May 29, 2018
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLVIII No. 26
The
House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):
Order, please!
Admit
strangers.
We'd
like to welcome some visitors today. In the public gallery we have Kevin O'Shea,
Linda Ross and Cheryl Mullett. They are members of the Access to Justice
Committee. They're going to be referenced in a Ministerial Statement this
afternoon.
Welcome
to you all.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
I'd also like to welcome a
very new set of eyes to my right.
This
morning we're very pleased to have a ceremony; we call it the hanging ceremony.
We have a new tribute to number 43 in the line of Speakers; this is the former
speaker Osborne, now the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board. He
gets to sit across from his portrait for the next little while.
Welcome
to you, Sir.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
In the spirit of so much
going on in the Francophone community I'm very pleased to announce that this
morning, live on our website now, are aspects of the site that guides one
through the House of Assembly en français.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
I would like to thank the
ministers responsible, including especially the Bureau des services en français
and also my own team in the House of Assembly staff. Please enjoy that nice
bilingual website.
Statements by
Members
MR. SPEAKER:
For Members' statements today
I look forward to hearing from the hon. Members for the Districts of Terra Nova,
Mount Pearl North, Bonavista, Harbour Main, Conception Bay East - Bell Island
and a little tribute from a minister who now represents the District of Corner
Brook. We'll hear from you as well.
The hon.
Member for the District of Terra Nova.
MR. HOLLOWAY:
Mr. Speaker, it gives me
great pleasure to rise in this hon. House to acknowledge the tremendous
leadership and volunteer efforts of the Discovery Health Care Foundation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. HOLLOWAY:
Formed in 1989, the board and
its partners have organized various fundraising efforts in support of health
care facilities and services to the residents of Clarenville, Bonavista and
Burin region.
The
Health Care Foundation is well known for several annual signature events
including the Dave Hawkins Memorial Hockey Game, the George Martin Golf
Tournament and the walk for mental health. On Sunday I, along with my colleagues
from the Districts of Bonavista and Placentia West - Bellevue, attended the
foundation's annual telethon at the Eastlink Events Centre.
Mr.
Speaker, this year's event was another huge success. Through support from local
Lions Clubs, volunteers and various musical performers, the foundation raised in
excess of $77,000 which will enhance community initiatives like the Tip-A-Vista
Foundation's Wellness Centre and the redevelopment of the emergency room at the
Bonavista hospital. In its 29-year history, the Discovery Health Care Foundation
has raised nearly $5.7 million.
I ask my
colleagues to join me in congratulating the Discovery Health Care Foundation for
its continued interest in the health of the citizens of my district.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Member for the
District of Mount Pearl North.
MR. LESTER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
today to pay tribute to the contribution that service organizations provide to
our province. In particular, I am proud to acknowledge the Mount Pearl Kinsmen
and Kinettes and to show my appreciation for their spirit of giving. The Kinsmen
and Kinette Clubs of Canada are the largest Canadian-only service organization.
The
Kinsmen and Kinette Clubs of Mount Pearl are made up of passionate members who
work together to improve our community. Contributions from their fundraising
efforts provide valuable support and services to many worthwhile causes. From
raising money for cystic fibrosis and multiple sclerosis, to volunteering their
time and providing advocacy for the national organ donation program, their
efforts are invaluable.
The
Mount Pearl Kinsmen provide sponsorship to Mount Pearl Minor Hockey and the
local Air Cadets. They also organize various fundraisers and host many events
such as the annual Christmas seniors' dinner. The Mount Pearl Kinettes also host
many events and fundraisers which include their annual Trivia Night which I had
fun participating in this year.
I would
ask all Members present to join me in congratulating all the good work of the
Mount Pearl Kinsmen and Kinettes and all service organizations throughout our
province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Member for the
District of Bonavista.
MR. KING:
Mr. Speaker, it's an honour
to recognize the robotics team of Heritage Collegiate. Through the years,
Heritage has been known for its robotics teams; however, in recent years,
interest waned. Through the guidance of mentors Stewart Churchill and Lyndon
Williams, with a renewed interest from 10 eager students, Heritage recently
competed at provincials for the first time since 2015.
The
Marine Advanced Technology Education (MATE) competition was held at the Marine
Institute with over a dozen teams competing. After MATE was completed, Heritage
was one of two teams to qualify for the international competition in Seattle.
This competition of 50 teams begins on June 21 and our team is hard at work to
improve their ROV.
Working
since September, our team has built their ROV from the ground up. They do their
own computer programming and are quite resourceful in salvaging parts from
household items to save on costs. Even an old set of speakers comes in handy as
the end result is a medley of pipes, motors, glue, sweat and elbow grease.
I ask
all hon. Members to join with me in congratulating Heritage Collegiate on their
performance at MATE and wish them our best as they head to worlds.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Member for District
of Harbour Main.
MS. PARSLEY:
Mr. Speaker, local businesses
are no doubt the lifeblood of many rural communities, and oftentimes receive
international recognition for their products. Such is the case of the
Newfoundland Distillery Company located in Clarke's Beach.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. PARSLEY:
They have been awarded a
double gold medal for their Seaweed Gin at the San Francisco World Spirit
Competition and silver for their Cloudberry Gin.
Winning
a double gold means that their Seaweed Gin is among the finest products in the
world and that each member of the judging panel independently awarded it a gold
medal.
The
Seaweed Gin is made using seaweed harvested from the Grand Banks, the barley
from Cormack paired with local juniper and a hint of savoury. It is a unique gin
that blends the classic flavour of juniper with the taste and freshness of the
ocean air of our windy shoreline. The Cloudberry Gin has local juniper,
cloudberries and a dash of savoury. This has the classic gin taste enhanced by
citrus and fruit notes to give a complex and a smooth gin.
I extend
congratulations to Mr. Peter Wilkins and the Newfoundland Distillery Company on
receiving this prestigious award.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
today to recognize a sports team with players from my district who made history
by winning the gold medal in the Boys Ice Hockey division of the recently held
provincial Winter Games in Deer Lake. I speak of the St. John's North Boys
Hockey team who are made up of players from the St. John's North area which
includes Paradise and Portugal Cove-St. Philip's in my district.
Mr.
Speaker, this team went undefeated during the round robin play and defeated the
Mount Pearl South team in the gold medal game with a 3-1 victory. These games
give young men and women from every corner of our province an opportunity to
compete for their regions in a variety of high-level competitive sports and to
make lasting friendships and memories.
Believe
it or not, Mr. Speaker, I, too, had the privilege of participating in past games
and I am forever grateful for the thrill of competition and the memories and
friendships that I cherish. Unfortunately, I never did make it to the podium but
the memories live on.
I do
want to congratulate all who participated in this year's Newfoundland and
Labrador Winter Games, but I particularly would like to congratulate the St.
John's North Hockey Team players from my district: Brady Mitchelmore, Will
Williams and Thomas O'Brien, who were key contributors to the regional team
winning goal.
Good
luck in your future hockey participation.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Corner Book who will need to seek leave before he proceeds, please.
MR. BYRNE:
Mr. Speaker, consultations
have been held with the parties and I think if you seek it, you will find
unanimous consent.
Mr.
Speaker, imagine having a kind of looking glass to be able to peer into one full
century and see the start of yet another. Imagine, Mr. Speaker, what it would be
like to speak to someone who could recall from memory every milestone event of
the 20th century and into the 21st century right up to the present day.
If you
were blessed by knowing the late Mary Power of Corner Brook, you would have such
a window. Mary passed away a week ago today, Mr. Speaker, sound in mind and
spirit, but seeking rest from a very long, well-lived life after having met the
wonderful milestone of being 108 years young.
Don't
think for one second, Mr. Speaker, that Mary was captured by nostalgia of that
which was passed. She was a woman of progress, of change and of achievement.
Known
better as Muffy, Mary Power was a powerhouse of ideas, dreams and actions. She
loved her family and lived for them. She was a devoted instrument of her Roman
Catholic faith. She was a life of true example, but don't think for one moment
that it was a life of solitude or without a certain edge. She enjoyed her toddy
of gin, an odd trip to Vegas, and to stay on the dance floor from one year
literally on into the next. And that was while she was still in her 90s, Mr.
Speaker.
Muffy's
life was not a catalogue of events. It was a life of exceptionalities,
well-lived, and on each and every straightaway and turn she lived it. She added
to every moment and every life she touched. I'm very happy to have been one of
her occasional visitors and to sit with her as often as I possibly could as she
told stories of my own family, the Main Street Byrne's, and of her own family
and their enduring friendships with each other.
Oh Lord,
let your perpetual light shine upon Mary Power and let the souls of all of the
faithfully departed rest in peace.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Statements by Ministers.
Statements by
Ministers
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety and the Attorney General.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, our government
is working hard to ensure that all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have access
to justice. I'm happy to say we have made great progress through initiatives
such as the Sexual Violence Legal Support Program, Drug Treatment Court,
additional supports for victims of revenge pornography and the study into bail
supervision. Mr. Speaker, these initiatives are made possible because of a group
of hardworking individuals who are committed to access to justice.
The
Newfoundland and Labrador Access to Justice Steering Committee was formed in
2013 and has met on a regular basis to share information, develop partnerships,
and to encourage and promote a variety of access to justice initiatives in the
province.
Mr.
Speaker, we have members from the Department of Justice and Public Safety, the
Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court, both General and Family Divisions, the
Provincial Court, the Legal Aid Commission, the Law Society, the Canadian Bar
Association, the Public Legal Information Association, the Provincial Advisory
Council on the Status of Women, the Human Rights Commission and the English
School District.
Since
2016, the committee has established five free legal clinics in the province. The
Small Claims Legal Assistance Clinic, the Court of Appeal Legal Assistance
Clinic, the Access Law Clinic, the Gathering Place Legal Assistance Clinic, and
the Choices for Youth Legal Assistance Clinic and they have assisted 311
participants. Seventy-three volunteer lawyers, articling students and law
students have generously given over 250 hours of legal service to the community.
Mr.
Speaker, I am thrilled to see these community members who are working hard to
improve the justice system in Newfoundland and Labrador and it's my pleasure to
recognize them in the House of Assembly today, including people like Kevin
O'Shea, Cheryl Mullett, Linda Ross and those that may be watching on TV.
Mr.
Speaker, thank you so much, and to these individuals I'd say thank you for your
commitment to Newfoundland and Labrador.
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.
