's talking about. Even if it's a local company,
they have to meet all the qualifications, criteria and the merits and so on. I
totally get that.
I guess
everybody feels disappointed when you see opportunities that seem to go to these
larger Mainland outfits and, at the same time, you have local entrepreneurs that
you would prefer to see them get the business, see them reinvest in their
business, hire local people – well, certainly the Mainland outfits would also
hire local people, but see the profits stay in Newfoundland and Labrador and be
reinvested. I think we all agree on that. So thank you for the answer, Minister.
The last
thing I have, Mr. Chair, I want to just for the record bring this into the
record because I received this from a constituent of mine. The minister perhaps
may want to comment, if he wishes, but it was sent to me from a constituent in
the Southlands area, also sent to the Premier, the Leader of the Opposition, the
Third Party, the Minister of Health, as well as the mayor of St. John's.
This
gentleman said: I understand the legislation will allow to grow up to four
plants in their home. I'm going to assume this includes apartments, condos, city
and provincial subsidized housing. Whenever we hear of marijuana grow ops, we
think of hundreds or even thousands of plants. These houses end up with so much
moisture and mold issues that ultimately many are considered health hazards and
are condemned until major restoration completed. Not only that, but these
houses, even when restored, still need to have a disclosure, when sold, that it
was a grow op. I can only assume this negatively affects resale value and,
ultimately, property taxes.
I
suspect we're going down a road where people who plan to grow their own will
grow far more than four plants and, admittedly, it will be difficult for
government to police this. While the numbers of plants likely won't approach
hundreds, I wonder how much damage will be caused to these residences given the
high-humidity environments required, at least in the early stages.
Who pays
to restore these residences for the city and the provincial subsidized housing?
What happens if I am in a condo and my neighbour causes damages to more than
just your own unit? I wonder if health care is aware of the potential for an
increase in respiratory issues related to these moldy environments. What happens
when a child is in this home environment? What is the impact to the house
insurance if this becomes an issue?
This was
just a concern. I'm not arguing the merits of it one way or the other, whether
it's exaggerated or not, but this is a concern that a constituent of mine wrote
to me and other Members of the House about. I committed to him that I would
bring the matter up in the House for the record and that's exactly what I'm
doing.
I have
no further questions. If the minister wants to respond, I'm sure he would
appreciate it.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
What I can say: Moisture that
you're talking about is from larger grow ops. Those are happening now. Without
this legislation and without cannabis being legalized there have been grow ops
in this province and in the city.
Whether
or not this entices somebody more than what they would have been enticed, those
issues are for law enforcement. They look at a number of things, electricity
usage and so on, to determine. Under this legislation a landlord does have the
ability to say, just like a landlord would have the ability now – as a landlord
in this city I put in the lease as part of the requirement that I do not permit
smoking in my property. I also put in my lease that I do not permit the use of
illegal substances in my property. I am not in that property every day to see if
they're smoking, but I put it in the lease. If I find there's evidence that
smoking happens if I go in for an inspection, I deal with it.
Landlords have the ability to say you cannot grow marijuana. That will be an
ability that the landlord has in a particular property, whether it's a building
or whether it's – that's an ability that is under this legislation to try and
prohibit, but grow ops are happening with or without this legislation. That's
happening and it's something that law enforcement currently has to deal with.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I said
that was my last question. I thank the minister for that response. I'm just
bringing forward the concern that was brought to me by a constituent. As his MHA
I have a responsibility to do it, so that's why I was bringing it forward.
People are going to have varying concerns because this is all new. It's
important that they have a comfort level.
The only
other thing that just came to my mind that I was going to ask, but I forgot
about, was I'm wondering when we had the briefing and it talked about four
plants, it talked about on the property. It didn't say inside your house, it
said on the property. I asked about it a couple of times and the answer we kept
getting back was the way the actual legislation is currently written – that
doesn't preclude changes in terms of regulation – it says property. That means
based on this that somebody, in theory, could have four marijuana plants out on
their front lawn or their backyard or whatever.
Obviously, that would be a concern for people and neighbours with children. I
don't know if it affects pets or not, but certainly children, that if all of a
sudden every second house – I'm not saying there would be but in theory a whole
bunch of people down the street all have four plants growing on their front
lawn, their backyard or whatever, that would be a concern. The way this is
written that could happen, but we were told that it could be addressed by
regulations.
I'm
asking the minister: Will it be addressed by regulations? Is the intent that
this would be grown inside, not outside where it could be accessed by children
and neighbours?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you.
I thank
the Member for his question. It's an important question. In fact, every issue
that's brought up here, every question that's brought up is important. As I
said, there are no stupid questions around this. It's a brand new industry; it's
a brand new area for the NLC and for government to be dealing in. If I had my
rathers, I'd rather not be dealing in it. But, unfortunately, it's something
that the federal government has said is going to be legalized and as a province
we have to deal with it.
Part of
what happens during debate – while things are covered under the legislation,
there are two things that can happen; either an amendment can come to the
legislation, which is part of this democratic process. I would say that if an
amendment were to come, we would consider an amendment. The other aspect of it
is officials listen intently to this debate and ideas that are brought up or
concerns that are brought up are often then later addressed through regulation.
That was brought up during the briefing that was supplied. It was brought up by
a couple of different Members, the fact that you can grow outside. According to
the way the legislation is written, you're absolutely correct.
Officials in my department have brought it to my attention that was one of the
concerns that was brought up that is going to have to be dealt with in
regulation. The intention is to deal with it in regulation. Whether or not we
prohibit somebody from growing in their backyard, the talk at this particular
point amongst officials is we may allow somebody to grow in their backyard, but
it would be have to be fenced and it would have to be secured. Things such as
that are what's being looked at.
Whether
we restrict it to just indoors or whether we allow it outdoors, the fact that
concern was raised – and it's a legitimate concern. It's the reason we have
these debates because officials are listening. Whether or not you have a
disagreement or whether all sides agree, there are very important issues brought
up. That is one of the issues that I believe is very important and absolutely
has to be dealt with.
CHAIR:
The hon. Member for Topsail -
Paradise.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I rise
at this point in time because my comment or my questions for the minister are
relevant to the topic that's taking place.
As an
Opposition we've been watching many different things. We haven't been able to
follow all of it because there's so much happening across the country right now
in legislatures, community groups, municipalities and police associations.
Chiefs of police are speaking out and laying their opinion and their thoughts on
the legalization of marijuana and how it's going to impact their relative
jurisdictions or the relative stakeholder groups that they represent. There's a
lot of that happening throughout the country.
There's
been some talk here in the House about how the Conservative Members of the
Senate have been holding up bills in the House. I referenced already this week
on Monday there was a clause-by-clause review of the bill in the Senate by the
Social Affairs committee. In the Senate and sitting on the Social Affairs
committee – I'm reading from The Canadian
Press article – is Senator Tony Dean who is an independent Member. He was
appointed under the Liberals but sits as an actual independent and the sponsor
of Bill C-45 in the Senate. They actually, on Monday, passed more than two dozen
amendments to the federal legislation.
I have a
couple of questions on it. First, I wonder if the minister can tell me if any of
these more than two dozen amendments that were passed by the committee, if they
were endorsed by the federal government what impact would that have on
provincial legislation?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you.
We
obviously have to abide by federal legislation as well. If there's something
that happens at a federal level that's inconsistent with our legislation, we
would have to bring amendments into our legislation or address it in regulation.
This is
a brand new area for all jurisdictions. I'm familiar with the work of the
Opposition and the work of the independent Member, as I sat in both Opposition
and as an independent Member. I think I was extended an invitation yesterday
during the hanging of the Speaker's portrait that I hadn't sat in all four
corners. I've yet to do that. It's something I'll take under advisement.
The
reality is there are no stupid questions. While Members here in the House may
disagree, I truly look forward to all comments and all points that are raised by
all Members of the House because it does make for better legislation. If any of
those amendments are deemed to be accepted by the federal government and put in
place we would have to abide by what the federal government sets out in any
event.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Minister.
You may
not know, but I'm wondering – I'm sure your officials are tracking what the
federal government is doing. This provincial bill has not been passed yet and
there's still an opportunity here today for amendments if they were needed.
Is there
anything in the recommendations of the Senate Committee that if they were
approved by Parliament that would cause us to have to come back and make changes
to the bill that we're actually debating here today? What they've recommended,
is there anything there in those more than two dozen amendments that would cause
us to have to change, or cause you to have to change the bill that is before the
House here today?
MR. OSBORNE:
Our officials are still
assessing that.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Sorry, Mr. Chair.
Our
officials are still assessing what's being talked about in the Senate. Even if
the Senate make recommendations, it still has to go back to the House of Commons
and then the House of Commons would – so it's premature for us here to expect
that they may or may not be accepted, but if they are accepted and they impact
our legislation we would have to come back, yes. We'd have to make changes to
our own legislation.
We're
trying to keep the legislation nimble enough that we can deal with some of these
issues in regulation but you can't leave it so nimble that – it still has to be
rigid enough that it's enforceable. So we're trying to deal with legislation and
keep it nimble enough to deal with in regulations.
What I
can assure the Member is if the federal government put in place legislation that
would cause our legislation to need to be changed, then we would have to come
back. If that's prior to legalization, we'd have to come back during the summer
at some point to make alterations to our legislation. It's a bit premature at
this stage because they've got a whole process. We're doing this while they're
doing that.
I didn't
pick the timelines that the federal government imposed on us. If I did, I
probably wouldn't even be here – well, I'd be here, but we wouldn't be debating
this particular piece of legislation today.
If we
need to change the legislation, we will come back to do that.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Minister. I
appreciate that. I'm sure it's like all of us, we're challenged right now to
keep up with everything that's moving. It's a shell game that's happening in
many jurisdictions where things are changing.
One of
the points the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands was talking about
cultivation, because one of the amendments is to allow provinces to ban
homegrown marijuana if they so decide. We know Quebec and Manitoba have already
decided to prohibit home cultivation even though the proposed amendment isn't
passed by Parliament. Of course, according to the article, the reference as well
could set up a legal challenge, which the federal Justice minister has commented
on as well.
If the
federal government accepts that, the provinces have the right to prohibit
homegrown cultivation, which was I think to the point the Member for Mount Pearl
- Southlands –
MR. OSBORNE:
I think it is set to
(inaudible).
MR. P. DAVIS:
No, what they turned down was an absolute ban. There was also a motion for an
absolute ban. There was a 7-5 vote to reject a proposal by Conservative Senator
Judith Seidman that would have imposed a blanket prohibition right across the
country.
What
they did pass was to give the provinces the right to prohibit. Quebec and
Manitoba have already done that. There's lots of evidence, reason and so on to
deny home cultivation. I don't know if you discussed it earlier, if you did, I
apologize. I think in one of the jurisdictions, the federal MP leading the bill
– the name escapes me – had talked about Colorado. In Colorado, one of the
mistakes they felt Colorado made was allowing cultivation, homegrown marijuana,
and they didn't want Canada to repeat that mistake.
Now what
the Senate is saying, is give provinces the right – and I think this is where my
colleague over here is coming from – is there are so many nuances. You're right
when you say that grow-ops occur today, but if we have legislation that says the
law-abiding people don't do this, it's not right – because most people abide by
the law. If you say you're only allowed to have 28 grams of marijuana on you at
any particular time, or that's all you can buy, people will abide by the law.
Most people won't be out scheming and trying to find ways to break those laws.
So, yes,
grow-ops are going to happen anyway. If we prohibit the homegrown plants, there
seems to be a safer route, at least at this point in time; and, as you said
yourself, you could change policy after.
My
question for you, Minister, has government given consideration to that? Is it
something you've weighed out, and maybe give us a little bit of background? How
did you reach that conclusion not to prohibit homegrown marijuana given in
regard to all the circumstances?
I've
heard what you said earlier about, well, there are rules. You can do contracts
with your – as landlord-tenant relationships, you can put those things in place.
It seems to me like following what Manitoba and Quebec have done, just to say:
at this point in time, we're not going to allow home growing of plants, would
seem to be maybe the safest approach.
I'd be
very interested to know what you've done as minister, what government has done
to make that consideration.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
I would say, while I'm not
disputing that most people are law-abiding because I would agree with that, but
I think in this day and age while cannabis is not legal there's a lot of people
that don't abide by that law. It's a pretty common drug or pretty common
substance in our society today, which I think is the reason the federal
government is looking at making it legal and taking away …
I know
one of the NDP Members, I believe the leader for the NDP mentioned yesterday or
the day before in debate, or actually I think it's the Member for Signal Hill -
Quidi Vidi, that some people's lives have been destroyed because they may have
had a very small quantity of cannabis on their person and got charged and now
have a criminal record. While most people are law-abiding, I think cannabis is a
socially accepted substance for the most part today and it's something we're
dealing with as a result in this legislation.
There
are only two provinces that have outright banned home cultivation so far. I'm
not saying I'm going to shut the door on it but I know that we as a government
have consulted widely on this. What we've got in place here, how we've arrived
at it is through the consultation that has been done and I think people's
acceptance of the fact or people's desire that they'd like to have a plant at
home should they so desire.
The
other aspect of it is the fact that we've mirrored what the federal government
has said they are going to allow, and that's four plants. If the Member opposite
wants to put an amendment before the House and we can debate an amendment on
that particular issue, I'm open to that. I'm not pretending for a moment to say
that I know all the answers on this because I don't, but we have mirrored the
federal legislation or the federal standards on this that it would be four
plants.
I think
there is a desire amongst part of the population for sure that they be allowed
to have a plant and cultivate it within their own residence.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Topsail - Paradise.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Minister.
And I
think it would be a good debate. That's a good idea and we've given
consideration to a number of amendments and, so far, we've chosen not to do that
but we may do that, and then that would be a good discussion to have tomorrow in
the House.
One of
the unanimously agreed-to amendments by the Social Affairs committee of the
Senate, and it was agreed to by all members – according to this article I'm
reading from, they all agreed that the House of Commons and the Senate be given
30 days to review regulations before they're implemented.
I think
it's a good thing to do. This is, in your own words, the most significant policy
change since Confederation, or words to that effect, that government has done,
the legislation, the Cannabis Control Act,
which is I think in total about 115 sections, and it very heavily refers to
regulation. So those people who don't really understand sometimes the
difference, or may not be aware of the difference, legislation is passed here in
the House of Assembly and regulation can be passed generally by the minister or
by Lieutenant-Governor in Council, which is the Cabinet.
There
are numerous areas in this legislation where it refers to regulation, so there
are a lot of unknowns for us as legislators who are here passing this. The
Senate committee on Monday unanimously passed one of their more than two dozen
amendments and agreed that the House of Commons and Senate should be given 30
days to review regulation before they're implemented.
I would
ask, Minister, would you commit to doing the same thing for Members of this
House of Assembly, being the first time we're bringing in a
Cannabis Control Act. I understand
from earlier comments that regulations are being drafted, but what I ask is
would you commit here today to provide 30 days' notice or opportunity for
Members of the House to review the regulations before they're implemented.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
I don't know if I can commit to that, and I'm not being facetious in any way
when I say that.
There's
a great deal of work had gone into this by officials, a great deal of
consultation has gone into this legislation. We're very close to June. Thirty
days would put us almost at July 1. We don't know the exact date of legalization
of cannabis in Canada; my guess is it won't be July 1, but it will be some time
this summer. If I were to commit to you today 30 days on regulations once
regulations are drafted, there's a very real possibility that that would put us
beyond the legalization date federally.
What I
can assure you is – I mean, I didn't draft this legislation, nor did the
Minister of Justice draft this legislation. This was done by officials who've
put a great deal of work and a great deal of effort into drafting this
legislation. Part of the reason the legislation refers to regulation here is
because we're trying to keep the legislation nimble enough that without having
to call the House back in the middle of the summer a year or two or three years
from now – if something happens in this brand new industry, in this brand new
product that we're dealing with as a result of the federal government legalizing
it, if something were to occur, such as a contest that we saw downtown and we
somehow need to deal with that and deal with it expeditiously, you've got the
ability through regulation.