First of all, I'd like to thank the minister for
providing us with an advance copy of his statement today. Also, we want to join
with the minister and the government in recognizing the good work undertaken by
the Steering Committee, all of its members and the volunteers who support their
work and who come from a variety of backgrounds. It's always advantageous when
the government consult and engage outside of that government bubble, and those
who have particular skills and expertise add great value to any endeavour.
It's the responsibility of government, Mr. Speaker, to
then action the various items and proposals that come forward. While government
seems to have brought forward some or many of these ideas, there are still some
others that need to be actioned. A case in point would be Bill 12, the
Protection of Intimate Images Act, which was announced back in April but hasn't
made it to the floor of the House of Assembly yet. Well, we're only a couple of
days left in this session.
So while I commend the minister for engaging with the
group, for making progress and working towards those goals, I encourage him to
bring the ideas forward in a timely and responsible manner. Again, I want to
very briefly thank all Steering Committee members for their assistance and their
direction. We all look forward to further positive recommendations that will
benefit all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Third Party.
MS.
ROGERS:
Mr.
Speaker, I thank the minister.
Thank you and congratulations to all those on the
Access to Justice Steering Committee for their progressive and innovative work.
Bravo!
We lost a family resource office at our local Legal Aid
office. Fewer and fewer people have representation because they can't afford
lawyers, resulting in more people self-representing. Justice Green has raised
that alarm numerous times. A drug court only works if the necessary wraparound
and rehabilitation services are in place, and 60 per cent of inmates in our
corrections facilities are on remand. We need a better and more just bail
supervision program. There is a lot more work to be done.
Again, to those who have so generously served on the
Access to Justice Steering Committee, thank you for your expertise and crucial
work. Thank you and
bravo!
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Further statements by
Ministers.
The hon.
the Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. BYRNE:
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to
recognize the outstanding achievements of two members of the Department of
Fisheries and Land Resources.
Fish and
Wildlife Enforcement Officer Mark Gilliam and Superintendent Barry White were
recently nominated for the 2018 Peace Officer of the Year Award. This award,
presented annually by Newfoundland and Labrador Crime Stoppers, recognizes the
successes of recipients both on the job and in their respective communities.
I
congratulate Mr. Gilliam on his nomination and I applaud Mr. White for being
named the 2018 Peace Officer of the Year.
Mr.
White was not able to be here in the House of Assembly today, Mr. Speaker, but
is instead involved in specialized training today that will further benefit the
residents of Newfoundland and Labrador and wildlife enforcement.
Mr.
Speaker, Barry White was born and raised in Millertown, and is a
second-generation Wildlife Enforcement Officer. Over the past 25 years,
Superintendent White has worked as an officer in Cartwright, in Carmanville, in
Gander and, most recently, in St. John's, where he has been the Regional
Superintendent since April 2011.
Superintendent White is heavily involved in a number of community groups in St.
John's and surrounding areas, including the Law Enforcement Torch Run, Special
Olympics Newfoundland and Labrador, Paradise Grasshoppers, Newfoundland and
Labrador Police and Peace Officer Memorial, Uniformed Services Gala, Gender
Equity Committee (through the Department of Justice and Public Safety) and the
Duke of Edinburgh Awards. He is also a coach of female under-12 soccer.
Mr.
Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleagues to join with me in recognizing
and congratulating Superintendent White for his dedication to the wildlife of
our province and the social well-being of our communities. It is because of
people like Barry White that our province will continue to flourish in years to
come.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Member for the
District of Topsail - Paradise.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Again I
thank the minister for providing us with an advance copy of his statement today.
We join with him, government and the people of our province in congratulating
two distinguished peace officers, and not only those as well, but also the
police officers of the year.
I had
the pleasure to attend the annual Police and Peace Officers of the Year event
recently that was held in Conception Bay South and was quite pleased at the
calibre of those finalists that were there. There were several finalists there
in each category and they had, I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, very impressive
backgrounds, not only strictly in enforcement, but also with the work they do in
the community.
I know
Superintendent Barry White. He lives in Paradise in a part of my own district.
Some of the work they've done there has been of great value to citizens within
the town, but not only that, throughout the province.
Again, I
join with the minister in extending these congratulations and wish them all the
very best.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Member for the
District of St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I, too,
thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. I'm pleased to join
him in congratulating both Mark Gilliam and Barry White on being nominated for
2018 Peace Officer of the Year and offer special congratulations to
Superintendent Barry White on receiving this year's honour.
I also
thank all the workers in Fisheries and Land Resources as their dedication to
wildlife and public service is an essential part of our communities all over the
province. Both Superintendent White and enforcement officer Gilliam exemplify
this commitment. I, again, congratulate them on their continued successes.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Further statements by
ministers?
Oral
Questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, in early December of 2017 the minister announced a province-wide audit
of road ambulances. The minister stated it would be completed in nine weeks.
It's
been six months. Where's the report, Minister?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker, for the question.
We
engaged an outside company to do this work and they have asked for an extension.
They had some challenges validating the data. I expect the report within the
next fortnight.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The leader of the Official
Opposition.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
audit was requested so the people throughout our province could have knowledge
that in case of emergencies they could rely on an ambulance.
While I
realize the audit is not completed, are there any findings here that could be
shared so people can feel comfortable about response times for emergencies?
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of Health and
Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
The
people of this province can feel confident in the ambulance service they have,
both on the ground and in the air. This audit will take another two weeks or so
to wrap up – for those of you who do not understand the English colloquialism of
fortnight. I apologize.
The
facts of the case are, Mr. Speaker, the audit of response times is an
operational activity undertaken by the RHAs and occasionally by the department
on an as-needed basis. That is independent of the financial audit which will be
ready in two weeks.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The leader of the Official
Opposition.
MR. BRAZIL:
Mr. Speaker, we know that
people in the province have lost their lives while waiting for an ambulance. The
minister gave his word to have the results of the audit publicly released within
a matter of weeks.
Why has
the minister chosen not to proactively disclose the delay up until this point?
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of Health and
Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
It was
my view, and the view of the auditors, that this should be presented as a
package, complete, without any hands in the pie from any sources. That was my
aim, to have a transparent and independent audit. That is what we will deliver.
Two weeks is the time I have been given, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The leader of the Official
Opposition.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
When
chemo patients were sent home in Central the minister blamed it on staff. When
the health ethics board held up life-saving clinical trials, the minister didn't
know there was a problem. Now the ambulance audit is delayed and this is his
explanation.
Will the
minister guarantee that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador will have access
to that audit within the next two weeks?
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of Health and
Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
As I
have said from the get-go, the results of that audit will be made public. They
will be ready, according to the auditors, in two weeks' time. When we have it,
we will release it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The leader of the Official
Opposition.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
A doctor
who received a $50,000 government bursary to work in our province had his job
offer at St. Clare's hospital cancelled.
Can the
minister explain why the job offer, which was offered 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.
It was
an unfortunate situation which I was made aware of through the media. I have
directed Eastern Health to describe to me the circumstances around their
decision process and let me know. At the moment I only know what's out there in
the media.
We do,
however, have a very successful bursary program; we have 22 bursaries, in actual
fact. In general, these work very well. This is only the second case in over two
decades that Eastern Health had where there has been this kind of a problem.
We're looking into it and I will report back when I have some more to tell you,
Sir.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The leader of the Official
Opposition.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's a
bit alarming when – what message does this send to our health professionals who
are working to recruit and retain when a regional health authority cancels a job
offer agreed to?
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of Health and
Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker, for the question.
Recruitment and retention has been an issue in this province for a considerable
period of time. We are working through a variety of means, both with Memorial
and the faculty of medicine, to grow our own recruits and to keep them.
We have
a distributed medical education program which is second to none. Our retention
rates in this province for our own graduates are as good as any other
jurisdiction at 10 years, Mr. Speaker. We are making a difference; we will look
into this hiccup.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The leader of the Official
Opposition.
MR. BRAZIL:
Mr. Speaker, I think it's
more than a hiccup when you've got Western Health currently looking for a
radiologist that's in dire need.
Why
would Eastern Health pull a contract for a radiologist when it's so challenging
to recruit and retain radiologists in our province?
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of Health and
Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
As I
have said, and I will repeat again, I have directed Eastern Health to look into
their decision-making process and apprise me of it.
We are
always faced with challenges with recruitment, Mr. Speaker; but, as a fact, we
have over 1,200 physicians in this province, the largest number we have ever had
in this province. We lead the country in doctors per capita. It is not all doom
and gloom.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
people of our province deserve the best and brightest medical professionals, and
the government is responsible for recruiting these doctors.
Why did
the government allow the service of a Newfoundland doctor to go to the United
States instead of remaining here in Newfoundland?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Mr. Speaker, once again, I
cannot speak to the specifics. We offer in this province a very, very
competitive package with Atlantic Canada and we offer some of the best working
circumstances for physicians in any jurisdiction in this country.
We will
look into the instances of this particular decision, Mr. Speaker, but this is an
exceptionality. It is the second time it has happened in several decades of
regular offering of bursaries. We will look into it. We'll let you know, Mr.
Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
People
living and visiting our province are feeling the pain at the pumps. All
indications point to record high gas prices into the summer.
Will the
minister take immediate action and lower the gas tax?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, oil prices are volatile. I'm not going to commit today to taking action
knowing that last week oil was at $80 a barrel, today I believe it's at $75 a
barrel.
What I
will say, Mr. Speaker, is we've committed to phase out the remaining gas tax as
the carbon tax, which is imposed upon us by the federal government, is phased
in.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. BRAZIL:
Drivers cannot afford these
high gas prices.
Will the
minister agree that the high gas prices in this province are endangering our
already fragile economy?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Mr. Speaker, tourism numbers
are up. Gas prices have not stopped tourists from coming here. In fact, they're
at record numbers; while gas prices at the pump are higher in British Columbia
than they are here.
The
Member can fear monger if he wishes, but oil prices are volatile. We've seen oil
prices in the last 12 months, Mr. Speaker, go from lower than $60 a barrel up to
$80 a barrel. We're not going to make rash decisions. That was the pattern of
the Members opposite to make decisions based on what a barrel of oil was today,
and we saw where it got the economy and where it got the finances of this
province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm not fear mongering but I do have some fear here after
hearing the minister mention a carbon tax and what impact that would have on gas
prices. So we're going to look forward to that discussion over the next number
of days.
Your government increased the gas tax in
Budget 2016. This gas tax is hurting
families, businesses and the economy.
Will the minister direct the immediate repeal of the
remaining gas tax as introduced in Budget
2016?
MR. SPEAKER: The
Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE: Mr.
Speaker, I find it absolutely incredible that if something good happens in the
province they're going to jump to their feet and say: We did it. But what they
don't jump to their feet and say is we did it when they had a $2.7 billion
deficit in this province and didn't bother to tell the people of the province;
didn't have a mid-year update. They continued to tell the people of the province
it was a $1.1 billion deficit.
Yes, we made tough decisions in 2016, because you left the
province in the situation where they couldn't make payroll.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon. the Member for the District of Topsail - Paradise.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
From that exchange, when you cut through all the rhetoric,
I'll tell you one thing we just learned. We learned that the government is going
to replace the gas tax with a carbon tax. That's what the minister just said,
Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, it's becoming increasingly apparent that
police will not have the approved roadside screening devices needed to enforce
the law when marijuana becomes legalized.
I ask the Premier: What is police in Newfoundland and
Labrador expected to do to fill this void?
MR. SPEAKER: The
Minister of Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I think the first thing to point out right now is that as
of today, impaired driving is illegal. As of tomorrow, impaired driving will be
illegal. When cannabis is legalized, impaired driving will still be illegal.
The police right now, every single day, are detecting
impaired driving through their specialized training, a DRE Program which has
been around since the 1970s. It came out of California. In fact, it's been
legislated in this country since 2008 through the
Criminal Code.
If you spoke to Constable Karen Didham yesterday, someone
who has been doing this work for some time, what she says is: They are ready.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Member for Topsail - Paradise.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Part of the new bill and the legalization process will also
be to identify drivers when they're between 2 nanograms and less than 5
nanograms. Another law is 5 nanograms or more; another one is 2.5 nanograms when
there are 50 milligrams of alcohol. These roadside devices are intended to help
guide police in determining the level of THC content.
How are police going to fill that void?
MR. SPEAKER: The
Minister of Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you.
Again, we're dealing with a situation here where we do have
policy that's going forward. Much of this policy is driven by the federal
government. I'm not sure if the Members opposite have spoken to their members of
the Senate or their members in Ottawa to talk about this.
Every province faces the same challenges, which is there is
no federally approved screening
device. The fact is that impaired driving will still be tested. What you can do
is a Standard Field Sobriety Test followed by a DRE. The fact is you can test
blood through a urine sample right now.
The fact
remains that legal or not legal, people, unfortunately, are driving impaired in
this province. Thankfully, we have some of the best police officers in the world
right here in Newfoundland and Labrador and I have faith in them.
Thank
you.
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.
I join
in with the comment of the minister, that we have great police officers in this
province. There are no two ways about it, absolute great police officers, very
talented, very capable, very well experienced, but it's hard for them to do
their job if they don't have the technical devices that the law allows for
usage. That's the problem. We're not criticizing police. It's about not giving
them the tools to do their job.
Mr.
Speaker, the government has indicated that drivers can safely drive with less
than 2 nanograms in their bloodstream. Can the minister tell us exactly what
that means?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Again, Mr. Speaker, the tone
of the questions from the Member opposite, not just in this last week but over
the last little while, I think have been inspired to create fear in the general
public once the legalization of cannabis happens. The fact remains, that's
simply not the case.
What we
are having is a legalization of cannabis that is being driven by the federal
government. We, here as a province, have said that we will do what we can within
our power to be ready for this. That's why we have four pieces of legislation
that are ready within government.
What I
will point out, I think it is interesting, that the legislation we debated last
night and will debate today, the Highway
Traffic Act, the president of MADD Canada came out and said it's amongst the
best in the country. She was here last night, she watched the debate. So when I
hear somebody like that talking, I know we're on the right track.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Member for Topsail - Paradise.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I've had
conversations myself with the president of MADD. MADD does great work. I talked
about them yesterday in debate in the House here. They do great work in the
province and they do great work in the country as well, Mr. Speaker. They do
support the levels that are going to be contained within the legislation. The
problem is there's no way for the police to evaluate those levels at this point
in time because the device has not been approved, they haven't been obtained,
there's no policy and there's been no training, Mr. Speaker.
Even
today, we hear last night in the Senate two dozen amendments unanimously passed
by Committee in the Senate just last night.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask the Premier: With changes still happening in the federal
government, how are those changes likely to impact your legislation that you're
trying to pass here today?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again,
all we can do as a province is control the changes that are within our control.
We are debating legislation that is of a provincial jurisdiction.
What the
Member opposite is talking about is federal issues and I don't know what he
expects. Does he expect us to do nothing and allow the feds to come in and
impose their system? What we're showing here is that we as a province are ready
to act. We've said it all along, we're doing it now.
The
federal approved screening device is exactly that, it's a federal approved
screening device. Legislation in the Senate – again, it's up at the federal
level. What we're doing here is making legislation that we have the power to do
within provincial jurisdiction regarding smoke-free environment, regarding
consumption, regarding everything else.
We've
taken action and we're ready to debate.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
MR.
P. DAVIS:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, many people not only in our province, but
in our country have some sense of their personal limits when it comes to
drinking alcohol and driving. It should be zero for everybody. Some people
choose and they have some sense of where they're very, very safe. Two nanograms;
people really don't know what that – or understand what that means and the
minister hasn't told us.
I ask the government: How will you educate and inform
people on the use of marijuana? What will equate or expectations be to reach two
nanograms? How will people know what their limit is before we even get off the
ground here?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
Minister of Justice and Public Safety.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
The
first message I'm going to put out: Driving impaired is illegal – period. That's
the first message that we're going to put out.
Thankfully, what we have here is some of the most
progressive legislation in the country as evidenced by the support of groups
like MADD Canada, a national organization. As evidenced by our progressive
policy, we have no tolerance whatsoever when it comes to novice drivers, drivers
under the age of 22 and commercial drivers.
The fact remains, yes, with this huge policy shift that
is happening everywhere, we have a duty as a province to roll out education and
awareness programs. We will do that but first we need to get the legislation in
place which we are debating in this House. We will continue on, we will continue
educating and we will be ready for whatever comes our way.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
Member for Topsail - Paradise.
MR.
P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My question to the minister was: How are people going
to have an understanding of what the level is? What is that level of impairment?
What is that legal limit? What do those two nanograms mean? The minister hasn't
provided it. If he can provide it, I'd greatly appreciate it.
I'll ask the minister if school curriculums or
educational institutions, either our public system or post graduates – will
there be programs introduced so that people better understand how marijuana
impacts the human body, what causes the impairment and those levels of
impairment?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
Minister of Justice and Public Safety.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Certainly, I agree with the Member opposite, there is a
lot of education to come with this; I've been stressing that for the two years
that I've been in this position. We've also stressed that point to our federal
counterparts.
With this huge policy shift that they have indicated
they will be imposing on our country – and we've been ready for it – part of
that is education. That's why the feds will be coming
up with a significant
education awareness program that will be rolled out not just to school kids, but
to the entire population. That is coming. You will see it soon.
Right
now, we are dealing with the legislative side. We don't know what the
legislation is. We've put forward what we think is a very strong proposal in
terms of what we can control. We remain to see what comes up to the federal
side. Either way, what comes out, we do need to educate the public. There will
be a significant public education and awareness program that people can expect
to see.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Member for Topsail -
Paradise.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Lloyd
Hobbs of SafetyNL says that employers are waiting for guidance from the
government as employers need to adopt policies, understand those policies and
educate their employees on policies right away in preparation for the
legalization of marijuana.
I ask
the government: When can employers expect the necessary concrete guidance they
need to develop and educate their employees?
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of Justice and
Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
One of
the things about passing on guidance is that, obviously, we have to know what it
is we are dealing with. Right now, we are just dealing with the legislation.
It's
interesting. The Member opposite has criticized us by saying you're taking so
long; now, we can't do it fast enough. We can't get the information out fast
enough.
The
first thing we have to do is have legislation passed by this House. I will point
out that we will have this done some time during the month of May or June.
Either way, legalization will not be happening in July of 2018. We will be
ready.
What I
will say is we'll continue to work with WorkplaceNL and work with the employment
community. We've already done one of the largest public consultation campaigns
in the history of this province when it comes to this and we'll continue to work
with these groups to ensure safety is preserved.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Member for
Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask the Minister of Finance: What studies were done at the
Newfoundland Liquor Corporation related to projected gross sales of marijuana
when legalized?
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of Finance and
President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
numbers that they've used were numbers provided federally. At this particular
stage this is a brand new industry. Even numbers that are provided to us, Mr.
Speaker, we can't say for certain whether those numbers are going to be met or
whether they're going to be well exceeded.
At this
particular stage it's a brand new market, it's a brand new product for the NLC.
We can only give best estimates.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Member for Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I ask
the minister more specifically: Were there actual studies done by the NLC by
auditing firms or any other groups or consultants related to this issue here in
the province?
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of Finance and
President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure if
you went down on Water Street with an auditing firm and asked the current
retailers of cannabis for their sales projections and sales numbers, if they'd
give you the accurate numbers. All we can go by are the numbers that the federal
government provided us. That's what we're going by.
Again, I
don't know how often I need to say it: It's brand new territory, it's a brand
new business and it's a brand new product for the NLC. We have to be nimble. I
believe that the numbers we put in, Mr. Speaker, were a cautious projection. I
hope they're exceeded.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Opposition House Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
A
straightforward question to the minister: Did the Liquor Corporation engage a
consultant or others to do a study on the projected sales of marijuana and what
the gross profits would be?
A
straightforward question: Did it occur or did it not? That's the question.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of Finance and
President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Mr. Speaker, I will say that
I have a great deal of confidence in the NLC; they've been dealing in controlled
substances for decades. I believe they know how to set up retail shops. I
believe they know how to do distribution. I believe they know how to make
projections on sales.
What I
will also say is I'm not aware of any auditing firm that conducted studies on
sales projections, Mr. Speaker, but I can certainly ask.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Opposition House Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, when compared to the percentage of net return on alcohol sales – about
50-60 per cent – what is the expected return on gross sales of marijuana?
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of Finance and
President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you,
Mr. Speaker.
The
dollar figures, I believe, were $5.8 million that we're expecting this year as
revenue to the province. Out of that, there are some expenses. We've outlined
that previously in the Legislature, Mr. Speaker; the expenses that are
associated with it. In addition to that, there are other expenses that the
provincial government will take on for education and so on.
Again,
these are just projections. We have absolutely no certainty whether these are
going to be right on the nose or whether they're going to be exceeded. I
certainly hope that these numbers are exceeded, Mr. Speaker, but we don't know
the market yet.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Opposition House Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
understand where the minister is coming from but there would have been, I'm
sure, some projections in terms of what those actual gross revenues would be.