I can
assure you that the officials within government, I believe, have done an
extraordinarily excellent job in putting this legislation together based on what
we know about this product to date, and based on the federal regulations and
trying to keep it nimble enough that if the federal government or the Senate
make changes and then it's brought back to the federal government and they make
changes, that we're able to act expeditiously enough that we can put it in place
by the date of legalization.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair, again.
I thank
the minister for his response and information. I agree, Minister. I know from my
own experience how much work and effort goes into trying to draft a bill,
especially a brand new piece of legislation like this, and there are times when
they do legislation whereby it's old legislation taken and made completely,
wholly new again, a whole new draft of essentially the same legislation with
numerous changes and then there's one which we quite often debate here in the
House, where there are small amendments; but still, even though the amendments
are small to us, I know officials have to review all the other legislations to
see what the impacts are on those very small changes, and I certainly appreciate
the work of those.
I was
talking to someone as I left here the other day. I think it was Monday night, we
were leaving around midnight, and there were a couple of public servants that
were walking out the same time and said it's late tonight. I said, yeah, you
know, I spent a lot of very, very early mornings coming into this building over
the last eight years and some very late nights leaving. I don't know if there's
ever a time that I was the first one in or the last one to leave. There are days
I've come to work at 5 or 5:30 in the morning and there are days I've gone home
at 1 or 2 o'clock in the morning and I bet you somewhere in this building, or
the West Block, there was someone in the public service that were still working
or in ahead of me. So I certainly appreciate the value of the public service.
To your
comments about the delay, Minister, if a Senate committee, the independent
members – and the article references two which were Liberal appointed – when
they agree to something, it suggests that quite potentially the Parliament may
be going to agree with what the Senate does. When there's a vote or voted down
or it's a narrow margin as the 7-5 vote, for example, for the blanket
prohibition on home growing of marijuana, when there's a 7-5 vote that would
indicate to you the government in power in Parliament may not be agreeable to
that particular motion and then the Senate supporting what they've discussed in
Cabinet and caucus.
However,
all of the senators in the committee agreed to these more than two dozen
recommendations, as I understand from this article. One of those is give the 30
days. If Parliament agrees to give senators and members of the House of Commons,
Members of Parliament, 30 days to review the regulations before they're
implemented, then that's going to delay the federal implementation anyway by 30
days.
I
appreciate your commentary that if you were to make that blanket commitment here
today or at least commit to say I will go back to the Cabinet and I will
advocate for that to be consistent with what the federal government is doing,
it's not going to push us beyond what the federal government is going to do
anyway.
MR. OSBORNE:
We don't know (inaudible.)
MR. P. DAVIS:
I certainly agree, Minister.
The minister has commented that we don't know if the House of Commons or
Parliament is going to agree to that amendment to provide 30 days, but my
suggestion is and what's suggested in the article when it refers to Independent
Senator Tony Dean, it says among committee members supporting the amendment was
independent Senator Tony Dean, a sponsor of the bill. And that suggests that the
amendment has the government's blessing. If that's what's happening there, then
there's a pretty good chance they may provide that 30-day window.
All I'm
asking for today is: Will you at least give consideration to that? It's new,
ground-breaking legislation for our province. We've asked probably more
questions on these four bills combined than any other four bills that ever came
to the House of Assembly before. I can tell you, Minister, in all sincerity,
we're listening to the public commentary. We're listening and reading emails
that we're receiving, the lineup in the coffee shop when you're talking to
constituents and citizens. You're meeting people or you get phone calls at our
office and asking questions about it. It's a significant change. To be clear
again, we've never said we're against it; we just want to make sure we
understand it. People want to understand what's going to happen, how it's going
to be implemented, what the rules of play are and so on.
Having a
bill that officials who drafted the legislation told us themselves, I think
their words were: Heavily driven by regulation or words to that effect – the
rules are going to be heavily driven by regulation. When we're asking questions
we say what's going to be in the regulations. That's going to be in the
regulation. Of course, they resisted answering my question if the regulations
were ready or not, which they would do anyway. They'd leave that to you to
answer.
I think
it was very important. This is so significant. I think there's been benefit here
today. You just recommended we bring forward an amendment to debate on a
question of home growing.
MR. OSBORNE:
I didn't recommend, but I said if you want to bring it forward.
MR. P. DAVIS:
We can bring it forward. To me it was a recommendation, so I appreciate the
recommendation.
We're
certainly going to consider that because we'll probably have debate continue on
until tomorrow. We'll certainly consider that. It may be something we do because
it's a matter that we've talked about here as a caucus. We've had landlords
contact us. People who have rental properties have spoken to me about it and
said what am I going to do? Someone is going to get a $100 fine because they
have plants growing. Or am I going to evict them because they have a plant
growing in their house that I don't want them to have. Or an outright ban seems
it would be and making it provincial legislation would be simpler, cleaner and
easier for landlords and property owners to manage.
Anyway,
the 30 days is something I'd ask you to consider, or at least ask you if you'd
bring it back to your Cabinet colleagues for consideration. At least give
consideration to say we'll see what Parliament does. If Parliament provides that
30-day notice, we should do the same thing for the House of Assembly.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you.
I will
clarify for the Member: I'm not going to suggest he was trying to put words in
my mouth, but just to make sure that everybody understands I didn't recommend
that he bring forward an amendment. I will say if he does bring forward an
amendment, we will gladly debate it and consider it.
On his
suggestion on the 30 days on the regulations, there are a couple of aspects here
that I will talk about. One of them is every single piece of legislation that we
pass in this Legislature has attached to it regulations. Those regulations don't
come back to the floor.
I'm not
suggesting that the Member's question doesn't have merit, but government can't
be handcuffed to say that we're going to bring all regulations back to the
floor. Every jurisdiction in Canada has regulations attached to the legislation
that they're bringing in on this particular legislation here, including the
federal government.
The
discussion, and the suggestion that was made by the Member, does have merit
because it is such a huge policy shift. What I will say is that I can't, in and
of myself, make that decision. I don't know logistically what that would mean. I
do know that if I committed to it today, it may put us beyond the time frame at
which point we'd be criticized for not being ready for the legalization date. I
can't commit to that today, but what I will say is that I will take his
suggestion under advisement.
CHAIR:
The hon. Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Chair, I move that the
Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
CHAIR:
The motion is that the
Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Shall
the motion carry?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against?
Carried.
On
motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, the
Speaker returned to the Chair.
MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):
The hon. the Member for
St. George's - Humber and Chair of the Committee of the Whole.
MR. REID:
Mr. Speaker, the Committee of
the Whole have considered matters to them referred and have directed me to
report progress and ask leave to sit again.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Chair of the Committee of
Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred
and have directed him to report progress and ask leave to sit again.
When
shall the report be received?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Now.
When
shall the Committee have leave to sit again?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, report received and adopted. Committee ordered to sit again on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, given where
we are in the day, I would suggest that we recess until 2 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER:
This House stands recessed
until 2 o'clock this afternoon.
Thank
you.
Recess
The
House met at 2 p.m.
MR.
SPEAKER (Trimper):
Order, please!
Admit
strangers.
There
are several guests today that I'd like to introduce to this House of Assembly.
In the Speaker's gallery today to my right I would like to welcome Lisa Browne,
CEO of Stella's Circle, and her parents Mary and Derm Browne. Ms. Browne is the
subject of a Member's statement this afternoon.
Welcome
to you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Also in the Speaker's
gallery, I would like to welcome and recognize Mr. Bernie Mercer who will be
referenced in a Member's statement today. Joining him are Major Lorne Pritchett,
Major Barb Pritchett, Rick Webber, Gord Wheadon, Vanessa Loveless and Claudette
Hillier.
Welcome
to you all.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
A very special welcome to a
young lady who is up here in the public gallery. I would like to welcome Sarah
Clarke. She will be the subject of a Member's statement this afternoon. Sarah is
accompanied by her mother, Ayla Tipple, and her stepmom, Kelsey Drover.
Welcome
to you all.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Also in the public gallery
for a Ministerial Statement today are members of the Association of Early
Childhood Educators. Joining us we have Helen Sinclair, Skye Taylor, Joanne
Morris, Jennifer Newman, Karina Lamontagne and Mary Walsh.
Welcome
to you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Et enfin, nous rejoignant
aujourd'hui dans la galérie publique il y a M. Gaël Corbineau. Il est avec la
Fédération des francophones de Terre-neuve et du Labrador. Il est ici au sujet
de la célébration de la journée provinciale de la francophonie.
Bienvenu, Monsieur.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
Statements by
Members
MR. SPEAKER:
For Members' statements today
we will hear from the Members for the Districts of Stephenville - Port au Port –
or may I say Port au Port today – Mount Pearl - Southlands, St. John's East -
Quidi Vidi, Topsail - Paradise and Harbour Grace - Port de Grave.
The hon.
the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.
MR. FINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Monsieur
le président, c'est un grand plaisir pour moi de prononcer ces quelques mots à
l'occasion de la journée provinciale de la francophonie à Terre-neuve et
Labrador et de reconnaître les finissants de l'École Sainte-Anne.
Located
in the historic francophone community of Mainland (La Grand'Terre) on the Port
au Port Peninsula, École Sainte-Anne is one of six all-French schools in
Newfoundland and Labrador. On May 18 I attended the school's graduation ceremony
that saw 12 graduates celebrate with their families, school staff and community.
Of the 12 graduates, three in particular were recent recipients of significant
scholarships to the University of Moncton.
Oneisha
Félix has been awarded the Bourse d'excellence académique which is valued at
$4000. Sydney Benoît was awarded the Bourse d'excellence Roméo-Leblanc with an
approximate value of $24,000. Harrison Vallis has been awarded multiple
scholarships: the Bourse d'excellence académique de l'Université de Moncton, the
Bourse Gilbert-et-Jeannine Finn/Assomption Vie and the Harrison McCain
Scholarship – the latter only being presented to five students in all of Canada.
The total value of scholarships for Harrison is just over $26,000.
Monsieur
le president, je demande à tous les membres de la Chambre de l'assemblée de se
joindre à moi pour féliciter les récipiendaires des bourses et aussi tous les
finissants de l'École Sainte-Anne.
Bravo et
felicitations.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Mr. Speaker, last Thursday
evening I had the pleasure of attending the 4507 Mount Pearl CLB's Annual Awards
Banquet. The CLB was first established in Mount Pearl on January 18, 1956, as
part of the 911 St. Mary's CLB Company. It remained that way until 1964 when it
became a company of its own and was given the number 4507, operating out of the
Church of England located just off Park Avenue on what is now Jubilee Place.
Since its inception, this group has been providing tremendous opportunities for
physical, mental and spiritual growth for young people in my community,
regardless of religious affiliation.
Thank
you to the officers, the parent volunteers and the parishioners of the Parish of
the Ascension for their support of this group. A big congratulations to last
week's award winners including LTC Outstanding Achievement recipients, Madison
Caul and Luke Crews; Most Improved Cadet, Jeremy Newell; Best YTC, Ryan
Snelgrove; Best JTC, Logan Crews; Best NCO, Jacob Sampson; the Sergeant Paul
Maybe Scholarship recipient, Steven Wiseman; the Cannon I. Sheppard Christian
Soldier Award recipients, Amber Dawe and Shelby Caul; and Best Overall Cadet,
Jessica Hollahan.
I ask
all Members of this hon. House to join me in congratulating the Mount Pearl CLB
on 62 years of supporting youth in my community and wish them many more
successes in the years to come.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Member for the
District of St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I'm
delighted to recognize Lisa Browne, chief executive officer of Stella's Circle,
whom Atlantic Business Magazine has
recognized as one of the Top 50 CEOs for two years in a row.
Stella's
Circle provides services to adults who face many barriers to fully participating
in their community, including everything from mental health challenges,
homelessness, criminal justice involvement and long periods of unemployment.
Lisa
joined Stella's Circle in 2015, having spent nearly a decade managing multiple
portfolios as a director with Eastern Health. She has served on boards including
for The Rooms, the Community Foundation of NL and Memorial University. She is
also an associate with the Harris Centre, and serves on the board for Food First
NL.
Lisa's
recognition is a tribute to her commitment to social justice and community
advocacy, which are at the heart of the social enterprises of Stella's Circle.
I ask
all hon. Members to join me in congratulating Lisa Browne, one of the top CEOs
in Atlantic Canada again this year.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Topsail - Paradise.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, recently my colleague from Conception Bay South and I attended a
heartwarming event. On May 9, Louise and Bernie Mercer from my district, Topsail
- Paradise, held a food drive again this year in Conception Bay South to honour
their two late children's birthdays. Alex and Riley Mercer shared the same birth
date, though years apart, and both were lost to brain cancer – Alex when she was
still in elementary school, and Riley as a teenager.
Both
parents wanted to do something special for their birthdays and also wanted it to
be a community event; thus, three years ago S.O.A.R – Spirit of Alex and Riley –
began. The food drive, headquartered every year at the Salvation Army church in
Long Pond has been embraced by residents as a way to honour the Mercer family's
courage and grace, and to help them give back to the community by supporting the
efforts of the food bank, which has a growing list of people dependent upon it.
This
year's food drive was the most successful food drive to date, and the Mercers,
their family members, their friends, the CBS Salvation Army congregation members
and volunteers were all smiles as the food donations poured in. It is estimated
this year S.O.A.R raised enough food to feed 275 families for a full month.
Bernie and Louise said that as long as there's a need in the community, the food
blitz will continue as their way of thanking a community that has always reached
out to them to help them in their time of need.
So, Mr.
Speaker, I ask all hon. colleagues to join me in congratulating and thanking
Louise and Bernie Mercer for once again giving back.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
And now Sarah, this one is
for you.
The hon.
the Member for Harbour Grace - Port de Grave.
MS. P. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would
like to welcome my young, courageous constituent, 12-year-old Sarah Clarke of
Bay Roberts, who lives with quadriplegic cerebral palsy and epilepsy. She was
also born with congenital cataracts. Her health conditions, Mr. Speaker, leave
her with very little mobility. Sarah has undergone many surgeries and procedures
over the years – much more than many people would undergo in a lifetime – but in
spite of all of this, Sarah is determined and is an extremely positive person.
This special little girl is known for her beautiful smile. Although life is a
challenge for her every day, her family members say she is sassy, funny, enjoys
playing ball and loves listening to Tina Turner.
Currently the family depends on a wheelchair van, which is getting old and in
need of repair. Family has come together to organize fundraising events for a
new, specialized van and a walker, as keeping Sarah moving will certainly
contribute to her quality of life. Sarah has also so much support from family,
friends and the community. Although she wages a war against her little body
every day, they say she has the courage of a true warrior.
Sarah,
in the words of your favourite singer: “You're simply the best!”
Colleagues, please join me in recognizing Sarah.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Statements by Ministers.
Statements by
Ministers
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Advanced Education, Skills and Labour and also the Minister of Education and
Early Childhood Development.
MR. HAWKINS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to recognize May 27 to June 2 as Provincial Early
Childhood Educators' Week. It was a pleasure to join members of the Association
of Early Childhood Educators of Newfoundland and Labrador earlier today to sign
the official proclamation.
The
Association of Early Childhood Educators of Newfoundland and Labrador represents
approximately 2,200 certified early childhood educators working in child care
centres, family child care homes, family resource centres, educational
institutions, businesses and not-for-profit organizations throughout the
province. Early childhood educators provide developmentally appropriate
education and care to children from birth to age 12.
For many
families, access to high-quality, affordable child care is a necessity. That is
why this government entered into a three-year, bilateral agreement with the
Government of Canada, reaffirming our commitment and support to the unique early
learning and child care needs of Newfoundland and Labrador. This agreement
allocates just over $22 million, over three years for early learning and child
care investments across the province.