In the
Cannabis Act it references a
federal-provincial taxation agreement: Where sales exceed $100 million the rate
of return to the province changes.
I ask
the minister: What is the basis for this $100 million in the tax agreement?
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of Finance and
President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you,
Mr. Speaker.
At a
federal-provincial-territorial meeting of Finance ministers we were provided
with the $100 million figure by the federal minister. Those are federal
calculations, Mr. Speaker. There was a negotiation that took place.
I will
say with the input of our Premier this province was able to negotiate the $100
million cap at the national level. Once we exceed that, the profits – instead of
75 per cent to the province – will be shared provincially on a proportional
basis.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
understand as with alcohol sales that money remittance of gross sales revenues
must be completed for marijuana sales with a portion reflecting the monthly
revenue to the Newfoundland Liquor Corporation.
Is this
the method that Canopy Growth will use to get back for any infrastructure they
build in Newfoundland for production and retail of cannabis until their
$40-million investment is paid back to them?
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of Tourism,
Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for
the opportunity to clarify again the Canopy investment where they will be
building a $55-million facility. With that agreement that is put in place,
they're operating for 20 years and 145 jobs.
They
have the ability, with their four retail stores, for any product that is sold
within the province they will remit a reduction in sales remittances until their
$40 million is recouped – only in their retail stores.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Opposition House Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We did
get somewhat of an answer. That's the method. The $55 million they spend on
infrastructure will now be – they'll draw back. It's not going to go into the
Provincial Treasury; they're going to draw back, that $55 million.
Are
facilities built by Canopy Growth and paid for by those revenues from the
production and retail of marijuana – or retail as you've indicated – by the
company on completion? Are those premises owned by Canopy Growth or will
taxpayers own them as they have paid for those facilities?
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of Tourism,
Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
The Canopy Growth Corporation
is making an investment. They're a publicly traded company in Newfoundland and
Labrador. They will be setting up their retail outlets.
Their
production facility of what they're making, their capital investment will be
upwards of $55 million. They're only able to recoup a maximum of $40 million
based on their agreement. They can only recoup any funds for sales that are made
at their retail outlets in Newfoundland and Labrador, and for a product that
would either be sold online through this particular agreement and deal.
There is
no tax exchange, there is no money provincially that is going into any of these
operations. They have to sell product here in Newfoundland and Labrador before
they can ever get a refund.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Leader of the Third
Party.
MS. ROGERS:
The Minister of Justice and
Public Safety has announced an independent review of the tragic three deaths in
provincial corrections centres that happened since August to be undertaken by
retired superintendent Jesso.
I ask
the Premier: Will he immediately release the terms of reference and powers of
the investigator so that the families and the public will know what her work
will involve, what her time frame is, what resources she will have, who will she
report to and if her report will be tabled in the House?
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of Justice and
Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
What I
can say is that yesterday I did announce an internal investigation – an internal
investigation, not an inquiry – into these tragic situations, something that
concerns us very much. Action is being taken.
We have
retained Marlene Jesso – a 34-year veteran of the RNC, someone with significant
experience – to undertake this investigation for us. We look forward to the work
being started which I think, actually, the work has already commenced as of
today. We look forward to getting that information back.
The
purpose of doing this investigation is to determine if our policies and
procedures were followed – if they were followed, they were appropriate – and
making sure that those who lost individuals find out what happened. I think the
public is interested in this information. I look forward to getting that
information as soon as we have it.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Leader of the Third
Party.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I will
assume that information will be made public. Mr. Speaker, in March 2017 the
All-Party Committee on Mental Health and Addictions recommended mental health
services in correctional facilities be provided by Health and Community
Service's system. The action plan committed to doing this by 2021; four years
since the recommendation, three years from now. 2021 is too late; these services
need to be provided now.
I ask
the Premier: Given the crisis of mental health issues in our corrections
facilities, will he commit to transferring mental health services in
correctional facilities to the health authorities immediately?
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of Health and
Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much for the
question, Mr. Speaker.
Towards Recovery
did indeed state that physical and mental health services for corrections
inmates in any provincial jurisdiction would be transferred to the Department of
Health. That is underway.
We are
certainly on time, if not ahead of schedule. I hope to be able to announce some
progress in a very tangible way in the not-too-distant future, 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.
The
Canadian Institute for Health Information reports that this province has some of
the highest rates in the country for use of restraints and antipsychotic drugs
on nursing home residents with dementia.
I ask
the Minister of Health and Community Services: What is his government doing to
lower the instance of these practices?
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of Health and
Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I'm
pleased to inform the member opposite through the Canadian Foundation for Health
Improvement we were part of a multi-center national trial. We had 110 residents
in long-term care in this province as part of that. Through a pilot scheme, we
actually had a significant reduction in that population of inappropriate use of
antipsychotics. The use went down by half.
Nationally, that reduction was of the order of 40 per cent. I hope to be able to
announce in the not-to-distant future a provincial-wide program to deal with
this issue.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Member for St. John's
East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I think
government will also be introducing a program to assess residents and provide
specific routines for each resident in order to make the nursing home
environment friendlier and more responsive to each resident's needs.
I ask
the minister: Will he ensure that new staff will be provided to carry out these
assessments and new routines? Or will this be another task assigned to
overworked existing staff?
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of Health and
Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Mr. Speaker, I'm delighted to
stand up here and talk about our long-term care and home care assessment
process. We have revamped them and are continuing to improve them.
These
will ultimately result in individualized patient-care plans for residents of
long-term care to address their social, physical and psychological needs on an
as-needed, case-by-case, personalized basis. Not only that, Mr. Speaker, we will
have that assessment tool out in the community for clients of the home-support
system as well.
This
system is undergoing a whole reboot. It will be done progressively over the next
three years.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The time for Oral Questions
has ended.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Tabling
of Documents.
Notices
of Motion.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move
the following 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.
Further,
pursuant to Standing Order 11(1), I move that this House do not adjourn at 5:30
p.m. on Thursday, May 31.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Further
notices of motion?
Answers
to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Petitions.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, 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
school-aged children are walking to school in areas with no sidewalks, no
traffic lights and through areas without crosswalks; and
WHEREAS
this puts the safety of these children at risk;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to ensure the safety of all children by removing
the 1.6-kilometre busing policy where safety is a concern.
And as
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr.
Speaker, a number of my colleagues have spoken to the issue around bus safety,
but particularly around those children who have to walk to school, those
students in areas where the dramatic changes in traffic flows, in shouldering in
particular areas, and in the nature of the type of traffic where we have big
developing areas and high-traffic volume areas. It's a safety issue for
everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador with children having to walk within the
1.6, and it has a major impact on it.
We've
looked at it, and we've even had some discussions around the financial costing.
We know over the last number of years there's been a number of rural areas where
there's been a reduction in the number of buses necessary. So we realize that
everything has a cost implication. We understand there are restrictions on that
and you have to work within the confines of certain budgets, but you've got to
look at the safety component here.
On a
yearly basis we're saving money in particular areas of this province because of
lower enrolment and smaller contracts with the busing companies because we need
fewer and fewer buses. We are looking at the fact that courtesy busing, no
doubt, is important and does work to a certain degree, but it is the
inconsistency of it. It's the administrative nightmare it puts on administrators
and somebody dedicated within the school district and a particular school to try
and allot it.
Then it
becomes almost like a lottery game. If you fit into a certain pigeon hole, you
have access to it. That becomes encompassing. There's a process here to look at
changing that policy. That's a 45-year-old policy that's been in play that needs
to be reviewed here, because it's about safety. It's about the geography has
changed in communities, particularly heavy growth areas, and we're talking about
when you identify safety concerns.
Maybe
there's not a one-fits-all process here, but there has to be a dialogue and a
discussion and an openness for the school district and the department to
seriously have a look at the 1.6 busing. It's ironic that only a couple of weeks
ago, with very little conversation on a public notice, and there's sort of been
a don't ask, don't tell concept of bus companies picking up kids along the way
in certain areas when there's space on their buses to ensure kids are safely
walking, and this hasn't happened.
So we're
encouraging government to take a full review of this and set up a process that
works for everybody and continues to keep people safe.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Advanced Education, Skills and Labour for a response, please.
MR. HAWKINS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I find
it really ironic today that the Members opposite talked about the fact it's a
45-year-old policy. They had the last 12 years to change that policy. So
obviously over those 12 years, Mr. Speaker, they did not see fit that there was
a safety issue or any other issue with the 1.6 kilometre busing route. Now all
of a sudden it's a concern for them. I find that ironic.
Mr.
Speaker, instead of spending more time just talking about what they've been
doing or what they have not done over the last 12 years – again, it's important
for all of us. This is a policy, if you do a jurisdictional scan across the
entire country you will find that a 1.6 kilometre is in line with most of the
provinces across Canada. It's something not unique to the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
I
understand the 1.6 kilometre. I have four grandchildren that are actually going
to school in Toronto. I'd like for them to go and research what happens in
Toronto, in Ontario as well, when it comes to kilometres.
Mr.
Speaker, we're well aware of that. When it comes to looking at where the school
board is, it's certainly an issue that the school board is working within the
policy that we have.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Further
petitions?
The hon.
the Member for Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm glad
to rise today and to present a petition on behalf of residents in my district
related to the Witless Bay Line, Route 13, a well-travelled highway and
significant piece of infrastructure, the connection of the Trans-Canada Highway
to Route 10 on the Southern Shore. It certainly plays a major role in the
commercial and residential activity of the region.
Therefore, we petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows:
We, the
undersigned, urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to perform brush
cutting on the Witless Bay Line, Route 13, immediately for driver safety and to
provide clear visibility for the driving public in recognition of the high
volume of vehicles travelling this route every day.
This, as
I said, is a significant piece of infrastructure, Mr. Speaker, certainly for
residents that travel back and forth for a variety of reasons. A lot of people
work on various sides, either on the Trans-Canada side or the Southern Shore. As
well, from a tourism perspective, it's another access to the Irish Loop to bring
folks around and down through the Southern Avalon. It plays a key role in the
flow of visitors to the region.
As I
said, from a residential point of view, commercial and the various industrial
sites, we have the site in Bay Bulls, the offshore site. It's significant in
terms of, oftentimes traffic needs to route through that area. I got a lot of
complaints from a lot of people in regard to particular areas and the brush
cutting. It's close to the highway, close to the road itself, especially in the
nighttime and other conditions, whether it's foggy, and provides a lot of
concern to those who travel that highway.
So I ask
the minister and the department to take a look at this. I know the last time the
brush-cutting program, we did apply to put in for some work to be done but we
ask that this be considered and considered this summer to have some work done to
relieve some of the concerns of many of the residents and travellers who travel
this particular piece of highway.
Thank
you very much.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Minister of Transportation and Works for a response, please.
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the hon. Member for the petition. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that in
Budget 2018 we were able again this
year to commit $2 million to brush cutting throughout the province. I can assure
the hon. Member that as we hear stories of concern with roads, whether it's the
highway or other connectors in this province and moose-vehicle incidents, we
take all of that data into factors as we do our brush-cutting budget.
Mr.
Speaker, I'm very proud again this year as a government that we are able to
commit $2 million to brush cutting. We're also committed to doing earlier brush
cutting tenders this year. It's one of those things that is important to all
people in this province.
We work
with SOPAC when we work with moose reduction polices and strategies throughout
the province. It's something that – at this time of the year I would encourage
all residents of our province to be very vigilant when it comes to moose on our
highways.
I can
assure the hon. Member opposite that we will commit to a steady and a firm
commitment to brush cutting throughout the province again this year.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Further
petitions?
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Deputy
Government House Leader.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I call
from the Order Paper, Motion 2.
I move,
seconded by the Minister of Health and Community Services, pursuant to Standing
Order 11(1) the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, May 29.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay.
Thank
you.
MS. COADY:
Thank you.
Mr.
Speaker, I call from the –
MR. SPEAKER:
Sorry, excuse me.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
The
motion is carried.
My
apologies.
MS. COADY:
That's okay.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Order 8,
second reading of 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:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This
particular bill that we're –
AN HON. MEMBER:
I move.
MR. OSBORNE:
Sorry.
Mr.
Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Natural Resources, that this
bill be now read a second time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded 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, be now read a second time.
Motion,
second reading of 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:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, the Explanatory Notes in this bill essentially lay it out. “This Bill
would enact the Salary Restraint and
Extinguishment of Severance Pay Act.”
It
“would prohibit an increase in pay scales of non-represented public sector
employees and statutory officers during the period beginning on June 1, 2018 and
ending on March 31, 2020.”
Furthermore, would “fix severance pay entitlement for qualifying employees as of
May 31, 2018, terminate any further accrual of severance pay and eliminate any
further severance pay.”
Mr.
Speaker, what we're looking to do in this particular bill – and there are two
bills. There's this bill and an act as well to amend Post-Employment Benefits
Eligibility Modification Act. This bill and the other would essentially put in
place for management and non-bargaining employees of government the same
framework essentially that we've negotiated with NAPE, in the agreement that
we've received with NAPE, and what we're hoping to achieve through negotiations
with other public sector unions.
This
would essentially put the wage freeze in place up to March 31, 2020, which is
when the contract with NAPE expires. It would also ensure that we pay out the
severance entitlements. The courts here in this province essentially, Mr.
Speaker, have determined in 1997 that severance is actually a paid benefit, an
earned benefit, and regardless of how one's employment is terminated with
government, they're entitled to their severance pay.
It would
essentially pay out severance, meaning there's no further accumulation of the
liability on severance. Severance was accumulating. That liability was growing
at a staggering rate each and every year. The payout of severance is something
that former administrations had attempted to accomplish with public sector
unions.
In fact,
they did have success with the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary and Newfoundland
and Labrador Housing employees in, I believe it was 2012 negotiations. This bill
essentially will do this for bargaining and non-bargaining employees the same as
what we've achieved with NAPE and the public sector employees through NAPE.
Mr.
Speaker, any questions that Members have on this particular piece of
legislation, I'd be happy to answer them. We will say at the outset, the savings
as a result of the four zeros, each zero public sector-wide represents
approximately $40 million in savings. The payout of severance, after the
carrying costs that we estimate are about $10 million annually on the payout of
severance. The true savings to government – the savings of $35 million when you
take off the $10 million in carrying costs to borrow what we're paying out in
severance. The actual savings on an annual basis to the province is $25 million.
We'll
get into the savings on the other post-employment benefits once we get into Bill
25.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER (Warr):
The hon. the Opposition
House Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm glad
to rise today to speak to 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.
As the
minister has outlined, this is related to the collective bargaining process.
Particularly, related to NAPE and the implications of that negotiation and I
guess the operationalizing of what was – or some of the parts of that that's
reflected here in this amendment or this piece of legislation. We had a briefing
on it. I want to thank the folks with the Department of Finance for the
briefing. We had some questions, and took us through the intent of the bill.
This is
looking at prohibiting an increase in pay scales of non-bargaining employees,
from June 2018 to – as the minister said – March 31, 2020. This bill will also
freeze the severance entitlements for these employees and give an option of
paying out the severance entitlement – well, the entitlement will be paid out,
but I think there are some options in exactly the payout and when and how that
would happen.
The
minister mentioned, this is one of two bills we'll be looking at intended to
implement a similar cost-savings restraint mechanism as in the NAPE collective
agreement. What this does is basically mirror that agreement, which often
happens with collective agreements. With bargaining agents, once a collective
agreement is reached it's almost always mirrored non-bargaining positions,
management positions, executive and the type. Particular sections of the act
outline the changes and what's going to apply and also outlines who's excluded
from it.
In this
particular act, those who are members of a union, a judge, an MHA or political
staff would not be included in this particular piece of legislation in regard to
severance. The act will apply to executives, managers, non-bargaining and
non-management employees, House of Assembly service staff and statutory offices
and their non-bargaining office staff.
So it
does distinguish between employees of government and who's part of it and who
are not. Non-bargaining and non-management employees are employees who are not
in a union but their pay scale are anchored against a scale of unionized
employees.
In the
briefing we had, there were some questions asked in regard to: What type of
employees are they? What kind of positions would they be? Those types of
questions. It was advised they could be in areas of policy analysts,
administrative assistants, temporary employees. There could be some contractual
employees there and titles of that particular kind. I mentioned in regard to the
changes and who they would not apply to.
The
first part of the bill looks at salary restraint measures, and that looks up to
March 31, 2020. I think that's the period of time that's left when the
collective agreement was negotiated. I think it will lapse for approximately two
years. Under a normal four-year period, adding on two years from when it was
signed or when it was agreed to, that would bring it up to 2020. I know there
was some discussion before in regard to the NAPE collective agreement in when it
did actually expire and some side letters and what that would mean. This one
here we're saying it's 2020.
Step
progressions, overtime amounts, bonuses and shift premiums will stay intact.
They will be eligible, someone in this classification who's defined by Bill 24.
That was questions we had in the briefing as well in regard to things like
normal step progression. Someone could be in a position, and most positions do
have step progressions based on time in that position. After a year or two or 18
months, you graduate to a new pay scale.
For
these employees in such a position, which you likely are in regard to
classification and step progression, you wouldn't be inhibited by this piece of
legislation we're talking about today. You would receive your step progression.
In
overtime amounts, if there was a need in a position for overtime and you worked
that overtime, you would not be negatively affected by that. You'd still be
entitled to the overtime amounts based on this piece of legislation.
As well,
any bonuses that are tied to a particular position, is what the briefing told
us, and shift premiums as well based on if someone is in a position that's on a
call-in basis, those types of incentives, those won't be affected by this
particular piece of legislation as well, as we were advised of in the briefing.
The
amount of these particular ones I've talked about, the step progressions, the
overtime amounts, the bonuses and shift premiums, all of those – according to my
understanding in terms of the briefing we had – cannot be increased during the
restraint period. So up to the restraint, which has been designated by this and
by the current government up to March 31, 2020, none of those items I listed,
which an employee covered by this piece of legislation, would normally avail of
and would be entitled to or still entitled to, as I said, step progressions,
overtime amounts, bonuses and shift premiums.
They
can't change according to this during that period. They cannot change up to the
period of March 31, 2020. At that point in time a collective agreement would
expire and there would be discussions and bargaining in regard to moving forward
from there. What happens there oftentimes would happen post-2020. They would be
mirrored, probably in a similar instance as it is here today.
The
minister did speak to the fact that this arose from the collective agreement
that was signed with NAPE. I guess the intent is that these provisions would
flow over to any new collective agreements, whichever bargaining units. But
there's no guarantee that this would be part of another collective agreement
that's negotiated with another bargaining unit. That would be a separate
negotiation. What we're doing here now is entrenching elements of this, which is
in the NAPE collective agreement, in these non-bargaining positions. In relation
to the other collective agreements that the minister mentioned, it's my
understanding they haven't been signed and haven't been agreed to. The elements
are here that are reflected in the NAPE agreement.
This
doesn't mandate or make it illegal for something different to be negotiated in
another collective agreement that hasn't been signed yet. We'll wait and see if
the collective agreements yet to be signed or yet to be negotiated will reflect
the provisions that are here related to severance that was negotiated by NAPE.
My understanding, as I said in the briefing, there's no guarantee that will take
place. I'm sure that's the government's intent in terms of their negotiations
and where they're going to go.
There
are two components to the bill: one is the salary-restraint measures and the
other part is the extinguishing of the severance pay. Currently, most employees
must have completed nine years of continuous service and receive a maximum of 20
weeks of service pay upon resignation, retirement or termination of employment
based on the rate of one week's salary per year of service. My understanding is
that this is the core public service Treasury Board policy that exists today.
It's on the books and that's abided by.
We also
had a discussion in the briefing about agencies, boards and commissions and what
actually happens with those. Some of those may have their own policies related
to these provisions related to the extinguished severance pay. My understanding
is that applies to those organizations, so they would be implemented or there
would be talks underway if they were to modify that, if that was the change. But
those policies would exist with those ABCs and would not reflect what we're
doing here.
That
would be an ongoing process government would have with the ABCs. I know the
minister talked in the past in regard to working with ABCs, reducing costs and
reducing expenditures. I would guess or assume that it's one of the initiatives
they're working on and try to mirror, in some way, some of the things that are
reflected here. But, again, my understanding is it's not binding on ABCs.
The
current act we're looking at, Bill 24, will freeze the value of the severance as
of May 31, 2018. That's what we were advised in the briefing. Employees who have
at least one complete year of service as of May 31, 2018, will receive their
severance payout. For most employees the severance payout will be based on the
number of complete years of continuous service multiplied by the weekly salary
on May 31, 2018, to a maximum of 20 weeks.