The
funding supports existing programs and will be used to implement innovative
approaches to enhance the early learning and child care system. In particular,
there is funding allocated to support early childhood educators through
bursaries for those who wish to complete upgrading; a grant for early childhood
education diploma graduates and enhanced professional learning opportunities.
I ask
all hon. Members to join me in thanking members of the Association of Early
Childhood Educators of Newfoundland and Labrador for their expertise, and
celebrate the crucial role our early childhood educators play in the lives of
our children.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the hon. Member for an advance copy of his statement. This side of the House is
pleased to recognize May 27 to June 2 as Early Childhood Educators' Week.
Affordable and accessible child care is imperative to a highly functioning
society. In this province, one particular barrier to population growth will be
access to affordable child care. The former government made great strides in
this area, and I encourage the present government to concentrate their efforts
on removing such barriers.
We
salute these educators for their hard work and dedication; the influence that
these 2,200 individuals have on the formative minds of our youth is invaluable.
We thank
them for their contributions.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I, too,
thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. I join him in thanking
members of the association for the wonderful work they do. I'm glad the new
bilateral funding will help some of them upgrade their ECE certification. But I
would point out to the minister that although the new subsidy funding reaches
more parents, it still helps only a small number. What we require is a public,
affordable, accessible and quality child care program.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further statements by
ministers?
L'honorable le ministre responsable des affaires francophones.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
in this hon. House to recognize today as Provincial Francophonie Day. The
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has celebrated this occasion since 1999.
Ce matin
j'ai été très heureux de participer à un évènement organisé par la Fédération
des francophones de Terre-neuve et du Labrador, ici à l'édifice de la
Conféderation. J'ai eu l'honneur de me joindre aux élèves de l'École des
Grands-Vents et de l'École Rocher-du-Nord et aux membres de la communauté. Des
activités similaires se déroulent aujourd'hui sur la péninsule de Port au Port
et au Labrador.
Mr.
Speaker, I have been working closely with the Office of French Services and the
Francophone Federation as we identify ways for government to better serve the
needs of the francophone communities.
En
décembre le gouvernement provincial a renouvelé une entente sur la francophonie
avec le Québec, qui va tirer profit des parteneriats solides créé entre les deux
gouvernements et les communautés francophones.
Mr.
Speaker, in March I travelled to Cape St. George with the local MHA where we
attended a public speaking competition with children from École
Notre-Dame-du-Cap. It was truly a wonderful sight to see these children speaking
French with such pride and confidence. This is a sign of a bright future.
Today I
ask all hon. Members to join me in congratulating the Francophone and Acadian
communities of Newfoundland and Labrador on this Provincial Francophonie Day.
Thank
you. Merci.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Mount Pearl North.
MR. LESTER:
I thank the Minister for an
advance copy of his statement.
Monsieur
le président, nos membres d'Opposition eux aussi soutiennent le gouvernement en
soulignant la Journée provinciale de la francophonie. Ce jour est très important
pour notre histoire et avenir. Dans les jours d'éxploration pendant la moitié de
la dernière millénaire il y plusieurs fois que l'île de Terre-neuve est presque
devenue un territoire français.
L'anglais et le français ont pensé que qui la contrôlait, ils vont contrôler
l'Amérique du nord. Lorsque il y a une grande présence de français dans tout nos
provinces. Ce jour est une opportunité de célébrer la responsabilité de notre
pays et province de célébrer le bilinguisme et aussi de célébrer le droit de
chaque citoyen d'obtenir les services dans la langue de leur choix.
Ainsi,
j'encourage tout le monde de célébrer la Journée de la francophonie.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Member for the
District of St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Merci, monsieur le president.
I also
thank the Minister for the advance copy of his statement.
C'est un
plaisir vraiment pour moi de reconnaître avec le ministre, le développement et
la présence la plus grande de la langue française et la culture francophone dans
notre province.
For too
long, the presence of the Francophones was a deep, dark secret, but the
Francophone and Acadian communities have been at the core of who we are.
Je dis
félicitations tout le monde.
Merci,
monsieur le président.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Further
statements by ministers?
Oral
Questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In
November 2017 the Finance Minister stated that all agencies, boards and
commissions would have to cut costs and find savings, and that he would be
bringing the legislation to force them to do so.
I ask
the minister: What is the status of this legislation?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
At the
time we'd also indicated that there was a desire to work with these agencies,
boards and commissions. Up to that point, the co-operation wasn't as
forthcoming.
But we
have had conversations with Nalcor and Memorial University, Mr. Speaker. We've
developed a working relationship with them on some of the issues that were
outstanding. I'm pleased to say the dialogue is progressing well, Mr. Speaker. I
think we're making progress on many of the issues that we had concerns with.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
On
November 14, 2017, the minister said and I quote: “We can't simply just ask and
hope they deliver. We need to ensure we get our spending under control. This
legislation will be brought in.”
When
will you live up to your promise and implement legislation restricting the
spending at MUN, Nalcor and other agencies, boards and commissions?
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of Finance and
President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Mr. Speaker, we are working
with our agencies, boards and commissions. I indicated just yesterday that we
had made a request to Nalcor that, on a go-forward basis, any hiring they would
put it in line with government, the wages based on the same job evaluation, as
close as they could get to government.
We're
bringing in the legislation. Both pieces of legislation are currently before the
House on wage freezes, severance and post-retirement benefits for our agencies,
boards and commissions. We've also seen, Mr. Speaker, greater attrition efforts
within our agencies, boards and commissions. I would say we're getting there.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The leader of the Official
Opposition.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
legislation the minister brought in this week regarding salary restraints does
not apply to MUN or Nalcor. Instead, the minister said: “We've asked them to
follow the same framework. It's certainly our hope that they do.”
Minister, you yourself said six months ago that just asking was not enough. How
do you expect the ABCs to find savings when you are giving them mixed messages?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
With or
without other legislation regarding Memorial University and Nalcor, I'm asking
the Member opposite: Is he suggesting that we throw out the window a fair
bargaining practice? Memorial University is responsible for bargaining with
their own bargaining units and Nalcor is responsible for bargaining with their
own bargaining units.
We, as a
government, bargain for all of our agencies, boards and commissions other than
these two. Are you suggesting that we throw fair bargaining practices out the
window for Memorial and Nalcor?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The leader of the Official
Opposition.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
What I'm
suggesting is that you made a commitment to get your spending under control. One
of the commitments was around bringing legislation that would ensure everybody –
agencies, boards and commissions – would also do their part to ensure that. You
haven't done that to this point.
In
Estimates, the minister said that Nalcor was directed to keep costs as low as
possible, but she also said that the core budget is flat when compared to last
year. In fact, after Nalcor cut $20 million from the Seismic Program government
put it back.
I ask
the minister: How can Nalcor be reducing their spending?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to
answer this question. Nalcor, over the last number of years, has been requested
to cut its spending. Ever since we came into office at the end of 2015 we've
been working with Nalcor to ensure they keep their costs under control,
something the Members opposite certainly didn't do.
Mr.
Speaker, we put in place in early 2016 a directive to Nalcor to ensure the
non-unionized executive did not receive increases, similar to what government
today is seeing; zero per cent increases. They do get their steps. We have made
sure that Nalcor has, over the last number of years, reduced their expenditures.
This year we kept expenditures very, very low, especially in a transition year
to electrification.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The leader of the Official
Opposition.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We
haven't seen any indications of changes or cuts, particularly when they did cut
$20 million and the government gave it back to them. That doesn't do anything
here to keep our fiscal responsibilities intact.
Yesterday, the Minister of Health stated he found out through the media about
the retraction of a job for a radiologist who received a $50,000 government
bursary. The minister said he had directed Eastern Health to provide him with
the details.
Can the
minister now inform the House on why the job offer to fill a critical radiology
position was cancelled?
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of Health and
Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I have,
as was mentioned in the House yesterday, directed Eastern Health to provide me
with that input. I have as yet not received it. The clock is ticking and I
expect to hear soon. Once I do, I will get back to them.
This
Bursary Program has given out 60 bursaries in the last four years and this is
the first occasion of someone not showing up, Mr. Speaker.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The leader of the Official
Opposition.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
minister called the job cancellation a hiccup.
I ask
the minister: What decision-making process led to the cancellation of a
negotiated radiology position?
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of Health and
Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
As I
said yesterday, this is an unfortunate situation. As I have just said and said
yesterday, I have directed Eastern Health to provide me with the background and
information on how that decision was reached and the circumstances around it.
Once I have it, I will share it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The leader of the Official
Opposition.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
There
are indications that the doctor was penalized for activities he did outside of
his work.
Does the
minister feel it was appropriate for a doctor to be penalized and his job offer
retracted because he chose to obtain a pilot's licence on his own time?
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of Health and
Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
It is
not appropriate for me to go into specifics in this situation, nor do I have
them. I have said, quite clearly, that I have directed Eastern Health and I
expect their report on this decision-making process very shortly.
Mr.
Speaker, we have 22 bursary programs in this province. This is the first
incident in four years where a physician has not delivered and not turned up in
response to a bursary. I will get to the bottom of it. When I do, I will inform
the House.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. LESTER:
Mr. Speaker, we are less than
a month and a half away from when the summer winds from the West will be able to
carry insect infestation to our province.
I ask
the minister: Have there been any public consultations on spray programs to
control this possible insect infestation?
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of Fisheries and
Land Resources.
MR. BYRNE:
Mr. Speaker, I think the word
“possible” is the key word there from the hon. Member's question. There has been
no infestation; there has been no indication of exactly where a possible
infestation may occur. It's difficult to conduct a consultation on a
hypothetical.
We are
always engaged with our forest sector. We are in constant communication with our
forest operators, our saw millers and our pulp and paper company. Those that
have an interest in this, including our scientific community, will always be
engaged with them.
We're
monitoring the situation very carefully because, as the hon. Member points out,
this is a serious circumstance. There is the potential possibility of an insect
infestation and we need to be very vigilant about that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. LESTER:
The most important thing
about insect control and mitigating damage is getting it as soon as it shows up.
We want to prevent those insects from repopulating.
In the
minister's response he mentioned individuals in industry, the paper companies
and scientific, but he left out one very important segment of the province and
that's the people whose communities will be adjacent to possible spray programs.
Will the
government be proactive in arranging some public consultations and engagement,
unlike what was experienced with forest management by the residents of Port
Blandford?
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of Fisheries and
Land Resources.
MR. BYRNE:
Mr. Speaker, if we were to take the model of the environmental assessment
process where we hold public meetings wherever there's a change in the
management plan – which was conducted in the Port Blandford where the Town of
Port Blandford examined the plan and signed off on the plan after making
recommendations for change to the plan. Yes, we will probably follow exactly
that same process, if and when there is any indication that there is a
significant insect infestation.
Mr.
Speaker, one of the best things to do is to continue to scientifically monitor
insect populations, expansion of insect populations to determine if there's an
actual infestation. To conduct a hypothetical consultation before there is any
infestation whatsoever of any serious magnitude, could potentially be considered
by the hon. Member – should we have done that – as a waste of very valuable
resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. LESTER:
Proactivity is obviously not
part of their mandate.
Mr.
Speaker, the salmon season normally opens June 1. Are we waiting for a makeup
and photo-op session between the provincial and federal friends?
I ask
the minister: When will the salmon season open this year?
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of Fisheries and
Land Resources.
MR. BYRNE:
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the passive-aggressive nature of the question. I do
anticipate that it was done to seek answers on the floor of the House as to
exactly what the status is of the salmon angling season for 2018.
This is
a very serious issue, one we are seized with. We are working with the federal
government. We're very disappointed with some of the actions and decisions of
the federal government. We feel as though not only should the angling season be
in full start for June 1, but we should know exactly when the cod food fishery
should start.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. BYRNE:
The federal government has not provided any of us with any of that information.
What I can tell the hon. Member is we are now struggling to do in 12 days what
has been normally the case that we would have 120 days to deliver licences. The
federal government's decisions have forced us to do that in a 12 (inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Member for Mount Pearl
North.
MR. LESTER:
I still didn't really get a
clear date but, once again, I'd like to point out how beneficial our friendship
with the feds has done us again.
What
impact will the changes to the salmon regulations have upon outfitting
operations and the province's tourism industry as a whole? This is directed to
the Minister of Tourism.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of Fisheries and
Land Resources.
MR. BYRNE:
Mr. Speaker, our tourism
industry, our salmon industry – let's be very clear. We recognize that not only
is it an industry which nets over $30 million in direct benefits to the
province, but in indirect benefits of $120 million. It's important to conserve
but it's also important to encourage both the tourism sector, our outfitters
and, as well, our domestic anglers, because a lot of that benefit comes from
activity from our domestic anglers.
We
appreciate and we are supporting. We put forward recommendations to the federal
government to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to protect our outfitters,
to encourage our outfitters' continued prosperity. Unfortunately, the federal
government did not accept that advice. We also brought forward advice to
encourage, respect and protect our recreational domestic anglers.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The
Member for Mount Pearl North.
MR. LESTER:
I really wonder does the
federal government listen to our advice at all. Outfitters are reporting the
fallout has already begun with many customers cancelling their annual angling
trips.
I ask
the Minister of Tourism: What analysis and consultation has been conducted by
your department to assess the impact on outfitters and other related operations
in response to these cancellations?
MR. SPEAKER:
The Member for Fisheries and
Land Resources.
MR. BYRNE:
Mr. Speaker, the best action
that can be taken is to encourage the federal government to reconsider some of
its own decisions related to the 2018 recreational wild Atlantic salmon angling
plan. We brought forward recommendations that would have respected, protected
and enhanced those opportunities for outfitters; however, that advice was not
accepted.
At this
point in time, we are working as fast as we possibly can, within the limits that
were imposed upon us by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, to get those
licences out, to get activity by not only our outfitters, but by our own
recreational anglers here at home.
Mr.
Speaker, this is a very, very serious – serious – priority that we're taking
action on.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Member for the
District of
Topsail - Paradise.
MR.
P. DAVIS:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, as we sit in this hon. House here this
afternoon we can hear the winds swirling from above.
I ask the minister if he can provide an update on roads
infrastructure and services as a result of this spring winter rain and windstorm
that's being experienced in parts of our province today.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
Minister of Transportation and Works.
MR.
CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the hon. Member for the question. Mr. Speaker,
late yesterday afternoon or early yesterday when we saw what the forecast was
going to behold – because as the Member opposite alluded to in Central
Newfoundland, I think on the Baie Verte Peninsula this morning we were plowing
snow and here on the East Coast we've been sustaining high winds and rain.
From the Transportation and Works side of this, our
crews, our supervisors were out at 5 this morning. Our regular crews came in at
7 a.m. There is some
light-to-moderate damage on some areas of the Avalon; we're continuing to
monitor that, Mr. Speaker. We'll have more information as the day goes forward.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The
Member for Topsail - Paradise.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I've
received reports of some damage in municipalities in the area, flooding and some
rain damage, those types of things that have happened today. I also understand
there may have been some damage done here at this building.
I ask
the minister if he can update us on what he knows so far pertaining to any
infrastructure damage, provincial government infrastructure damage. Have any
been reported as a result of the wind and rain here today?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Minister of
Transportation and Works.
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I thank
the hon. Member for the question. As of the time I came to the House this
afternoon, I haven't been made aware of any specific damages. I know we do have
a circumstance in Lower Island Cove, Mr. Speaker, where we have a road flooded
out and a short-term closure.
Our
staff in Transportation and Works are certainly monitoring the situation, as I'm
assured are the staff in Municipal Affairs and Environment.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Member for Cape St.
Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
The
Minister of Service NL announced that as of April 30 the Motor Registration
Division would no longer be sending out reminders in the mail for renewal for a
driver licence and registration. There was very little notice and no
advertising.