The
severance entitlement is based on a point in time when the service is
discontinued which is – well, the last day would be May 31, 2018. The weekly
salary at that time would be used to calculate severance entitlement based on
the complete number of years of continuous service multiplied by the weekly
salary on that particular date to a maximum of 20 years. There's a cap on how
much you can receive and how many weeks would be part of that.
I know
there was discussion in the briefing as well about breaks in service, part time
over a longer period of time. I understand that person – I think the minimum is
a year – would still be entitled but it would have to reflect cumulatively that
12-month period and then they would be entitled. Interrupted service or
part-time service could be used collectively to determine entitlement of
severance in this particular instance.
If a
person has a different severance structure, the value of the severance on March
31, 2018, will be used to calculate the severance payout. Severance will be paid
out no later than March 31, 2019 is our understanding – it was what we were
advised – except where a deferral was requested. If employees want their
severance deferred they have to give notice by December 2018. If employees want
to roll a portion of it into RRSPs – I think you need to have the RRSP room –
they have to give notice by October 2018. There are particular provisions when
this act is approved and timelines for individuals to meet or to express
interest in how they want to go with this.
I'm sure
government is going to go through a process of informing employees of these
dates and the importance of them. Certainly, it's very important to people in
terms of their financial management, their particular retirement and other
aspects of investments, so that they're fully aware of these dates and they have
every opportunity to make an informed decision and meet those deadlines in
regard to what they can or cannot do in regard to their severance. Some people
will look at maybe transferring into RRSP, looking at things like spousal RRSP
in terms of their particular circumstance: all of it important to them.
The
issue of deferral, too, is significant in regard to some individuals I heard
from in regard to maternity or paternity leave. Where this is not, we'll say, a
planned severance, it's instructed or being legislated in regard to the
discontinuance of severance and therefore having to take severance at some
point. Originally when it was announced through the NAPE collective agreement,
which originally it came from, I don't think at that time the minister indicated
or talked about deferrals. I think there was a deadline set over four quarters
of a fiscal year and you needed to make a decision within one of those four
fiscal years when you would draw it down.
The
concern with that, that I had heard from in regard to maybe drawing down federal
benefits, maternity or paternity benefits, because of that, because of the quick
window, there could be an instance where you would be negatively affected in
terms of drawing down those benefits. Based on the fact that the time period,
when you draw down, you wouldn't be able to – maybe not access those federal
benefits because you're seeing a severance.
We were
advised in the briefing that because of this deferral mechanism, people would
have an option to do that or to use it, to exercise it, and therefore should not
be negatively affected by that situation. That's something I think we need to
keep an eye on because, again, this is something that's been mandated, it's not
by choice per se. How that affects other benefits, we certainly need to keep an
eye out for that to make sure people aren't negatively affected by it.
I
mentioned earlier this was based on the NAPE collective agreement and what
happens if other unions have a different deal. We're not really sure on that
because government has gone through this and done a one-off here with one union
and settled it. What the implications are with other collective agreements, if
there's something different than what's negotiated in regard to severance, it
could be a difference. I mean, we could have to be back here debating something
different.
Section
2 in the act also looks at any individual who is entitled to severance and has
deferred it, and not yet received it, will still have the right to that payment.
There's also, after May 31, 2018, a compensation plan shall not include a
severance pay policy or an increase in compensation.
There
are various elements in the piece of legislation dealing with going forward
after May 31, 2018. The list of ABCs, which this act applies to, is also listed
in the Schedule and who is not included. Nalcor and MUN are not included,
related to this particular bill or amendment. Those are listed in the Schedule
of who is, but those were – we had a discussion on that as well in the briefing.
Some of
the agencies would be: Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities; C.A. Pippy
Park Commission; Central Regional Health Authority – all the Health Authorities
– ; College of the North Atlantic; Human Rights Commission; Independent
Appointments Commission; Labour Relations Board; Marble Mountain Development
Corporation; Mental Health Review Board; Multi-Materials Stewardship Board;
Municipal Assessment Agency; Newfoundland and Labrador Centre for Health
Information; Newfoundland and Labrador Eastern School District; Newfoundland and
Labrador Film Development Corporation; Newfoundland and Labrador Housing
Corporation; Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation; Newfoundland and
Labrador Medical Care Plan; Newfoundland 911 Bureau Inc.; NL Innovative Council;
Provincial Advisory Council on the Status of Women; Provincial Information and
Library Resources Board; Public Procurement Agency; Public Service Commission;
Royal Newfoundland Constabulary; Student Loan Corporation of Newfoundland and
Labrador; The Rooms Corporation; West – and as I said, the Health Authorities –
; Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Review Division; and Workplace NL.
So those
are part of the Schedule of Bill 24. They list all the agency, boards and
commissions which this particular act would apply to. Again, they would be
related to this specific group of employees, and others within those
organizations would be part of, probably, a collective agreement, maybe NAPE or
others. They would include executives, managers, non-bargaining and non-managed
employees, which would be relevant probably to those organizations and who this
particular piece of legislation applies to.
This is
the direction government has taken in negotiations and now they're mirroring,
parlaying it in to – a similar direction they're taking with this group of
employees, which is outside the normal collective agreement employees, and this
will mirror what happened with the NAPE agreement.
As I
said, it will be interesting to see as we move forward in regard to those other
collective agreements that are outstanding. As they're negotiated, will it
reflect what's here, as this is a reflection of what transpired in the NAPE
collective agreement?
We'll
certainly look forward to having further discussion and debate, and no doubt
we'll probably have a few questions when we get to Committee.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I'm
pleased to stand and speak to Bill 24 this afternoon. The Member for Ferryland
did a great job in presenting the bill. This language hasn't been used by either
him or the minister, but basically it's a housekeeping bill. Because the
practice of government with regard to the salaries and benefits for
non-represented public sector employees and statutory officers is for them to
follow what happens in the collective bargaining agreements with the public
service sector.
We all
know this was public when it all happened, that NAPE and government came to an
agreement and there is now a collective agreement in place. The issue of
severance, which this bill deals with, that is dealt with in that collective
agreement with the 15 bargaining units of NAPE which was accepted by the public
service sector workers. What this bill is doing is stating in legislation that
what is in that collective agreement between government and NAPE covers the
non-represented public sector employees and statutory officers and spells out
what that means for these people who are affected.
The
Member for
Ferryland did go through them, but I'll mention them again. People
affected include non-management, non-bargaining employees, House of Assembly
service staff, statutory officers and the non-bargaining staff, managers and
executive. I did ask in the briefing – and I thank the minister for having his
staff do a briefing with us, it was a very good briefing – in the
non-management, non-bargaining employees, that sometimes there are positions
under that title of
people who are policy analysts, doing various types of policy planning and are
not recognized as members of the union.
I was
assured by the officials in the briefing that those positions are part of agreed
upon agreements between NAPE and the government, that there are positions that
are non-union, that are not part of the bargaining unit. These people are the
ones who are being affected by this change.
Basically, the change has to do with severance. The new provisions, to put it in
a nutshell, is there will be no more severance for the members of NAPE, nor the
groups that I just mentioned. For the members of NAPE, it's already in their
collective agreement. Now it's being put into legislation for the groups I just
mentioned.
There
will be no more severance after May 31, 2018, but employees must have – as of
that date – one or more years of service to get severance pay back. They'll get
one week's salary for every year of service, up to 20 weeks. They will have to
be paid in a lump sum before May 31, 2019, except if somebody has requested a
special deferral that will be considered. But without a deferral, the lump sum
payments have to be done by May 31, 2019. The deferral can include having the
lump sum put into an RRSP.
All of
those things that are in this piece of legislation are things that are in
keeping with the NAPE agreements that the NAPE members voted for. It's pretty
straightforward. I really don't have any questions when we get to Committee. The
answers I got in the briefing were very straightforward as well, and I will be
happy to support this bill.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm not
going to take very long to repeat what has been said. Basically, I don't know if
I would call it housekeeping. I do know what the Member for St. John's East -
Quidi Vidi says in the sense of housekeeping, in that it's traditionally what
has been done. When NAPE negotiates a collective agreement, traditionally when
it comes to management and non-bargaining employees, they usually end up with
the same benefits – or in this case the loss of benefits – that the union
members do.
I
suppose in that sense it's housekeeping, but if you're someone who is a manager
or whatever, and if you're in a situation where you were going to get your full
severance anyway, maybe you'd look at it as a positive thing. If you're someone
who hasn't yet qualified for severance or you only have a few years, at the end
of the day you're losing severance. That's what was agreed to by NAPE in the
collective agreement. Fair enough. We understand the situation we're in as a
province financially and they agreed to that.
I think
it is important to point out though, that what was agreed to, being the loss of
severance and a wage freeze for the next three years, personally if I was a
manager or whatever here in the Confederation Building or in any of these –
they're all listed here: RNC, Public Procurement Agency, the health authorities,
WorkplaceNL, the Compensation Review committee and we can go on down through the
list – I would think it was a little bit more than just simply housekeeping in
the sense that I'm now being legislated that I'm going to take a wage freeze for
three years and I'm going to lose my severance. While I do appreciate what my
colleague is saying – I understand what she meant – it is still significant on
someone who's going to face this. As I said, we understand the situation we're
in as a province and why it's being done.
The only
other thing I would say is that it's interesting to note here that while we have
all of the management and non-bargaining employees here at the Confederation
Building, at our health authorities, at the RNC, the Public Service Commission,
the Health, Safety and Compensation Review commission, The Rooms, all of these
government organizations, agencies, boards, commissions – while all of these
managers and non-bargaining unit employees are being told now, by way of
legislation, that they're going to take a wage freeze and they're going to lose
their severance, guess who's not on the list?
Just
guess who's not on the list, Mr. Speaker? Nalcor is not on the list. I point
that out just as an observation that Nalcor is not on the list. All of the
managers and everyone all throughout government, health authorities – everyone
is going to have to do their part in taking a wage freeze and severance, but
Nalcor is not on the list. If you're a non-bargaining unit employee, or a
manager, or director or whoever at Nalcor, you're not on the list of having to
take a wage freeze. I just point that out as an observation because everybody
else is there.
I think
the only other one that's not there is MUN. MUN is separate as well. Certainly,
if they have bargaining unit employees it will be done through their collective
agreements. I assume that the government will be talking to MUN and other
agencies and boards who may have their own collective agreements and try to
encourage a similar template as everybody else is doing. MUN and Nalcor are not
on the list, so that's just an observation.
Other
than that, Mr. Speaker, we all understand why it's being done. NAPE agreed to
it. We have collective bargaining that's still going to be taking place with the
nurses, the teachers and CUPE, I think. Obviously, there's going to be an
expectation, given the fact that NAPE has accepted this, given the fact that
we're going to legislate it to all of our non-bargaining employees, our managers
through all the boards, commissions, agencies and core government. Obviously,
there's an expectation that if I was president of the nurses' association, CUPE
and the Teachers' Association, I think it's pretty obvious what government's
position is going to be.
It's
going to be pretty hard not to go down that road, quite frankly. If everybody
else has agreed to or is being legislated these measures because it's required,
it's going to be difficult for the other groups, I suppose, to fight that.
Although, it will be interesting to see if they fight it and if the membership
accepts it, but that's for negotiations. We're not here to negotiate collective
agreements in the House of Assembly.
With
that said, Mr. Speaker, the bill is what it is. I understand why we do it. We've
always done it. It's sort of tradition, if you will, of how things work. Given
our tough fiscal circumstance that we're in, I understand why we're doing what
we're doing. At the end of the day nobody likes this, but something has to give.
At the end of the day I suppose everybody has to chip in and do their part.
NAPE has
agreed to this, and so now this template will be carried forward with
non-bargaining, with management. I assume this proposal will be carried forward
into future collective bargaining with the other unions.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
It's
indeed a privilege to get up here again today to speak to Bill 24. While some
Members say it is a piece of housekeeping, I beg to differ. I think it's a very
important part of legislation. It shows our workers, especially our unionized
workers, that when it comes to restraint and when it comes to government policy
or it comes to severance packages or whatever, that everybody is going to be
treated the same for non-union and union members.
The
purpose of the bill today is twofold. While we're in negotiations with different
unions and bargaining units we have to respect the largest union which is NAPE.
Once an agreement is done with them I'm sure that part of the negotiations that
were done was saying that other unions will follow along with basically similar
language that they have. Also, when it comes to non-union members to be part of
the negotiations, that would work to show the same follows through.
We're
very fortunate in Newfoundland and Labrador to have the public service that we
do have. We have great people working in our public service. We have great
employees right here in the building and we have great employees right across
the province. It's important that we get up, realize and respect what people do
in this province. To all our workers I really want to say thank you for all that
they do. A lot of them have put their daily lives on the line sometimes for us,
our workers that work for our government.
I just
have a few things to say here on this part of it. Over the years on both sides
of the House we've worked very hard to show the appreciation that we do have for
our workers. There were a lot of years back in the '90s and '80s where there
were costs, government didn't have the funds to be able to pay employees and
there were wage freezes. I remember there were different slogans; there were
licence plates made up and everything else.
But when
our government came into power and there was some money, workers in this
province were shown that they were appreciated with some huge increases in pay.
They deserved it.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. K. PARSONS:
When the cows come home.
That's right, there were sayings.
It took
time when we could afford to do what we could. Now we're in another time where
times are a little bit tough and both union and non-union people that work for
our province are stepping up again and saying we understand. We just had an
agreement that there's a wage freeze. We understand about severance and the
money that it's going to save down the road. It won't save anything in the next
couple of years but in the next 20 years it's going to be huge to the province.
I'm sure that when times are better again then negotiations will be better for
unions and non-union people in the province also.
I just
wanted to make that note that we do appreciate what public servants are doing in
this province and we do appreciate – and we have, in the past, shown them how
much we do appreciate it when we did negotiations in the past; 21 per cent was
what our government negotiated with the public service, and it was well
deserved. Do you know why? They paid the price for years and years and years.
I'm not blaming any government back then, the fiscal times were difficult and
they had to take the wage freeze, but when times got better, it's when you show
people that you really appreciate them.
Again,
that's part of what's happening here today. I just wanted to get up and say that
to our public servants that we really appreciate everything you do for us.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
If the hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board speaks now he will close the debate.
The hon.
the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I wanted
to thank all Members who spoke to second reading in this. As a couple of Members
had indicated, we can't exactly call it housekeeping but it is almost
essentially housekeeping because we are putting in place for non-bargaining
employees, the same framework that we have in place for our bargaining employees
through NAPE, and that's what this legislation does.
I look
forward to questions and looking forward to answering those questions as we get
into Committee.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Is the House ready for the
question?
The
motion is that Bill 24 be now read a second 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.'
Carried.
CLERK (Barnes):
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 has now been read a
second time.
When
shall the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole?
MS. COADY:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Now.
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 second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the
Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 36)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Deputy
Government House Leader.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, 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 24.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
I do now leave the Chair for 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, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, the Speaker
left the Chair.
Committee of the
Whole
CHAIR (Reid):
Order, please!
We are
now considering 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.
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 14)
CLERK:
Clause 1.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 1 carry?
The hon.
the Member for Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The
Schedule of the bill lists the ABCs that this would give oversight to, this
particular amendment or piece of legislation. There are two excluded; Nalcor and
MUN are not included.
I ask
the minister: In relation to these provisions, what attempts are being made or
is there an attempt being made that these would be reflective of those two
organizations in regards to severance or how that would actually work?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you.
That is
a very good question. We have been working with Nalcor and with Memorial
University. They have their own bargaining units so we can't impose upon their
bargaining units conditions that we've achieved through our bargaining, through
collective agreement.
We've
asked them to put in place the same framework with their bargaining units. I
expect them to put the same framework in place. We are continuing to discuss and
meet with them, and it's certainly my hope that this same framework will be put
in place for their management.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I thank
the minister for that. Just to follow up on that. I understand from a collective
bargaining point of view you're hoping that they would mirror this particular
provision, but, right now, is there anything stopping government from mandating
the non-bargaining element of those two organizations to adhere to this
particular provision?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Myself and the Minister of Natural Resources are working on that issue with the
non-bargaining there.
If it
does become an issue, I'm prepared to look at other measures, but we are working
with Nalcor, for example, on the non-bargaining employees at Nalcor. It's
certainly our hope that this same framework will be followed with the
non-bargaining unit.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I really
had the same questions as the Member for Ferryland. I guess just to take it a
little further. Minister, you said once again that you're working with them,
you're hoping that they'll do it, you and the Minister of Natural Resources, in
terms of the non-bargaining and the management employees of Nalcor, MUN and so
on.
While I
appreciate what you say, that you're working with them, I would hope – what
we're doing here in the House of Assembly today, we're not working with the
management and non-bargaining unit employees of the Confederation Building or
any of the other ABCs, the health authorities or whatever, we are imposing the
same restraint on all of those people as was agreed to by NAPE, and we
understand why we're doing that.
So, I'm
just wondering if you try to work with them and there is resistance, if you
will, will you or the Minister of Natural Resources be going to the board of
Nalcor and imposing these same restraint measures on the management of Nalcor
and non-bargaining, the same as everybody else has to?
Again,
the same situation in terms of – I don't know what flexibility you have in terms
of MUN. I believe through the board of directors of Nalcor, it would be my
understanding, my belief, that you could impose it. I'm not sure exactly with
MUN how much autonomy they have, if you could actually impose it or not, but at
least with Nalcor will it be imposed, if need be?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
What I can say, which may create some greater clarity, is Nalcor doesn't have a
severance identical to ours. Their severance package is called a severance
retirement termination package. If we impose the same legislation on them, we'd
be basically saying that they have to pay out severance to all employees. There
are some nuances that make them completely different than us in that respect. So
at this particular stage we're working with them.
The only
time, I understand from Nalcor officials, that they receive a severance payout
is when a position is actually made redundant. Under the Court of Appeal in the
province, we are told through a court decision that our public servant's
severance is an earned benefit and must be paid. That's not the same because a
contract at Nalcor is different, the wording is different. So they have a
different set-up than us. At this particular stage, we're working with them.
I am
very hopeful that they are going to follow the same framework. It cannot be
identical to what we're doing for our agencies, boards and commissions, other
than Nalcor, for example, because their severance termination benefits are
different and have a different set of rules than ours.
At this
particular stage, it would be very complicated to try and suss them out in this
piece of legislation, but, believe me, we've made the request and we're
continuing to work with them.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Minister, for the
response. I do appreciate that. I didn't realize the differences there, so I
really appreciate the explanation and that makes a whole lot of sense to me. I'm
sure you will do what you can to work that out.
That's
the severance piece. Are there any nuances or anything different in terms of
salaries? Is there any reason why we could not ensure that we impose the
three-year salary freeze on the management of Nalcor, the same as other managers
in government?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
That is part of their
collective bargaining process.
What I
can say here, and it's the first time that I've actually said this publicly, but
I've met with the board of Nalcor. I've spoken with the CEO of Nalcor and we are
working with Nalcor to ensure that, while we grandfather the existing employees,
that as new employees are hired at Nalcor, their salaries will be in line with
similar positions within government.
That is
our hope, that is our desire and that is what we are working towards.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Just a
further question to the minister in regard to the two organizations and the
expiry of collective agreements with those two organizations. Are both of those
– and there could be multiple –
MR. OSBORNE:
Can you (inaudible)?
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Yeah.
Just in
regard to the two organizations we're talking about, Nalcor and Memorial, there
are probably multiple bargaining units. I'm just wondering, can you give a sense
of whether those collective agreements have expired and they're now in the
process of – that would be the unionized, obviously, but that would flow over,
maybe, to what we're talking about here? Are there talks underway within both of
those organizations in regard to expired collective agreements?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
There are. Non-bargaining at
Nalcor, I believe, have had the same wage freeze as government has had since
2016. So there has been no increase in that regard.
Nalcor,
at the moment, have three expired contracts. If I'm not mistaken, I think
there's a fourth one that has not yet expired, but there are – or two, sorry,
that are not yet expired. So they've got three expired and there are two that
are not yet expired. They're in varying stages of going through their collective
bargaining with Nalcor.
I think
Memorial has somewhat of a similar situation. We're going through a review with
Memorial now. The relationship with Memorial is also different. Not in the same
way that it's different with Nalcor, but the relationship – as government
Members would know – with Memorial is different. They have academic autonomy and
there's always a discussion as to what economic autonomy goes with academic
autonomy. So it is a different organization for sure.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I thank
the minister for that. Just one final question maybe you could comment on. This
amendment mirrors what happened in the NAPE negotiations and, obviously, there
are other union workforces there that you're currently negotiating with, with
the intent that this provision would be similarly negotiated with those
bargaining units as well.