Minister, why aren't you doing more to inform the public about this significant
policy shift?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Minister of Service
NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This
gives me an opportunity to let the House know actual initiative that we're
putting forward will save $460,000 a year, Mr. Speaker.
I
actually have a lengthy list here of things that we did to inform the public and
to inform individuals. Mr. Speaker, one of the things that we did was we reached
out to 50-plus service clubs so we could ensure that seniors were aware of this
change.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Member for Cape St.
Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I spoke
to a 75-year-old lady. She has no access to email.
Why are
we giving people with no access to email no notification about their driver
licence before renewal?
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Mr. Speaker, on everyone's
licence it says the expiry date so individuals are aware of when their licence
expires.
We have
reached out through numerous ways: posters were distributed, shareables went out
and we reached out to seniors groups. There have been a number of things, Mr.
Speaker, this government did to address and to inform people of the change.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Member for Cape St.
Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Government is asking people
to register an email address to receive notification. When asked in Estimates
about individuals who do not have access to computers or emails, the suggestions
were made to use a trusted friend, to take a note and put it on a calendar or
take a picture of your driver's licence and put it on your fridge.
Does the
minister support sticking a driver's licence picture on your fridge for 10
years?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I do
support saving $460,000 a year, Mr. Speaker, and I also support the fact that on
every adult's driver's licence it says the expiry date. We are adults, Mr.
Speaker, that's informed and it's on their driver's licence. There's
notification of when your licence is going to expire.
Mr.
Speaker, we're also adopting the process of individuals can use a trusted
friend's email address, if you wish, to inform your daughter, your son, your
husband, if they have email access. There are numerous ways.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, people in the
province have been accustomed for years and years of getting notification and
with very little notice and no public advertising whatsoever this is coming
through.
Under
the Highway Traffic Act, Minister,
it's your responsible for road safety.
Minister, are you concerned about the abrupt and largely unpublicized policy
change as a result of this? Will this cause more uninsured drivers or more
unregistered drivers and unlicensed drivers on our highway?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Mr. Speaker, the last mail
out that went out in April reached 50,000 people. As I said, Mr. Speaker, the
expiry date is on your licence, and this does save $460,000 a year.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In the
Finance Estimates and in Natural Resources Estimates, we asked what the impact
on Holyrood would be when the Liberal carbon tax is due to be paid. No one could
give us an answer. Finance even directed us to Municipal Affairs and
Environment.
So I ask
the minister responsible for Environment: Do you know how much the Holyrood
Generating Station will have to pay in carbon taxes?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister
Responsible for the Office of Climate Change.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you.
As the
Member opposite knows, the climate change and carbon tax is something that we
have not implemented yet. We all recognize that climate change is real and the
federal government has dictated that we need to make changes, and that all
provinces must implement a plan or else the federal plan will be implemented,
which I would remind everybody does not deal with every province's unique
circumstances.
What I
can say is the plan that we make, as a government, will be in the best interest
of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and will consider the various interests
that we have, such as our offshore, such as our fishery. Anything that we're
going to do is going to be in the best interests of Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I ask
the minister: Has your department done an assessment on the impact of the carbon
tax on the Holyrood Generating Station?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister
Responsible for the Office of Climate Change.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I look forward to the
opportunity, when the time comes, to debate an amendment that we will make to
our Greenhouse Gas Act. That's
something we're going to deal with. Again, there may be changes that we have to
make dealing with the fact that we do have to look at Holyrood. That's one of
the issues that we have. We have a number of industrial emitters who will be a
part of this.
One
thing I can say is that the changes that we have made in the past in this House
have dealt with the fact that we have to deal with large-scale emitters. Going
forward, when it comes time for the carbon tax, which we'll have no choice but
to implement, due to the fact that the federal government will come in and
implement their own, which will not always be in our best interest.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Premier,
we have now asked three departments dealing with the carbon tax file and no one
could tell us how much Holyrood will have to pay for the $10 per ton carbon tax.
Can you
tell us who will pay the carbon tax?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
First of
all, let's talk about carbon pricing, where this all began. This goes back to a
number of years ago. Targets were set by their friend, Mr. Harper. As a matter
of fact, their current leader of the party felt so much and strongly about Mr.
Harper, he wanted to run for him. So it was Mr. Harper who set the current
carbon targets in place for Newfoundland and Labrador and for all of Canada, I
would say, Mr. Speaker.
In 2015,
195 countries in the world gathered and set in price what climate change targets
would look like. Harper already had those implemented. It was the federal
Liberal government that actually continued on with those targets. So carbon
pricing for all provinces, as the ministers have already said, would be
backstopped if we do not put in our own hybrid pricing for this province.
I will
say, Mr. Speaker, we are not going to put our province in an uncompetitive
environment with any other jurisdiction. We are working very closely with the
federal government. We want to be able to use the money from carbon pricing for
the discretion of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I say to
the Premier, maybe you should stand up for the people of this province.
How much
in emissions does Holyrood produce each year?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker, I will tell you
about standing up for the people of this province. I can tell you now that if it
was my choice in 2012, we would not be sanctioning the biggest tax in the
history of this province. That was what they did without talking to people in
this province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
PREMIER BALL:
We call that Muskrat Falls.
We call that doubling of electricity rates.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
PREMIER BALL:
Why will you not accept responsibility for your actions in 2012 for doubling
electricity rates, while today you sit in this House and complain about federal
initiatives, Mr. Speaker, when you can take the responsibility for your own
decisions in 2012?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I remind
all Members I will not tolerate interruptions.
The hon.
the Member for Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
Premier might want to look around his own Cabinet table and his caucus, a lot of
supporters of Muskrat over there, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. PETTEN:
A lot over there.
The
Liberal price on carbon will be $10 per ton. That means Holyrood will have to
pay $13 million each year. That's based on 2016 emissions.
I ask
the minister, or the Premier, or somebody: Will Nalcor pay this cost or will it
be passed on to ratepayers?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
certainly happy to speak about this. The reality is that every province will
have to bring in their own carbon tax and climate change plan because it's being
implemented by the federal government. We have until September to come up with
that plan. If we do not, come January 1, we will be forced into a federal plan
that will then be in place for, I believe, three years.
What I
can guarantee you is we are going to do what is in the best interests of
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, considering the fact that we have unique
circumstances. We do have large-scale emitters. We do have an offshore industry.
We do have a vibrant fishery. We need to take steps to make sure that we protect
these industries as we move forward.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South, for a very short question, please.
MR. PETTEN:
Has the minister directed
Nalcor to do an assessment of what Holyrood emission levels would be in each
year for the next five years?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources for a very short response, please.
MS. COADY:
Mr. Speaker, I would have
hoped that the Member opposite knew a little bit more about our electricity
system than what he's portraying here today. Mr. Speaker, clearly he doesn't
understand about the Public Utilities Board. It's been in place since 1949 –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
No
interruptions.
MS. COADY:
They circumvented the Public
Utilities Board on a regular basis. The Public Utilities Board is tasked with
keeping rates as low as possible – as low as possible – what is just and what is
reasonable and that will be their task.
As we
move forward, Mr. Speaker, we'll continue to listen to the wise people of the
Public Utilities Board.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Leader of the Third Party.
MS. ROGERS:
Mr. Speaker, speaking of
circumventing, yesterday the Minister of TCII introduced legislation to
establish the innovation and Business Investment Corporation. The Office of the
Information and Privacy Commissioner was given less than one working day to
review the new legislation. The Commissioner raised serious concerns regarding
section 21 addressing so-called commercially sensitive information and saying
their section can rarely, if ever, be justified.
I ask
the minister: Why is he ignoring the expertise of the Privacy Commissioner who
says section 21 is an unnecessary encroachment on transparency and
accountability, and given this commercially sensitive information is already
protected by the ATIPP Act.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm very
proud of the business, innovation and growth act that we passed in the House of Assembly that is actually taking the
former Research & Development Corporation, the
Research and Development Council Act and the
Business Investment Corporation Act and blending the two to form
this act. It was something that is going to streamline the process and improve
innovation in Newfoundland and Labrador.
When the
Clyde Wells report was done in 2015, it had highlighted at that time that the
ATIPP provision for the Research & Development Corporation should be retained.
It was endorsed by all Members, the Clyde Wells report, Doug Letto and the
former privacy commissioner of Canada was on that report and they endorsed the
report. Every Members of this House of Assembly (inaudible) –
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
MS. ROGERS:
Mr. Speaker, the minister has
completely ignored the expertise of the Privacy Commissioner. The Commissioner
says the new corporation must be transparent in its operations and expenditures,
particularly concerning the spending of taxpayers' dollars. The Commissioner's
letter is right here.
I ask the minister: Will he do the right thing and reintroduce the legislation
to address the Commissioner's serious concerns about this unnecessary
encroachment on transparency and accountability?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Mr. Speaker, in the debate in
second reading, I clearly explained how the new act is more open and
transparent, that there are initiatives that are being taken when it comes to
making sure that public disclosure would take place when it comes to business
investments. There is still the three-part harms test when you're dealing with
commercially sensitive information.
The
ATIPP provision that exists in the act of Bill 26 is a more narrow scope than
what existed in the former Research and
Development Council Act, which was when the review of Bill 29 and the whole
review of access to information and privacy protection was done by Clyde Wells
and his team. They endorsed keeping this recommendation.
We've
narrowed it, but every Member in this House of Assembly voted for that
provision.
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 very much, Mr.
Speaker.
The
minister had more than ample time, along with his officials, to prepare this
bill.
I ask
the minister: Why did he give the OIPC, our experts, less than one working day
to review his legislation?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Mr. Speaker, when it comes to
the provisions of our business, innovation and growth act, we have developed a
very good piece of legislation that allows us to deal with the start-up, to
commercialization, to market, to internationalization to provide the full
continuum of supports when it comes to innovation and business growth to make
strategic investments in Newfoundland and Labrador.
The
chair of our Innovation Council has cited that this is very important to keep
the ATIPP provision, which is more narrow. The vice-chair, Jackie Walsh, who's
an IP lawyer, has stated that it's important to have and protect commercially
sensitive, innovative aspects when it comes to things that are in the R & D
scope. Only that provision, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Member for St.
John's East - Quidi Vidi for a quick question, please.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I ask
the minister if he's ignoring the expert advice of the OIPC and including
section 21 in your act so he can keep his actions completely secret.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of Tourism,
Culture, Industry and Innovation for a quick response, please.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
certainly respect any opinions of the Office of the Information and Privacy
Commissioner. But when it comes to the provision of the confines of R & D and
things that could cause harm to a company, that information must be protected
and should be protected.
It's not
me just saying that, Mr. Speaker, the chair of the Innovation Council, Mark
Dobbin, the vice-chair, Clyde Wells in his report and all Members of the House
of Assembly that agreed with the revisions of Bill 29 who voted for it, endorsed
it. I don't know why the Member opposite disagrees.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Time for Oral Questions has
ended.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Tabling
of Documents.
Notices
of Motion.
Answers
to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Petitions.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
To the
House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament
assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and
Labrador humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS
class sizes, adequate school space and healthy socialization is essential to our
students receiving the best quality education; and
WHEREAS
students, such as St. Francis of Assisi, are without cafeteria space and
students do not have the opportunity to move about during the day; and
WHEREAS
schools in Newfoundland and Labrador have some of the largest cap sizes and some
of the lowest rates of literacy; and
WHEREAS
the education system in our province must be designed to ensure that each child
has the ability to reach his or her full potential;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to take action in our education system and ensure
smaller class sizes and provide sufficient personal space per child to allow for
a high quality of education. Take action to address issues in schools such as
St. Francis of Assisi which are without adequate space and are using combined
classes, and ensure that students have a high standard of education in a quality
learning environment.
And as
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr.
Speaker, this is the third time I presented this petition in the House of
Assembly. It's very important to the constituents in my district and I say it's
very important to all parents and students in our province, along with teachers.
Mr.
Speaker, in the 2016 budget cap sizes were increased. We are among the highest
cap sizes in Canada when it comes to the number of students in our classrooms.
It's important that our teachers are able to do their jobs the best they can.
The less number of students in a class obviously means a bit more one-on-one. It
means that students who really do need that little extra will get it. When we're
talking cap sizes right now in our schools we can have up to 29 and the hard cap
is 31. That's way too many children in our classrooms.
This
particular school, St. Francis of Assisi, is a fantastic school; the teachers do
a great job. But the parent's concern is that the cap size is so high that the
students who need the one-on-one, the students who need that little bit of extra
help – it's not going to be there because there are so many students in the
class.
I'm
calling on the Department of Education to look at reducing cap sizes right
across this province. Our future is our children and we need to ensure that our
children get the best possible education. I call on government to cut the cap
sizes in our schools so children will get the best possible education. I also
call upon other parents in other districts to step forward and call on their
MHAs to ensure that government listens and reduces the number of children who
are in our classrooms.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further petitions?
The hon.
the Member for Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
pleased to rise today to present a petition on behalf of the people of my
district related to Mutton Bay Bridge located just outside of Trepassey. This is
a piece of infrastructure we spoke of here before and looking at two facets of
infrastructure: one being immediate repairs based on emergency circumstances and
the other being just the long-term replacement of it.
We had
an engineering inspection report done in 2015. They had some recommendations in
regard to rehab and replacements. Just recently, I received an engineering
report – I think it was February of this year – which reaffirmed some of the
findings, obviously, in the prior years and a necessity to do immediate repairs
and to also do some replacements.
We've
advocated here and I have met with officials in the department. I am pleased to
recognize that there were some handrails put on a little while ago, but through
working with the department there has been – I'm told yesterday – a private
contractor who's been awarded to do some work to put some guiderails in place
along the structure to deal with the immediate issue of safety for a vehicle
that comes and veers towards the side of the bridge. This would certainly assist
in protecting such an occurrence happening in regard to vehicles.
I'm
certainly glad to see that. I spoke to the minister a while ago in regard to
that. I'm glad to see that the department is going to act on this, and I
understand is going to act on this in the next few days, which I'm certainly
pleased with.
In the
long term, looking at the replacement, we still advocate to have this done as
quickly as possible. I know the department has looked at possible options. I
know the minister has indicated in discussions they may look at some pricing in
the fall of hopefully next year, but no commitment. They are looking at it and I
certainly recognize that.
It is an
important piece of infrastructure. It's about safety; it's about heavy traffic
volume in that area with our tourism sector and residents there when they're
coming south to receive services. It's very important that we continue to look
at this and look forward to the immediate repairs being done in the next few
days or the next week or so, and that we're able to start this in the next
number of months to get completed by next year.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I'm going to
make a request here.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. A. PARSONS:
I'm going to make a request
here now. Normally, today would be Private Members' Day. With leave of my
colleagues on the other side, I will be asking leave that instead of debating
the private Member's resolution that is on the Order Paper, I would request that
we be able to debate the resolution that I entered yesterday in its place.
MR. SPEAKER:
Does he have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER:
Leave.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes.
MR. SPEAKER:
Leave has been granted.
Please
proceed.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
believe leave has been granted, so I believe that by debating this resolution we
would dispense with normal PMR rules which would require 15 minutes and 15
minutes. I have up to an hour; I do not plan on using that. I think this is an
opportunity for Members on both sides to stand up and speak to the resolution
that I put in, so I appreciate the Members from the opposite side granting me
leave to have this debate.
I'd like
to start off perhaps with the origin or the genesis of this.
MR. SPEAKER:
Could you read the
resolution?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, I'll read the
resolution.
BE IT
RESOLVED that the House of Assembly urge the Government of Newfoundland and
Labrador to establish an all-party Select Committee on Democratic reform. I'd
like to have that seconded by the Minister of Service NL.
The
genesis of this, Mr. Speaker, for me, it's a subject that we have discussed on a
number of occasions. The talk of democratic reform goes back as long as there
has been democracy. Whatever place that you live in this world that has a
democracy, from the moment that it was launched people have discussed the reform
of democracy, which is a good thing. The fact that you can ask to change it
indicates the fact that it's not like other political regimes where you cannot
often ask for change.
Instead
of getting into a deep, philosophical chat about democracy, basically what I've
been asked here – I have a letter here in my hand, Mr. Speaker, which is
accessible publicly. It's on the government website and it's dated November 15,
2017. This is a rehash of the letter that I received. I can't tell you the
actual date. I think it might have been December 14 of 2015. This is what they
call a mandate letter which our Premier wrote to all ministers of the government
laying out his expectations going in, and what he would like to see completed
during the mandate.
My
personal letter here has a number of things that was asked to be discussed
including legal and court services, legislation, public safety and public
inquiries. Again, I think we've made progress in some. But one of them that are
very important goes under my role as the Government House Leader and that's
under the House of Assembly. One thing we talked about here is “modernizing the
province's legislative process and engaging elected representatives from all
political parties; making better use of existing committees and seeking
opportunities for further nonpartisan cooperation, including establishing
legislative review committees to review proposed legislation; and bringing a
resolution to the House of Assembly to establish an All-Party Committee on
Democratic Reform.”
By
moving this motion here today I'm glad to say that I have satisfied one of the
mandate items that were given to me by the Premier; however, that's only the
beginning of what I expect to be an important process. What we have here, the
resolution in and of itself is very short but if it is supported today – and I
assume that it's going to be supported by all Members of this House – is: Be it
resolved that we urge the government, as a House, to establish an all-party
Select Committee on Democratic Reform. What we're asking is that we, as a
government, being asked by all Members of this House to support the government
in establishing an all-party committee to discuss this.
I can
only talk about my experience in that in the last number of years that I've been
here we have seen multiple all-party committees, select committees that are
designed to bring together politicians of all stripes from all sides of the
House to discuss important issues. Perhaps the one I'm most familiar with is the
All-Party Committee on Mental Health and Addictions. That's one that was
launched by the previous administration and features Members from all sides.
I did
get an opportunity to serve as a Member of that committee for some time, up
until the election in 2015, at which time there was a changeover of some of the
Members on the committee. The good thing to note – and this comes back to the
membership itself which is made up of Members of both sides, of all political
stripes – is that the committee started with one government and finished with
another government. I think that's important because that's how this is supposed
to work. It's meant to be an opportunity to look at issues that affect the
people of the province and we have an opportunity to discuss them as politicians
from all political stripes and from all backgrounds.
I think
there was the all-party committee on shrimp – I believe it might have been the
one. I think the Member for Cape St. Francis would have been on that all-party
committee, I think the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi and I know Members on
our side as well. That's a group that banded together – actually, that committee
went to Ottawa to fight for the province on an issue that was important to all
people in this province.
What we
have here is something that is a bit different. It's something that – really
when you think about it – is so important, but at the end of the day, it's also
inherently political in many of the things we will discuss.
The
other thing is this will not be the first time this has been done in a
jurisdiction. We have seen select committees from other legislatures and
parliaments that have been convened over time to discuss important issues. In
fact, I've seen them from Prince Edward Island, I've seen them from Alberta. The
federal government had one as well.
I don't
know if it's an ominous sign, that as we discuss reforming this House that this
House starts leaking.
Mr.
Speaker, I can continue if you wish or we can recess if you want to look at the
–
MR. SPEAKER:
No.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I'll continue on. Thank you.
I've
done, over the last couple of years – I would like to point out too, the concept
of democratic reform, once this was put in my mandate letter, this did generate
some interest amongst certain quarters. There were certain members of the media
that were quite interested in this topic, certain members of the academic world
that were interested in this, certain members of the political world. People
have an interest in this.
The
thing about democratic reform is it can be as wide or narrow as you want it to
be. You can have it discuss a particular issue or a set of issues. I think the
reason we have it here is that one of the issues we have seen over time is that
we have seen – and this is in legislatures across the country. I don't think
it's just here, but we have seen what we've seen to be as sometimes a lack of
participation, we see smaller voting turnouts, we see people – again, there's
no, I think, study on this right now that I'm aware of but anecdotally people
talk about sometimes the disenfranchisement with the political process.
That's
something that's of concern to all of us, not only as parliamentarians, but the
fact is we are all here by virtue of being selected by individuals to represent
them. That's why we're here; we are here to serve democracy and to serve the
people of our province. So when we think our democracy may be faltering, then I
think it's incumbent on us to look at what can we do to reform it and,
hopefully, to rejuvenate our democracy. What can we do to bring about change
that may improve the process or improve people's perception of the process?
As I've
stated, I want to point out and I want to put on the record, maybe it's just for
myself. I was asked about this a number of times. I had various members of the
media, I don't know if I actually – I was asked some questions in the House over
time, but primarily it was the media.
If he's
listening right now, to a former reporter who used to ask a number of questions
on this, a fellow named James McLeod – Telegram James – who absolutely loves it
every time he gets a shout-out in this House. He has left us, he's has gone back
to Upper Canada. This is something he is interested in, and I have no doubt.
He used
to ask me a number of times: are you going to do this, are you going to do this?
I would like to say that I think he said it with a sense of skepticism at all
times, a healthy skepticism, as to whether we would keep that commitment. In
fact, I had a Member opposite, the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune, during
the session said: you need to bring this forward, are you going to do it, what
assurances can you give me?
All I
did to both is I said, this is my word that I'm giving. What I would like to say
is I've kept my word. I have kept my word here today. I've entered it in this
House. I don't use this very often, but I say to James McLeod – if he is
listening today – I told you so. That's what I say to you James, and I hope
you're doing well in Ontario. The reason I think he asked, like all of us, is
that this is an important topic.
By
voting or supporting this motion today, this resolution, what we are going to
see is an all-party committee established. What I think is also important,
though, is we're going to leave it to this committee to be able to decide the
mandate that they strike. Now I have my personal opinions on how this works, and
everybody has their personal opinions on what are the issues we should broach.
What are the issues that can be achieved in a very quick time? What will take a
longer time? What are more systemic issues?
I will
note that during this entire process – I'm speaking very frankly here – when I
look at the research from other jurisdictions the results have not always been
positive. I would like to say the federal approach to this – the federal
government made a promise when it came to democratic reform, when it came to
proportional representation, I think is the promise they made.
When it
comes to questions like this I always look to my colleague from Humber - St.
George's. Is that right?
MR. REID:
St. George's - Humber.
MR. A. PARSONS:
St. George's - Humber; I'm
close and that's a start.
Again,
this is somebody with a tremendous background. This is somebody that actually
has the combination of not just being an academic but having worked behind the
scenes in politics and he is a legislator as well. He comes at it having actual
practical experience at all levels.
I can
talk about the elected part, but it's not something – besides having some
courses in university, I don't even have a political science degree. I look at
my colleague who is somebody that has had a career doing this, and this is
obviously something that's of interest to him.
The
federal government, in making that promise and not living up to it, opened
itself up to a tremendous amount of derision and scorn. I look at other
jurisdictions; PEI had one where they talked about fundamentally changing their
system. Again, if you talk to legislators and bureaucrats from that area,
they'll talk about the fact that there was a lot of difficulty with that
process. Alberta went through the same thing as well.
What I'd
like to think is I'm coming into this with a – I'm hoping to be realistic about
it, pragmatic about it and also realizing that the same approach we've used –
and I'll take my experience with another, not a select committee but a committee
made up of Members of all the House is the Standing Orders Committee. That's
sort of my experience where I've worked with my colleagues on all sides of the
House, including my own, and we looked at something like the Standing Orders.
I've
explained on numerous occasions. Many people outside don't realize, but really
it is the guidebook, it's the playbook. It is the rules by which the House
operates and by which we operate. It doesn't mean much to a majority of the
people, but to the people that are serving here it means everything because
these are the rules.
These
rules are quite dated. They are quite dated, quite old. There had been an
attempt at reform a number of years back, back during the previous
administration or maybe even the administration back then, but they decided to
look at the whole thing. Long story short, Mr. Speaker, there was no change.
There was absolutely no change, because the change they attempted to make was so
big that they got swallowed up and didn't make any change.
We took
a different approach. I'd like to congratulate my fellow Members of the Standing
Orders Committee both on this side, my colleague who sits next to me, the Deputy
House Leader, the Minister of Natural Resources. Somebody who has a tremendous
amount on her plate but still found time to be a significant contributing Member
of the Standing Orders Committee, as well as my colleague that I previously
referenced, because this is something that's important to us. Again, my
colleagues across the way took the time as well.
Do you
know what? Over the last two-and-a-half years we have made more changes to the
Standing Orders Committee and to the rules that govern us than you had seen in
decades and decades before. In fact, I'm going to point out – I'll leave them
nameless, but there are some Members of the House staff, and if they're
listening, I won't identify you but they even looked at me with some
dubiousness. They said don't make that promise; don't make that promise. I say
to them, I told you so. I told you so. We made the change, but it was we as a
collective that made that change.
One
thing I just point out so people have a practical example of what we changed, we
took our House schedule which before was just an addendum basically, a schedule
in the back of the Standing Orders book, there was no rhyme nor reason. We knew
a general idea of when the House was open, a general idea of when the House was
closed, and you never knew what was going to happen.
Now, for
those that can't see, the Speaker's holding up an actual parliamentary schedule,
a calendar that we brought in place. That's important and I'll tell you why.
It's led to I think an improved functioning of the House of Assembly. I think
it's led to an improved ability for MHAs of all stripes to be able to leave this
House and go back to their districts and talk about changes that are being made.
I've had
situations here – my first term in here we came in in March; we didn't leave
until June. And besides being done for Easter, you don't really have a great
opportunity to talk to your constituents about what's happening. But what we
have with constituency week now is an opportunity to go back to your district
and hear from the people that you represent.
That's
not an issue for those that live on the Avalon but it's an issue for many of us
that live outside, whether you live up in the Big Land or whether you're over in
my area which is an 890-kilometre drive; and that's just if you're going to Port
aux Basques, let alone trying to get down to your communities that you represent
that you can only reach by boat or by helicopter. As I say this, there's a lot
of talk from my colleagues here because they all know that challenge. It's
challenging enough to get home but be able to have that meaningful conversation.
So
that's a change that was made by all Members, voted on by all Members, and it's
improved things. We didn't shorten the schedule; we just put some certainty into
it and made it more reasonable. In many ways we modeled what goes on in Ottawa.
When it comes to democratic reform, in many cases we just have to look to our
colleagues across the way, everywhere, to every jurisdiction, to the federal
counterparts and say: What have they done? What could we do?
I've
done countless jurisdictional scans on some of the issues that this committee
may wish to consider. There are so many things that may be talked about, whether
it's an issue of voting. Just voting in and of itself, you could talk about we
have a first-past-the-post system. Do you want to consider proportional
representation? The trick is that we have not made any promises. I think that
was one of the downfalls is when the federal government made the promise without
realizing the challenge in having a committee do this. They had significant
difficulty doing this.
We talk
about voting systems. How do we want to vote? Do we want to change it? I've had
experience doing it obviously the way that we all vote in municipal elections
and federal and provincial elections now. I've seen it in terms of within our
political parties. We've had different voting methods that we've used. We used a
method in our leadership that was quite successful in 2013.
When we
talk about something like voting age, our voting age is at 18. Do we want to
consider lowering that? And that in and of itself can generate a significant
amount of discussion and that can go quite some time. In fact we could talk
about something like e-voting, which again now it makes so much sense to me that
everything else we do now, things that you used to do before like going into the
bank is something that still goes on for a lot of people. For a lot of people,
they couldn't tell you the last time they were inside a bank.
I look
at our access to technology now and maybe the possibility of increasing turnout
by changing it. But with each change comes cost, comes difficulty, and we have
seen examples of where people have had difficulties with voting. When I was on
that side there was a former Member on this side who does not sit over there now
said: Well, we can't do e-voting because the next thing you know anybody can
vote and we don't know what they're going to say. I don't trust how much they
know.
I don't
think that was the most sound logic that was ever used, but the point that that
makes is that everybody has a view on it, and when we get to this committee
that's the thing is there are so many different views. In many cases, that's
going to be the difference between this committee and, say, a committee on
mental health. I didn't have any background expertise to bring to the All-Party
Committee on Mental Health. What I had was the ability as a legislator to listen
to those individuals with expertise, who were trained, professionals, or those
people with lived experience and dealing with mental health and addictions, and
come back to this House and be a part of the legislative change that we make
here.
Now that
I'm in government, I can be a part of policy change that can happen here. But
democratic reform is something that is different than that because everybody
really does have an opinion. Just because you happen to be somebody who has a
doctorate of political studies, a masters, or in some cases if you have
absolutely no university background in this but you might be a 20-year
politician and know more about politics, or you could be the individual that's
voted in every election since Confederation, I think those people have
experience and something to add as well.
One
person I'd like to thank for raising the contributions and the discussion on
this is Dr. Alex Marland. He put out a book just before Christmas which was
contributed to by a number of individuals. It was an opportunity for people to
discuss this more and I think that that has also formed part of this.
The Democracy Cookbook, I think is what it was called – I'm pretty
sure it's The Democracy Cookbook. I
was at the launch and it was a great effort to talk about democracy, and the
more we talk about it I think the better it is.
There
are a million different viewpoints and perspectives and opinions as it comes to
this, and that's why I come back to the point that I was making which is when it
comes to the mandate of this committee, the committee has tough work ahead of
them because you can make it too broad, too narrow and everybody has a view on
what should we change. That's just one thing when we talk about voting.
Then we
could talk about campaign finance. Campaign finance is a significant issue.
Every jurisdiction does it different. Many of them are moving in a direction
right now that is not consistent with what we do here. We talk about things like
corporate donations, we talk about things like union donations, we talk about
the reporting of donations and we talk about leadership campaigns and the amount
of money that is raised and where it goes. I think it all comes back to the idea
of transparency and accountability when it comes to this. Who are political
parties funded by? I've talked to some individuals who are out there that are
having very strong conversations and viewpoints on this one way, then we have
people that are on the other end of the spectrum.
These
are the deliberations that have to happen. You can get rid of all donations but
democracy costs money. It has to be paid, which is why in some jurisdictions you
have the subsidies. So basically it's paid for by the public. Is that something
that the public wants to contribute? It's the idea that politicians can be
beholden to corporate donors to do their bidding to make policy change, which
again I think is reprehensible. But sometimes it's not about the reality, it's
about the perception of reality and that's how politics is guided, is by
perception.
So if
you're perceived to be beholden then that sometimes is worse than even the
reality of it, just the fact that people think you're doing something. We can't
allow that. We have a Code of Conduct that we live by and the fact is that we
are answerable to our constituents and to our communities. So the fact that that
is an issue that may prevent people from engaging or following politics or
voting in elections, or even worse being apathetic to it, just not caring. And
that I don't think is good enough.
We don't
want a system where people only get involved just when they're personally
involved or aggrieved or have an issue. We want a system where people want to be
engaged and to be involved. So again, campaign finance and financing of politics
in general is a significant issue. Mr. Speaker, there's so many more we could
talk about. Those are probably the biggest ones right now that I would discuss.
I've got a study here showing the work that's been done in other jurisdictions.
What I
will say is this: I'm going to have an opportunity to speak to this again, but
in closing my first commentary to this I look forward to the comments from my
colleagues across the way and their contributions to this resolution. What I'm
ultimately hoping for is two things: (a) that this House will support
unanimously our resolution to have an all-party select committee on democratic
reform – that's the first thing that I want – and the second part is I look
forward to moving quickly into having the committee, the panel, the makeup of
the committee, the mandate established as quickly as possible so that we can
move forward having these discussions.
There's
a lot of talk and there are a lot of opinions on how this should work. Should it
be a travelling road show? Should it be done here? Should we use technology? Who
should we listen to? Should we just listen to one group versus listening to
another group? Then you get into the issues themselves. There's a lot of work
ahead of us, but I'm very happy today to be able to fulfill another one of the
mandate items that the Premier has given me.
The
Premier has said that this is important. When he issued mandate letters to
everybody in his Cabinet, he made sure that you were going to have this role but
here are some things I want you to be able to do. As I reminded members of the
media and Members of the Opposition at various times, a mandate isn't one year,
a mandate isn't two years.
One of
the questions was: Why haven't you done this yet? I say a mandate is four years,
change takes time. We didn't get to this point in our Legislature just like
that. We got here over time. This is where we are, but I'd like to think that
there's a desire on behalf of, not just this side, because I know there's a
desire on behalf of this government to bring change, to look at this process and
to see what we can do to improve our democracy.
I know
from the comments from my colleagues across the way that they wish to be a part
of this as well and that will be evidenced by their comments coming up shortly.
On that
note, thank you for the opportunity to speak and I look forward to this debate.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER (Warr):
The hon. the leader of
the Official Opposition.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As I do
when I get up to speak to a private Member's resolution, which I know this is
not what this is and we've changed the format here, I'll start the way I
normally would end by saying: We, on this side, will be wholeheartedly
supporting the piece of legislation that is being put forward here. We do
acknowledge and accept that this is a very valuable, a very important piece of
legislation that we're putting forward here to develop the next step in
democratic reform and setting up an all-party committee is a key component to
moving that forward.
I must
note two things here in reference to the Government House Leader. I first really
acknowledge the fact the key word he used – everything he used here was very
relevant and expedites what we're doing, but his key word about how quickly he
wants to move this forward because I know everybody in the Official Opposition,
I would suspect everybody on this side of the House, acknowledges the fact that
not only are we going to talk and debate this, but this is something that we all
support and we need to move in play as quick as possible.
I also
want to acknowledge the hon. House Leader. Today is his birthday, for those who
are listening at home, a special nod out on his special birthday as he brings in
a very important piece of legislation.
Happy
birthday to the Government House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. BRAZIL:
I also want to acknowledge the discussion here about democratic reform is a
living entity; it's a continuum that continuously goes on. Unfortunately, I
think we've gotten stagnant over the last number of years about debating how we
move it, who is going to take the lead and to what degree we use to make it more
inclusive.
To get
things moving, we need to have a framework in play. Where we are right now and
what we're proposing being debated today, at the end of the day, I'm hopeful but
very confident that we will have a resolution that all of us will abide by, live
by and look forward to participating in the framework to move forward in a very
professional manner and a very inclusive manner but also very expedited.
Sometimes we get beat up because we move things too slow; sometimes we get beat
up because we move things too fast. I think this is a piece of legislation that
has to move at a proper pace but also has to keep moving because there's a time
frame here that's relevant. People want democratic reform.
We've
seen by the turnouts in elections over the last number of years, be it federal
elections, provincial elections, municipal elections. We've seen it in troubles
we're having to get candidates, particularly at the municipal level. We're even
having it where people have a different perception of elected officials. We even
have it where election officials themselves are questioning: Was this worth
getting involved in?
The
Opposition House Leader had mentioned, we've come a long way, even in the last
two years, with some reforms about the operations within the House and setting
calendars, which at least gives people an opportunity to put a framework in play
that can also be sustainable from their family life, how they work within their
districts, how they represent their own people, how they take care of their own
physical and mental health. They're important components because that itself is
part of our democracy. That then entices people who may have various issues in
their life, challenges or various responsibilities to ensure that they
themselves can be part of the democratic process.
Some
people's part of the democratic process may be just marking an X. I have
constituents who never vote and have no intentions of voting, but exercise their
democratic process by showing up to every debate, every time there's a public
meeting, outlining their views.
Now, I
would like to encourage them to go to the ultimate level of having a direct
input into who is going to represent them, but democratic reform is about people
being engaged and having an outlet that gives them an opportunity to feel
included into the democratic process, depending on what gage that is. Some have
said the reason 50 per cent or 45 per cent or 40 per cent of the population at
any given election don't vote is because sometimes it's encompassing, sometimes
the information process is not engaging to them, sometimes it's the time frames.
So these are all things when you talk about democratic reform.
Sometimes they have disdain for politicians because – we talked about it here
before – it's about the corporate world being involved and how things are
funded. There has to be a balance here; campaigns need money to run. We've
talked about making it less encompassing for people who work in the House of
Assembly when they're elected and the challenges they have, but at the same
time, you can't make
this a financial burden on a particular candidate because then you
segregate those who may be able to run for elected office versus those who may
have a better opportunity to do that. So you have to find a balance and the
balance here is particularly around openness and transparency. This discussion
here will, to me, be the forefront of how we move that forward.
I had
the opportunity to look back to see what other jurisdictions did. Fortunate
enough, a number of jurisdictions have – I can't say tied because tied is not
the right word here, but they've done some inquiries. Some have called
committees, some have done inquiries around it and very few have taken action,
unfortunately. That's a bit alarming.
I know
provinces like Prince Edward Island have taken a bigger step forward. They've
only recently started to do some review on democratic reform and they've started
to move it forward. At least there's enough information out there for us to know
we can expedite this because we've talked about it for years. We've had input
from the general public over the years.
As was
noted, the book that's been done, the publication that's been done,
The
Democratic Cookbook has a great
outline of some of the challenges people have, some of the questions that
they've had in the general public around, politically, what is acceptable and
what isn't, and it's about modernizing our democratic process.
Sometimes the word reform frightens people. You're going to change everything,
everything is going to change and it's going to be so disruptive. In this case,
what we're looking at, and what I'm convinced the intent of the government is
putting this forward – and I know the intent of the Opposition here when we've
talked about it as a caucus, it's about how we improve the democratic process.
How we open it up. How we ask the general public and the population to have
their input to make it more engaging for them. How we ensure that young people,
as they are only now hearing about democracy and their role and their
responsibilities and their privileges because it's a full continuum here now.
It's not
just one side that you can take out of it when it's beneficial to you, and it's
not only that you have to be responsible for giving constantly. It's got to be a
continuum here, that society has roles and responsibilities, but it also has
privileges and benefits in democracy.
That's
what we have here and we've only recently looked at some of the key things that
have gone on in the world. Some of the ceremonies that we have – I was at a
ceremony just this past Saturday where we recognized a family in Pouch Cove,
with the hon. Member for Cape St. Francis, where the Trail of the Caribou group
had acknowledged three fallen soldiers; all of the same family, sons of a mother
and father who all fought for three different countries in WWI and whose bodies
were never recovered.
There
are the freedoms that people have fought for. There are the sacrifices they've
given us. What we take for granted – or, unfortunately, it's not even what we're
taking for granted anymore, it's what we're dismissing. That's what's happening
when half of our society is dismissing the democratic rights they have and the
democratic responsibilities they have to ensure that people who represent them
do so based on the same principles or the same abilities or the same concerns
that they have. Or at least that they have a mechanism and an avenue to be able
to express their approval or disapproval or have input to ensure that the end
result is that there's a better society and that there's a better opportunity
for the next generation to continue and add on to democratic reform.
As we
look at this, let's just look at the history here just recently in this House.
We, in the Official Opposition, have been wholeheartedly supportive of
democratic reform. I know the NDP have been wholeheartedly in favour of
democratic reform. I know the independent Member has noted in here in dialogue
and in debate. I know the government has had this as one of their cornerstones
from their 2015 campaign about establishing an all-party committee on democratic
reform. I'm glad we're getting to it. I know people would say it's later in the
game. There's a time frame for everything. You move things at certain paces;
there are certain things that need to be done.
The
standing committee that we had in the House of Assembly has made some real
strides to improve that. I think that was at least a lead-in to see how we could
move to the next level of establishing an all-party committee that goes outside
of just looking at our own needs internally to include organizations, agencies
and people who have a particular background in democratic reform. But,
particularly, the average citizen, no matter where they are geographically, an
opportunity to be able to send in their view on what they feel democracy is in
one case; secondly, how they feel we can improve democracy; and, thirdly, how
they can avail of our democratic process in Newfoundland and Labrador.
We have
an opportunity to do that. I think once this committee is set up, we first sit
down and there's a dialogue about the parameters, the responsibilities and our
outline of our priorities, we do look at the Standing Orders Committee to have a
discussion around what it is that we're going to be trying to improve upon.
We've learned that we've improved things here. We've made things more inclusive.
We found ways to ensure that people from outside could look at this and say: At
the end of the day now I understand how this works, and I know at the end of the
day this would be attractive for me to be engaged in.
Now we
need to make it attractive. I say attractive in the sense that people are
educated in what they do, that it's not overbearing for them to be able to be
involved in the democratic process. That could be through the exchange of
information. It could be, during elections, how they vote. Is it electronically?
Is it in a polling booth? Is it some other form? Is it mail-in ballots? All the
avenues that can be used to ensure there's more engagement as part of that
process.
While we
start that – we've talked about this, because we don't want this to be dismissed
by people and say all of them in there are trying to do the same thing now to
make themselves look good. We have to educate and include the general public out
there to say this is your opportunity to tell us in the House of Assembly how
democracy should run, how we best can serve you, and how you best can have input
into what it is that we develop here as legislation that sets the tone for the
economic and social well-being of our province.
We have
to do that. There's a twofold approach here: one is telling people or explaining
to people or giving people the opportunity to understand that democratic reform
is about them telling us, giving us the template, the information and the
guidance to set, through legislation, what democracy is about here. Those would
be the logistical things: the amount of money you can spend, the time frames for
elections, how long you can serve, the particulars around nominations and these
types of things, the corporate sponsorship and all these type of things.
There
also has to be an inclusion process so that the general public are very aware of
democracy in a big sense, that they have a stake in this, they have role to
play. Not only when they mark their X, but for the next four years they
shouldn't be lying dormant or think they have no input. There has to be
mechanisms where they can continue to guide us, encourage us, keep our feet to
the fire, hold us accountable and help us change direction if the direction is
not going where they feel it should go.
We did
have a debate a year or a year a half ago about a piece of legislation that we
had brought through, or a private Member's resolution about recall legislation.
I know that's an extreme scenario about democratic reform, but it is another
part of democratic reform that gives the citizens more control and more
inclusion in democracy rather than just every four years when they mark an X.
There
was some debate about that. Who knows, maybe this committee then can also have
that discussion about recall legislation and where that fits. Does it fit? Is it
in the best interests? Or is there another mechanism to ensure accountability
within the House of Assembly and accountability to those who are elected in a
particular district and their roles and responsibilities.
I think
there are great opportunities there. I think maybe one of the key points, as
we're looking at this, might be to ask in a general context some way of people
having input into what it is they think that we should move as our priorities.
We know there are going to be some, at times, off-the-wall comments from people
who either have no desire to be involved in the democratic reform or have an
extreme view of what democratic reform is all about, and that's fine. So you
take the balance. I suspect the majority of the population would take the
balance and look at what would be a reasonable approach for a Committee to look
at when we decide our approach to democratic reform.
As we
looked at this – and I do give credit, the Liberal Party did have it as a major
part of their platform and did outline the needs and roles and the
responsibilities, and they had heard over periods of time that people were
disenfranchised with politicians and the political process. Not particularly
only by choice but by design, that the process we had in play had gotten so
stagnate, had gotten so old, had gotten to a point where it was so predictable.
Somebody
had said that to me one time, politics is predictable. You know what's going to
happen every eight or 10 years. You know what's going to happen. We can tell
what's going to happen in our districts. We can tell every year what kind of
budgets are coming. We can tell what kind of legislation is going to come. We're
going to know it all goes in a cycle and in a circle.
We need
to be able to ensure people, and it is unfortunate people see it that way, but
that's not it. We're in this House of Assembly, my colleagues are here, former
colleagues have talked about it; we know what goes on. There's nothing
predictable in the House of Assembly. It's about legislation that's relevant,
it's about updating legislation that's outdated, it is about modifying
legislation because of something that we were never aware of, changing times.
One
thing about the House of Assembly, it's a living entity. As I said at the
beginning, democracy is a living entity. We always have to elevate it to the
next level. The next level is about what's acceptable. What becomes the norm and
what becomes a better way to ensure that citizens don't get dissatisfied with
their elected officials and don't get dissatisfied or disconnected with the
democratic process.
We've
managed to come a long way but I think we have an opportunity now. We're a year
and a half or two years – or whenever it's going to be – away from the next
general election. So we have an opportunity to do things that no matter what
party stripe you have or where you are, at the end of the day the general
population would say, you know what, I have no qualms of making sure I ask
questions before the next election or during the election campaign.
I have
no issue in ensuring I go out to a public event to see what people stand for,
the candidates stand for, or the party platform or the individual platforms. I
have no issue in ensuring that I have a right and a privilege and a
responsibility to make sure I vote so that my voice is heard and I had input
into the democratic process. We need to get back to that and we all have to take
that responsibility.
The good
thing about the motion that's being put forward here and what's being proposed
is it will be all parties, all engagement in the House of Assembly to ensure
that we move this forward. We've had great success. We've learned what's
happened on the All-Party Committee on Mental Health and Addictions and how that
is continuing. That's a living entity, it's moving forward. We're making
strides. We bring in policies and programs and services, we partner with other
agencies because of the recommendations made by that Committee, which came from
the grassroots.
One
thing about that, my colleagues sat on that Committee and I read all the
briefings and the reports. This was done and driven by individuals in our
society, agencies in our society, and special interest groups in our society who
would give their experiences, their advice, but particularly would frame how we
could do things rather than having to reinvent the wheel. So it's already a
proven process that can work here. We need this because we need to plan for the
next generation and the generations down the road to ensure our democratic
process is fluid and continues to be very successful.
As we
look at that, I want to note we've been talking about it. The Leader of our
Party, Ches Crosbie, had his platform over the last year-plus about democratic
reform and accountability. So we're all on the same page. One thing about this,
we're not segregating one group or more affluent to move that forward, or more
committed to it. We're all committed to it.
We're at
a point now where government has taken the bull by the horns in saying we want
to move this forward, and we're here to say we support that. We're going to work
with you guys to make that happen. We think it's a very valued exercise that
will come out with some valuable information that will become valuable
legislation that would be of value to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
With
that being said, though, I do have one thing I'm proposing, an amendment to the
wording. We're hopeful and confident that it doesn't change the intent. It's in
no way meant to take away from what we're trying to do here, but it's in our
opinion strengthening the ability to ensure that there's more inclusiveness in
the House of Assembly to making this a success.
There's
an amendment we're proposing, Mr. Speaker, to the resolution regarding the
establishment of an all-party Select Committee on Democratic Reform, to move
that the resolution be amended to delete the words “urge the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador to” and be replaced with: “BE IT RESOLVED that the
House of Assembly establish an all-party Select Committee on Democratic Reform.”
Mr.
Speaker, I present those to be reviewed by the Table Officers, please.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
House will recess to have a look at the proposed amendment.
MR. BRAZIL:
To be seconded by the Member for Conception Bay South.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The
House will be in recess.
Recess
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
After
taking the opportunity to look at the proposed resolution, it is deemed to be in
order.
The hon.
the leader of the Opposition.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is
indeed an honour to get up again and talk after we made – it's a slight wording
amendment but we think it's important because it starts what everybody here
agrees to, another process in the democratic process here by engaging the House
of Assembly, which the people of Newfoundland and Labrador entrusted us to do.
Again, I
won't take too much time because I know my colleagues on this side and my
colleagues on the government side would like to get up and speak to the value of
this piece of legislation and the importance; and particularly, around the
importance of moving this as quickly as possible, setting the parameters, and
exactly what the roles and responsibilities of the committee are going to be,
and how we find a way to engage those who have an expertise. The expertise comes
from those in academics who've written about this to the average citizen who
just wants to be more engaged.
I will
just say that we do look forward to this process being put in place. We would be
hopeful that this could be expedited to the point, but not rushed, so that we do
have a better framework come the next provincial election. But we want to make
sure this is one opportunity to do this and we do this right. That's the key
thing here. An all-party committee, it's not about how quickly you get something
done; it's about the quality at the end of the day and that it meets the
expectations and particularly that it benefits the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador when it's completed.
Mr. Speaker, with that being said, I will sit and I will be voting for the
amended resolution that is being put forward.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
George's - Humber.
MR. REID:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's
great to have an opportunity to rise and add a few words to this debate. I
probably won't take my full time, but I just wanted to have a few words on this
topic because it's something I've been very interested in for a number of years.
I think
there's certainly a value in having a public discussion, having a committee that
looks at democratic reform. I think it's important to get people engaged and get
people thinking about what democracy is, why it's important and how we can make
it better. I think that's a very important thing. It's something we need to do
every now and then to refresh ourselves. Because democracy is really a fragile
thing; it's something that can slip away; it's something that we can take for
granted. I think it's important that we as province look at how we run our
affairs and how we operate our democracy.
A
committee on democratic reform, I think the fact that it's an all-party
committee is important. I think it's important that we have – I find when we get
together as all-party committees, the discussion is very non-partisan. It's sort
of the sense that we're all here to do a job, we're all here to try to make it
better and we don't look at which party we represent, it's all about how we can
make things better for the province. So it's very important that we have that
all-party aspect of it, Mr. Speaker. That's very important.
Also,
another thing I like about what the Government House Leader said is that the
mandate of the committee is going to be determined by the committee in the
initial resolution. The initial resolution was, “BE IT RESOLVED that the House
of Assembly urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to establish an
all-party Select Committee on Democratic Reform.”
We just
had an amendment from the Opposition Leader which would change the initial
resolution, and the amendment is: “BE IT RESOLVED that the House of Assembly
establish an all-party Select Committee on Democratic Reform.” There's just a
slight change in the words, but as the Leader of the Opposition said in his
comments these are very important changes.
Just
from my initial review of the amendment, I think it does a few things. I can
sort of understand where it's coming from. It would take it from being a
government committee to being a committee of this House. But I think that's
problematic in some ways in terms of if we want to get going quickly the amended
resolution, if passed, would require that the House of Assembly bring in another
motion, really, to establish the committee.
I think
that would take more time. We probably wouldn't be able to get started until
November some time. So I have a little problem with that. I'd like to get this
committee going as soon as we can and to have it working over the summer and
looking at what we're doing here, because I think it's important that we get
people talking and thinking about democratic reform.
For
example, some of the things that other committees and other jurisdictions have
looked at, some of the things that have been out there in the media that we
should be examining is how political parties fund themselves, and how much money
can they raise. Some provinces have very, more restrictive donation rules than
we do in this province. For example, federally I think it's a little over $1,000
individuals can donate. Candidates or parties can't take donations from
corporations or unions, they can only take donations from individuals.
So
that's different here in this province. Financing rules are different for
political parties in this province. We don't have any limit. We have a limit on
how much of a tax receipt that people can get if they donate, but in this
province, if people wanted to give huge donations to any candidate, they could
do that. Now, there are restrictions on how much they can spend and things like
that during election periods but that's sort of differences in the rules. That
sort of impacts the way people – in the academic literature it's been noted that
this sort of changes the way political parties and politicians and
representatives in Houses, in legislatures operate.
If funds
are raised from one small group then it's less representative, I guess. There's
a pressure on representatives to represent who donates to them, in some ways. So
that's sort of an interesting issue that we might want to look at in the
committee.
Also,
people have talked about things like the election format that we have. How we
elect people. Who is eligible to vote? What age should people be to vote? Some
people say the voting age should go down to 16; the rationale for this is that
it would involve more young people in the process at an earlier age and start a
lifelong process of involvement in democracy.
So
that's something that might be interesting to look at. The electoral reform
might look at the system that's used: proportional representation, first past
the post or a ranking system of some sort are used in other jurisdictions,
France and those places. So that might be something that we want to look at.
For
example, in our Liberal leadership convention last time around, we had a
preferential system where people ranked the candidates running for the position.
They voted one, two, three, and as people were knocked off, then their second
choice was counted. That sort of changed the system and changed the way people
operated within the system.
It meant
that you had to not only consider people's first choice, but you had to campaign
to try to be their second choice as well, if you thought there was going to be
more than one; if someone wasn't going to get 50 per cent on the first ballot.
So those sort of changes are important as well.
The
Standing Orders Committee, I think, shows that this type of all-party committee,
this all-party effort to look at democratic reform can be very successful. We've
changed the calendar, as the Government House Leader noted. We've made the House
a little bit more family friendly in the way we operate in terms of the
constituency weeks that we take. That's a very positive change.
It's
interesting that other people in the community are sort of urging government to
move forward with this and to look at democratic reform.
The
effort by author Alex Marland in The
Democracy Cookbook – someone I know
from teaching at the university – is very, sort of, helpful for this process in
terms of getting people from various disciplines to add to this debate about
what type of democracy we should have and how it should operate. I think that's
important.
I think
the value of this type of committee is that it gets people talking and thinking
about democracy. I want to encourage all Members to support the initial motion.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
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
delighted to stand and speak to the amendment, which has been found to be in
order and which I fully support. It's an excellent amendment.
The
government says that it wants everything to be open and transparent and wants
everything to be democratic. So here we are setting up a committee to look at
democratic reform, but not saying that the committee that would do the work,
looking at democratic reform, would be under the whole House of Assembly, not
just under government. It actually flies in the face of reason to say that the
committee would be something that would be controlled by government rather than
by the whole House of Assembly.
One of
the most important things, I think, with regard to democratic reform – in terms
of when we're talking about it here inside of the House of Assembly and in the
Legislature – is that we are all here together as representatives of the people
of the province. We were all elected by the people of the province and we're
here together to do the work together.
So it
makes all the sense in the world that the committee that's going to be set up to
look at democratic reform would come out of the most democratic process that we
have here in the House of Assembly and that is through Standing and Select
Committees, which are all party and which have rules in our Standing Orders that
apply to them. To me, it is the most democratic way to go. I'll be really
surprised if government votes against the amendment to the resolution because
they're saying they want democratic reform and then they're not using a
democratic process. This is very problematic.
It's
true that with the all-party committees we had, I sat on one of them and my
colleague from St. John's Centre sat on one as well. I was on the one on the
Northern shrimp and she was on the one with regard to mental health and
addictions. They certainly did great work, there's absolutely no doubt about
that, but they were under the aegis and therefore the control of a department, a
minister in both cases. Sometimes that was problematic. Many times it was
problematic. So I think to have a select committee, which is under the House of
Assembly, then we're ensuring full participation of everybody, full
participation of all parties in that committee.
The
amendment is excellent. I'm so happy that it was found to be in order. It wasn't
found to be against the spirit of the resolution. I think that's very, very
significant for us to think about. It was in the spirit of the resolution. It's
not changing the intent of the resolution and it's offering a more democratic
process than what was being suggested in the resolution.
When you
look at our Standing Orders, our Standing Committees, for example, “may sit at
all times during the Assembly for which they are appointed whether or not the
House is in Session, adjourned or prorogued.” That's here in relationship to the
Standing Committees and that is under section 65(4).
It would
seem to me, and there is no absolute direction around a select committee in the
Standing Orders, but the spirit of it is obviously – they're all in the same
section of our Standing Orders. I would think there is nothing here that says a
select committee would not be the same. There's nothing in the Standing Orders
that says the select committee would not be the same; therefore, a select
committee would be in for the rest of the Assembly. It would be free to meet
whenever it wants to meet. It is covered by the rules for Standing Committees so
that it can hold public hearings. It can hold briefings. There has to be a
budget and whatever resources it needs to do its work get put in place. To me,
it gives us everything that we need.
There
are details that the committee itself would work out. For example, the committee
would get together and the committee would decide its work plan. The committee
together – all parties together – deciding the mandate, what it is that they're
going to work on. It just makes all the sense in the world that it is a
committee that then is accountable to the House of Assembly and comes back to
the House of Assembly. Not something which goes to the government and then
government decides what it's going to do with the recommendations of the
committee. When you get the committee doing that work and you bring it back into
the House of Assembly, the House decides what it is going to do with the work
that's been done by the committee.
As I
said, I would really be surprised to have government vote against this amendment
because it just offers everything that's needed to make sure the process itself
is democratic. One of the things this committee would do would be reaching out,
getting involved in public participation and hearing from people. Select
committees do that and select committees have the resources to do their work.
I am all
for this amendment. I certainly hope the government is going to support the
amendment. I'll be extremely disappointed – more than disappointed – if the
government doesn't accept the amendment because it certainly is, I absolutely
believe, the way to go.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER (Reid):
The hon. Member for
Placentia West - Bellevue.
MR. BROWNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
certainly appreciate the opportunity to stand on this motion here today. I won't
take all of my time. I know my colleague from Virginia Waters - Pleasantville
has some words to say as well. I might just take his time; it depends on my
mood, Mr. Speaker.
In any
case, I certainly wanted to contribute as someone with a political science
degree and a background in it. It's something that I'm very interested in, Mr.
Speaker. It's probably a foreign concept to many out there that someone could
have interest in this matter, but I guess those of us in this Legislature do
have an interest in this matter. I think a lot more people out there should as
well, because if we do not have a strong democracy and a strong backbone to that
democracy, then what are we, who are we and what path will we take forward?
I think
it's a time for renewal, Mr. Speaker. I'm very pleased the Premier included this
in the minister's mandate letter. I'm very proud of our minister today for
bringing this forward for debate, but I do have a couple of comments that I
wanted to make. I've done a lot of study in looking at different issues with
respect to democratic reform in other provinces and other countries around the
world.
I do
hope that the committee, which will establish its own mandate, will look at
issues where tangible success can be realized, Mr. Speaker, where you can take
an issue that won't get lost or caught up in process. Or something that
requires, for example, a constitutional amendment because there are some things
that may be outside of the reach of this committee that perhaps could be
included in future work in committees that could be put in place.
I think
we're at a point where there are a host of issues that can be addressed in a
fairly expeditious manner as parliamentary expediency will go, Mr. Speaker, that
wouldn't get caught up in the types of things that, for example, changing a
voting system would. Which would require a referendum, I believe, and many other
benchmarks. There are perhaps other things such as political financing that we
can look at. It's been mentioned that Newfoundland and Labrador hasn't had an
update to that in a while.
I
believe another thing that should be looked at is the voting age. I believe it
is time to look at and study –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. BROWNE:
– the ability to lower the voting age and allow others, perhaps to the age of 16
or whatever the number is, to be included in the democratic process. If we want
more young people to be involved, Mr. Speaker, and interested in politics – if
they don't strike an election just after high school when they turn 18, then
it's very likely they will go through their high school time without any kind of
ability to participate.
Just as
we did with impaired driving where now it is illegal to drive with any alcohol
consumption from 22 years of age and under, it's about forming the habit early,
Mr. Speaker. Getting into the habit of not drinking and driving and getting into
the habit of voting, I would hope, and perhaps running as well.
People
often look at our right that our forefathers fought for as the right to vote.
They also gave us the right to run and the right to participate as candidates in
elections. I think far too often we disregard the role of young people in terms
of being credible candidates. But there are a lot of young people out there, Mr.
Speaker, who can make lasting and good contributions to the debate here.
I think
the committee should also look at ways to engage younger people, to engage more
women in politics, Mr. Speaker, more persons of indigenous origin, other
minorities. I think it's important that the occupants of these chairs reflect
our society because from that I believe we will get the most productive
legislative processes.
I also
think the committee could consider looking at how we vote. I think there's no
reason why an online voting system couldn't be developed. Perhaps the committee
could develop a pilot project to be used, for example, at the municipal level
first. Perhaps that would be beneficial and see how successful it is, what the
turnout is, what the uptake on that would be, and then move it up the line into
the provincial or federal elections.
I also
think, Mr. Speaker, those few points referenced and talked to the voter
participation angle, but we also need to see how the operations of the
Legislature work. I do agree with Members opposite when they say that we need a
better use of committees in the Legislature. I think that is lacking here in
Newfoundland and Labrador. I think having standing committees where bills can be
analyzed at committee, rather than in Committee of the Whole here, will be
beneficial to the entire process. It would enable, I believe with expert
testimony, witnesses to come forward on a particular bill.
I think
back to when the Minister of Health introduced the
Prescription Monitoring Act. It's an excellent piece of legislation,
Mr. Speaker. Lots of consultation was done on that and a number of groups from
my district were involved with that. They were consulted but it would have been
nice – in an ideal world, in a functioning Legislature of this day and age –
that those types of consultations could be heard at a committee process. I do
believe there is room for improvement and I do hope this committee will take a
look at that.
Just in
closing, Mr. Speaker, I will say I really support having this committee. I think
it is important work. I think it will help restore confidence for some people.
But what I would urge the committee is to take on issues that can be tangibly
dealt with and successfully actioned on. Then perhaps if there are larger
issues, they can be looked at over time.
I can't
help but not think about a former professor and a friend of mine, Dr.
Christopher Dunn, who passed away recently. He would have been here today
watching this from the gallery, Mr. Speaker. He was certainly a gentleman of
great intellect and somebody who had an even keener interest than I in these
matters, and could read out an entire lecture of the most mundane material and
think you had just saw a Broadway show.
He was
an amazing character and is sorely missed by his students and his family. I had
the opportunity to do a term at MUN's Harlow campus with Dr. Dunn, and there I
got to see a different side of him. We spent some time as a class travelling to
different places, including in Scotland – they were actually in the midst of a
referendum there at that time – and saw how their system works.
So
there's lots out there. I hope the committee undertakes the time that is
required to do an adequate assessment of the issues that it chooses to study,
but I would certainly hope they will take on issues that can be addressed in a
way that is action-oriented and action-minded, and as the Member for St.
George's - Humber said, hopefully this work can begin over the summer and this
process can unfold.
I
support the motion brought forward by the Government House Leader.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
As I
speak today on democratic reform, I'm going to say it's – and my first statement
that I always make in the House of Assembly, it's a privilege to stand up here
today to represent the beautiful District of Cape St. Francis and also the
beautiful people in the District of Cape St. Francis.
That's a
big part of democratic reform that I'm going to talk about today, because us as
politicians, and as people in this House of Assembly, we have to realize who
elected us, who are our bosses and who – when we come in, we talk about
democracy. Democracy is all about the people that elected us to represent them.
Mr.
Speaker, I'm going to just talk a little bit about one portion of this first.
I'm not going to try to take all my time today because I know there are lots of
people in this House and I'd like to see everybody get up and give their opinion
on this today because it is important that everybody's perspective is heard.
The last
election in this province, Mr. Speaker, the highest number of voter turnout in
any district in the province was in Cape St. Francis. It was the highest
anywhere in the province. Over 70 per cent of the people in my district got out
and voted. I don't take credit for a lot in my district, but I am going to take
credit for that. I'm going to take credit that I had a great team. I engaged a
different group of people.
I'll
tell you a little story first. My son and my daughter started a Facebook page.
The Facebook page said: Re-elect Kevin Parsons. I got a call a couple of days
later and someone asked me: How did you get 2,400 names on that Facebook page? I
don't know, it was a group. They had to sign into a group. I really don't know
how it worked. I said I don't know, but I'll ask my son and my daughter how it
was done. By engaging 2,400 young people into a Facebook page, I'm sure it
played a role into 70 per cent of the people who came out and voted.
We look
at politics, and I always look at numbers. I'm always trying to figure out this,
what you need for this. If 50 per cent of the people only get out to vote, that
means only 25 per cent of the people got a say on who the elected person is in
their district. Just think about it. If only 50 shows up and there are three
parties there, if you get 25 per cent of that 50, you're almost guaranteed a
seat. That means only 25 per cent of the people could have a say in who is
elected here.
I think
it's important that when we talk about reform that we look at the sign of the
times, we look at young people. We try to figure out how to engage young people.
You mentioned yourself, Mr. Speaker, about bringing the age down. I think that's
a great idea. I think bringing the age down to 16 – but we have to do the
education part of it.
Next
week I'm going to be down in Holy Trinity Elementary in a grade four class. They
all sent me in what they were looking for in their districts, a swimming pool,
sidewalks and all that. I get an opportunity to go down. They had their own
election in the class. I'm going to have the opportunity to go down and talk to
them, and I do it every year.
I
remember the first year I came in and one little one wanted to know where my
limousines was. She figured elected officials definitely got to have a limousine
to come along with. Anyway, I showed her my Toyota Tacoma outside the door with
a few scratches and dents in it.
That's
where we have to be, young people. We have to engage young people and figure out
how to do it. The more we talk to people, the more we get people engaged, the
better democracy will be.
The
other thing, I look around the House of Assembly and there are three women on
this side and I believe there are five on the other side. There are not enough
women here in the House of Assembly. We need to make sure it's even. When you
look at the population and where they have 51 per cent who are women in our
population; yet, only probably about 20 per cent are represented here in the
House of Assembly.
Minorities and people with disabilities, every person has a perspective that is
a little different than whatever. We have a doctor here, we have people that are
educators here, we have a lawyer here, we have people from all sorts of
different backgrounds, and a farmer. We have all kinds of people, but that's
what this legislation should be about.
I'm sure
there are times I'll get up here and speak in the Legislature and people will
look at me and say: that's not a bad idea, that's okay. I'll look at somebody
else, it'll come up, because we all come from different walks of life, and
that's what it's supposed to be, but we need to make sure we're engaging as many
people as possible.
Now
there are a couple of changes I really would like to see and I'm going to talk
about a little bit today. I like legislation. I really like legislation and I
think you get to understand more about what's really happening and what our job
is. We make the laws of the land. We bring in different rules and regulations
and everything else but when we get legislation – and I only really realized it
in Opposition. In government it's a little bit different because you can get a
little heads-up. The ministers know in their departments what's coming down and
they got a lot more information, but when it comes to legislation I believe we
should be doing it a little different.
What
happens most times the legislation gets introduced, the minister will give first
reading. Then it'll be introduced, and probably the next day there's a briefing.
Now, there's a possibility if there's a briefing the next day, you could have a
briefing at 11 o'clock in the morning and you could be up in the House at 1:30,
2 o'clock in the day talking about that piece of legislation.
Does
that give you the adequate time needed to do the proper research that you're
doing? I don't think so. I believe legislation should come to the House of
Assembly as soon as it starts. Then the special groups, groups that need to be
engaged, they can give you their perspective on what they think about the
legislation so you'll know, you'll have public dialogue. That's what this is
about.
Democracy is about giving everybody a chance to tell what their opinion is on
stuff. When it comes to legislation, I think we could really make big changes
when it comes to legislation, by even putting it online at the start of the
Assembly. Here's the legislation that's coming in for this session so everybody
has a look at it. Somebody may look at it and say I'm interested in that. It'll
make the public more engaged, and we need to do that.
Again, I
have to say, I've been here for a number of years, going on 10, and I have to
say I really want to say a big thank you because when it comes to legislation,
most times I get up here in the House of Assembly and speak, and all my
colleagues, it's our research staff that gets us ready, that does the notes,
that works in the nighttime and everything else, and has to because it comes in
so fast that these people do the job and they give us the information. So a big
kudos to the people that do our work upstairs. I really appreciate it because
they really do a lot of work for us and make us understand the legislation.
If the
legislation was out there earlier people in the public could have an idea. They
wouldn't hear about it on VOCM news in the morning that this piece of
legislation is coming through. They'd be after hearing about it a month, they'd
be after talking about it, there may even be a conversation that people at
different – Stella Burry or it could be Choices For Youth, it could be different
organizations like that. They'd say this piece of legislation is coming in now
and this might affect us. If they did this or if they asked this question, maybe
we'd get better laws in the land and everyone would be engaged a little bit
more. That's just one point, when we talk about this today, that I really wanted
to get up and talk about.
The
other thing, I understand and I applaud government for the changes they made.
Personally, I did like filibusters. I did like the way the filibusters ran, that
we could get up and go, go, go. In this House of Assembly I've been here for a
few of them. I thought they worked really, really well. But you know what, it's
important that we respect families, and everything else that was done here. I
think that closing the House at 12 o'clock rather than going on all night long
is good thing.
Like the
minister mentioned when he got up: the change of calendar so now we know exactly
when we're here in the House of Assembly and also the break. I used to laugh
because I'd be talking to my colleagues, I'd be talking to Members on the other
side and we'd be talking about the advantage and the disadvantage of living in
the St. John's area.
When
you're in St. John's and you're from Torngat Mountains, you don't get a chance
to go to the concert at the school; you don't get a chance to go to the
firemen's ball, or any organization –
AN HON. MEMBER:
You can't even go to the
fire.
MR. K. PARSONS:
You can't go to the fire.
I think
myself and the hon. Member mentioned that – and myself and the Member for Burin
- Grand Bank mentioned it also – that when I'm here in this House of Assembly,
when I get out of the House of Assembly in the evening most times I have to go
to a function in my district.
My
family tells me all the time: You're gone all the time. I'm sure the Member for
Virginia Waters - Pleasantville knows exactly what I'm talking about. I know
you'd like to be in your district but sometimes it's a disadvantage to be there
because there's too much. Once you go to one, you'd better go to them all. I try
to attend everything in my district.
There
are pros and cons to everything. I believe the rules that were brought in, when
we changed to go to have it every three weeks and then have a week off, that's
great for everybody. Like I said when I started, the people that elected us here
are the people that should have the opportunity to make sure we're doing the
work. If we have to go to their houses or we have to go to a function or go to a
town council or whatever, we should be doing it because that's what we're here
to do.
I could
speak on this for hours and I really don't want to because I know everybody else
wants to. I have one other little thing I'd like to talk about. I believe that
once a person is elected to – as a party, I'm elected from the PC Party of
Newfoundland and Labrador and I'm elected in Cape St. Francis. The people in
Cape St. Francis elected me as a PC. I believe – and this is my belief, it's not
my party's belief – if I'm elected as that person, if I decide that I want to
change, it should go back to the people that elected me to decide whether I can
make that change or not because I don't believe that the people's voice is
heard.
If they
elected me as a PC, or if they elected me as a Liberal, or if they elected me as
NDP, that's how I was elected. Those are my bosses and they should be the people
to make the changes. That's my opinion. I know most people will have a different
opinion on that, but I believe that is what the general public would like out
there.
When we
do democratic reform, I gave a couple of ideas. I have everything written down
here that I could on to speak for, but those are a couple that I would like to
see. I look forward to this coming to the House. I think any change we can make
to engage more people into politics to run, to vote, is great for our province.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Leader of the Third
Party.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I'm very
happy to stand and to speak to this amendment which I fully support and my
colleague from St. John's East - Quidi Vidi, as well, fully supports. We're very
happy to see this amendment and actually congratulate our colleagues from the
Official Opposition on this well-thought-out amendment. It's simple but very far
reaching in its application.
We know
that a lot of people in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador feel that
their province has been taken away from them. People are constantly complaining
– and I don't mean complaining in a negative way – constantly stating that they
are no longer interested in politics as usual. They want to see change. This is
what this motion guarantees. Also, the proposed amendment makes it even clearer
that this will be an all-party initiative.
People
want us and need us to work together. This is actually a motion that is a gift
to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, which really comes not from
government's initiative, not from our initiative, but from the initiative of the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador. That's what we are speaking about today,
Mr. Speaker, the fact that we must and we can do politics in a different way;
that is more inclusive, that is more responsive, more collaborative and that is
more relevant to the people of the province. That's what they want. When we look
at what democratic reform is a lot of people automatically think about electoral
reform. Democratic reform is a whole bag of goodies. That's what this motion is
about, looking at that whole bag of goodies.
By the
proposed amendment, the House of Assembly shall establish this all-party Select
Committee on Democratic Reform. It's exactly as it should be. This should not be
an all-party select committee that is initiated, mandated or controlled by
government; it should be by this House. Unlike the All-Party Committee on Mental
Health and Addictions, in fact, that was controlled by government. That was one
of its drawbacks. Also, the minister of Health, the previous one and the current
one, were the ones who chaired that committee. This should not be done in that
manner. That's how the All-Party Committee on Mental Health and Addictions was –
and government controlled it and sort of drove the bus on it.
This
one, particularly because of the nature of having an all-party Select Committee
on Democratic Reform, it absolutely should be a select committee of the House
which will be struck by the House and which will report directly to the House.
That's so important. It totally takes the partisanship out of it and makes it
answerable to this House.
Our hope
will be that we will work with a broad definition of democratic reform, not just
electoral reform or reform of political financing – although these will be
important elements, electoral reform and political financing, both of campaign
and parties. It's very important to take a look at those issues.
The
all-party committee must consider both internal issues: how we do our work here
in the House of Assembly, how we do our work as legislators and, also, aspects
about external, public aspects of democratic reform which will have a heavy
component of education. Our school system has not done a whole lot of work in
educating our young people about our democratic systems, our democratic
processes and how important that is.
We've
seen a decline in voter participation and civic engagement, so we have a lot of
work to do. If we're not learning it in school, it's not likely we're learning
it anywhere else. Some people become self-educated about the particulars of our
democratic processes and systems, and a lot of people get it by reading the
paper, watching the news, speaking to people in their communities.
It will
have a strong outreach component. It needs to have clearly defined within its
mandate – this committee – the obligation to address the issue of democratic
deficit so it can consider questions such as – because we do, we all talk about
democratic deficit but let's look a little bit about really what that means.
Why are
people opting out of political life, and what can we do about it? How come we
don't have more people running? How come we don't have a more diverse population
running? When we look around this House, there's not a whole lot of diversity in
terms of really reflecting the diversity of our community. We need to look at
that.
Again,
only 25 per cent of our elected MHAs are women. That's a problem. That's really
a problem, because women are 51 to 52 per cent of our population. How can we
ensure greater diversity in our political system? How can we reduce financial
barriers for those interested in running for political office?
It's
very expensive to run for political office, so candidates are expected to raise
money. Also, for some candidates if they have to take time off from their jobs,
that's an economic hardship as well. How do we make it more financially
accessible to people who are interested in running? How do we build the habit of
civic participation? And that's an important one.
Our
democracy shouldn't be seen as just what is happening here in this House. Our
democracy is also about real civic engagement, and how do we promote that? How
do we ensure that is happening? How do we make that more accessible? Not just
the kinds of consultation that government often does, which is not real
consultation and real engagement. How do we do that, Mr. Speaker?
Should
we lower the voting age? If so, to what age? How can our school system better
prepare youth for civic engagement? How can we make sure that our young people
are not only being prepared to vote but being prepared to push us, to prod us,
to question us, to be part of the solutions of the challenges that are facing
our communities.
Boy, do
we have a lot of really persistent and significant challenges, but we all must
be part of addressing those challenges. So, how do we ensure that? How do we
ensure more civic engagement? Because people are pretty fed up, a lot of people
have opted out. How do we turn that around? How do we ensure that people with
various disabilities are able to participate?
A lot of
campaign offices are not physically accessible. People who are hearing impaired;
how many large debates, political debates are interpreted for the hearing
impaired? How do we ensure it? None of our proceedings here in the House are
interpreted for the hearing impaired. I don't believe – I haven't watched it in
a while because we're here in the House, but we don't have speech-to-text in our
broadcast of proceedings of the House of Assembly.
People
who are hearing impaired, how do they access what is going on here in the House?
How do they participate? It's not just about people who are hearing impaired
being able to have the interpretation so they can hear what is happening in the
House, how do they also participate? We don't have anybody here in this House
with a physical disability. We don't have anybody who's hearing impaired. We
don't have anybody who has limited sight. So what happens? Do you know?
There
are those kinds of issues. How do we make this House and our democratic
processes, which are not just internal here to the House but external as well,
to make sure that everybody has the access to participate? That's what we need.
We can't afford as a province, our 520,000 and shrinking population can't afford
not to have every brain cell participating in the solutions that we need going
forward in our province.
I
believe we can. I'm excited about this. I'm excited about this all-party select
committee. It was a long time in coming. I'm very disappointed that it's only
now coming.
This
government's been at the helm for over two-and-a-half years, and they're also
saying it is doubtful that any of the recommendations will be implemented before
the next election. I believe that has been negligent on the part of this
government. This committee should have been struck – let's give them half a
year. Let's give government half a year. It should have been struck two years
ago so that we could have come up with recommendations. We would be at this
point maybe at least half a year ago, and recommendations could be implemented
before the next election. It's not likely that's going to happen now.
I'd like
to say again, I believe government has been negligent in that. They made a
promise to do this, and it's a promise that has come too late.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):
Order, please!
MS. ROGERS:
It's a promise that has come
too late in terms of the validity of implementation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
What are
some of the key issues that the committee could work on? I also would like to
say that this committee cannot work in isolation from the open government
movement.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Neither
of these other individuals has been identified to speak, only the Member for St.
John's Centre.
Please
proceed.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
This
committee cannot work in isolation from the open government movement. Mr.
Speaker, I know I've heard you speak about it, the open government movement
that's going across the world and in governments in many, many jurisdictions.
Our committee must also be plugged into that open government movement.
What
does that mean? It must acknowledge that democratic reform includes efforts to
make government more accountable. It's what people want. They've been asking for
it. More transparent; they want to see who's making decisions, how they're
making decisions and why they're making decisions. More consultative, real
consultation, real engagement and more collaborative; people want all of us
working together because there are so few of us. There are 40 people in this
House of Assembly. We need to work together on behalf of the people and to the
benefit of the people.
Ample
research has shown that when the public is asked how could government be
improved or changed, more often than not they want their government to be better
in these four interrelated areas: accountable, transparent, consultative and
collaborative. That's how I have hoped that we would be able to work together.
Hopefully, this committee will be able to get to those issues and see how we can
do it better. How can we do governing better? How can we make sure that people
are really involved?
My
colleague from Mount Pearl - Southlands, who is an independent Member of the
House, will speak to the issue of where independents sit in all of this. I'm
really looking forward to that. We currently have three independent Members in
our House. How do we ensure they are able to represent their constituents in
this House? We have to look again. There may be some candidates running as
independents in the next election. What is fairness there? How do we deal with
the issue of independents? That will be an interesting discussion to look at
through this select committee.
I'm sure
that we will hear from the independents about some of the issues they identify
that need to be addressed by the all-party select committee. I'm looking forward
to that conversation. It's a bit of a dicey one. How do we ensure that our
democracy is open, transparent, collaborative and accountable? That's looking at
those issues as well, the issues of Members who are sitting as independents.
Mr. Speaker, I have a few minutes. I'm not sure if – two minutes? Okay, I
have two more minutes. I will use those.
Key issues that the committee should work on are political party campaign
financing reform and electoral reform about proportional representation versus
first-past-the-post, versus other online voting, mandatory voting. Those are all
issues that we need to look at. That is exciting. I'm excited about the
possibility of looking at those issues.
Mr. Speaker, I'm instructed at this point I should move to adjourn
debate. I will pick up where I left off when the House sits again.
Thank you very much.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Given the fact that it's 4:58 p.m. and that we are scheduled to close at
5 p.m., I would move, seconded by the Member for Burin - Grand Bank, that we now
adjourn.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded
that this House do now adjourn for the day.
All those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against?
It being Wednesday, and in accordance with Standing Order 9, this House
does now stand adjourned until tomorrow at 1:30 p.m.
I would remind all Members of the Management Commission that we will be
convening in 16-17 minutes at 5:15 p.m. in this room.
And happy birthday greetings to the Government House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!