Could
you comment on how that is going and what if you're not able to reach an
agreement, which could mirror what we're talking about here?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Certainly, we have to allow Nalcor to go through their bargaining process with
their unions. For example, within government, we've got NAPE sorted away. I'm
hopeful that any day we'll be able to announce with one of our other bargaining
units that we've reached the same framework we have with NAPE, but we have to
allow Nalcor, for example, to go through their bargaining process with their
five contracts.
I
believe Memorial University – again, where we don't deal directly with their
bargaining, they do that, but I believe they've got in excess of 10 bargaining
units at Memorial University, and they're also at varying stages, similar to
Nalcor.
So we
have to expect them to go through their bargaining process, and like government
wouldn't speak publicly about what's happening inside the bargaining room or at
the bargaining table, I would also expect that Nalcor and Memorial University
would want that same level of discretion in dealing with their bargaining units.
CHAIR:
Seeing no further speakers,
shall the motion carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, clause 1 carried.
CLERK:
Clause 2.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I
believe our Law Clerk in the House has probably discussed with both Opposition
parties and the independent Member, it's come to the Law Clerk's attention that
the language in the Green act is somewhat different.
In any
event, we need to make an amendment in order to capture one of our statutory
offices so that we have all of our statutory offices.
So I
move a small amendment to clause 2 of the bill. The current version in paragraph
2(u) defines a statutory office as a statutory office defined in the
House of Assembly Accountability,
Integrity and Administration Act.
It's
come to our attention that in that act, which we call the Green act, does not
include the Office of the Auditor General. So in order to include the Office of
the Auditor General, as well, the proposed revision would correct the error by
deleting and substituting the more general definition as follows: “Clause 2(u)
of the Bill is deleted and the following substituted: (u) 'statutory office'
means the office of a statutory officer.” That would then capture all statutory
offices.
I move
this amendment, seconded by the Minister of Natural Resources.
CHAIR:
We'll take a few minutes to
recess to review the amendment as presented.
Recess
CHAIR:
Order, please!
The
amendment has been found to be in order.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
We will resume clause 2.
Seeing
no further speakers, shall the amendment carry?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against?
Carried.
On
motion, amendment carried.
CHAIR:
Shall the clause, as amended,
carry?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against?
On
motion, clause 2, as amended, carried.
CLERK:
Clauses 3 through 20
inclusive.
CHAIR:
Shall clauses 3 to 20
inclusive carry?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against?
Carried.
On
motion, clauses 3 through 20 carried.
CLERK:
The Schedule.
CHAIR:
Shall the Schedule carry?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against?
Carried.
On
motion, Schedule carried.
CLERK:
Be it enacted by the
Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as
follows.
CHAIR:
Shall the enacting clause
carry?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against?
Carried.
On
motion, enacting clause carried.
CLERK: An Act
Respecting The Restraint Of Salary And Extinguishment Of Severance Pay For
Non-Represented Public Sector Employees And Statutory Officers Of The Province.
CHAIR: Shall the
title carry?
All those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR: All those
against?
Carried.
On motion, title carried.
CHAIR: Shall we
report Bill 24 carried with amendment?
All those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR: All those
against?
Carried.
Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill
with amendment, carried.
CHAIR: The
Deputy Government House Leader.
MS. COADY: Mr.
Chair, I move that the Committee rise and report Bill 24 as amended.
CHAIR:
The motion is that the
Committee rise and report Bill 24 carried as amended.
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. 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 the matters to them referred and have carried Bill 24
with an amendment.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Chair of the Committee of
the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them
referred and have carried Bill 24 with an amendment.
When
shall the report be received? Now?
MS. COADY:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Now.
When
shall the said bill be read a third time?
MS. COADY:
Tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, report received and adopted.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Deputy
Government House Leader.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that the
amendment be now read a first time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the amendment be now read a first time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against?
The
motion is carried.
CLERK:
First reading of the
amendment.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Deputy
Government House Leader.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that the
amendment be now read a second time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the amendment be now read a second 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.
CLERK:
Second reading of the
amendment.
On
motion, amendments read a first and second time. Bill ordered read a third time
on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Deputy
Government House Leader.
MS. COADY:
It was a trick there, Mr.
Speaker.
I
thought I was going back to do the third reading, and (inaudible) just said no.
MR. SPEAKER:
It's your choice.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I call
from the Order Paper, Order 9, An Act To Amend The Other Post-Employment
Benefits Eligibility Modification Act, Bill 25.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Deputy
Government House Leader.
MS. COADY:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that Bill 25, An Act
To Amend The Other Post-Employment Benefits Eligibility Modification Act be now
read a second time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
Bill 25, An Act To Amend The Other Post-Employment Benefits Eligibility
Modification Act, be now read a second time.
Motion,
second reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The Other Post-Employment Benefits
Eligibility Modification Act.” (Bill 25)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's an
honour to be able to stand in the House again and speak to Bill 25.
Mr.
Speaker, the Explanatory Notes here, the bill “would amend the
Other Post-Employment Benefits Eligibility
Modification Act to describe the eligibility requirements to qualify for
other post-employment benefits for non-represented public sector employees hired
on or after June 1, 2018.”
So
essentially with this particular one, I'll read the second Explanatory Note and
then I'll get into the explanation of each one. The other is “the percentage of
premiums a non-represented public sector employees hired on or after June 1,
2018, who qualify for other post-employment benefits is required to pay upon
retirement.
Mr.
Speaker, essentially, the first part of the explanation here says that any
employee that's hired on or after June 1, 2018, would be under a different
post-employment benefit for health and life benefits than existing employees.
Existing employees are required to work for 10 years and then they qualify for
OPEBs, or other post-employment benefits, for the rest of their life based on a
10-year work employment with the provincial government or with one of our
agencies, boards or commissions.
This
particular one, by the way, I will say – because it's not complicated like the
severance issue with Nalcor – Nalcor is actually included in this particular for
OPEBs. With this, instead of working for 10 years and qualifying for other
post-employment benefits for the rest of your life, you now have to work a
minimum of 15 years before you're considered qualified to take your other
post-employment benefits into retirement.
The
second paragraph in the Explanatory Note, essentially, right now, once you work
10 years, you're entitled to your post-employment benefits, your health and
life. Government pays 50 per cent of that for the rest of your life. So you only
need to put in 10 years of employment with the provincial government and you get
health and life insurance benefits for the rest of your life and government will
pay 50 per cent of it.
We've
changed that under the negotiation with NAPE. We're putting that in place for
our non-bargaining and managers and other employees that are not part of the
bargaining unit. Once you reach 15 years, you've got to work an extra five years
before you even qualify to get any post-employment benefit entitlement in your
retirement.
The
second part of it, it's a sliding scale. So at 15 years the employee pays 85 per
cent. Instead of 50, the employee will pay 85 per cent of their health and life
insurance premiums. That's from 15 years to 19 inclusive. Once they reach 20
years employment, they are required to pay 70 per cent of their premiums,
government will pay 30. Once they reach 25 years, they then pay 55 per cent,
government will pay 45. If they reach 30 years of employment, it's 50-50. Where
right now it's 50-50, after 10 years of public service it's got to be 15 years
and then there's a sliding scale on what the retired employee pays and what
government pays.
Based on
this change, Mr. Speaker, if we were to look at this change over all public
sector employees with government and our agencies, boards and commissions,
including Nalcor, this year alone, even though any employees hired on this year
– our actuaries have looked at it, and this year alone, based on the new
employees that will be hired and the number of employees that are retiring under
the old system, new employees hired this year – we're about $3.5 million savings
just based on what they determine people have to work an extra five years and
then they pay 85 per cent of their premium. This year, the very first year
employees will be hired under the new system government saves about $3.5
million.
Next
year, it gets even larger because there are more employees under the new system.
By 2026, we break $20 million annually in savings, and it continues to grow. For
as long as there are employees under the old system, as they retire and new
employees come in, that amount continues to grow. This is a significant savings
to government that was negotiated with NAPE. It will be a significant savings if
we put it across all non-bargaining and other bargaining units as well.
Like I
said, by 2026, just eight years from now, we break $20 million per year savings
on this change alone. So it's significant. That continues to grow. As I said, it
continues to grow until all employees in government are under the new system.
That will continue to grow and continue to grow the savings to government.
This was
a considerable achievement for government in negotiating with NAPE. It's
something that didn't get a lot of publicity or a lot of airplay, but it is a
considerable savings and a considerable achievement under our negotiations with
NAPE. It is something we're hoping to achieve with our other bargaining units.
Through this legislation, we'll achieve it with all non-bargaining employees
within government and our agencies, including Nalcor. It doesn't include
Memorial because Memorial is under a different OPEB system.
I look
forward to further debate and to answering any questions that Members may have
once we get into Committee.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Opposition House Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
pleased again to rise to speak to Bill 25; we've just gone through Bill 24. Two
of these certainly support the initiative of government. The first one we just
spoke of related to the Restraint of Salary and Extinguishment of Severance Pay
for Non-represented Public Sector Employees and Statutory Officers of the
Province, Bill 24. This Bill 25 speaks to benefits as well, An Act to Amend the
Other Post-employment Benefits Eligibility Modification Act.
Both of
these, as the minister indicated, to implement a mirror of cost-saving restraint
mechanisms in the NAPE collective agreement. We did the one related to
severance. This is related to the actual post-employment benefits and looks at
the eligibility requirements, percentage of premiums paid for other
post-employment benefits – group insurance in particular – for non-unionized
employees who are hired after June 1, 2018.
So to
date, that cost-share was 50/50 in regard to that benefit when someone retired.
Where you can elect, currently, to continue that benefit after you've left
employment of the public service or with a public entity – if it was available
to you – and you would continue to have that same coverage and you will pay 50
per cent of the benefit post-retirement and government would pay the other 50
per cent of that.
This
looks at, on a go forward basis, as of June 1, 2018, the changes in the act that
applies to non-representative public sector employees. Employees are not members
of the bargaining unit who are hired on or after June 1, 2018. Currently, to
receive or get access, employees must be eligible for a pension, have a minimum
of 10 years pensionable service to the date of their retirement and, as I said,
share the cost of the group insurance on a fifty-fifty basis after retirement.
Now, I
know the significant benefit, and it's been in the public service for a quite a
number of years. I know one of the challenges, and I recognize the minister when
he looked at the unfunded liability of this particular fund and dealing with
that and moving forward. I know in our time we dealt with the pension fund in
the public service pension in setting up the pension corporation, looking at
shared responsibility in regard to managing that fund and laying out a 30-year
plan in regard to getting that plan fully funded.
The
other significant component of that is this particular one we're talking about
here today and post-pension benefits or post-retirement benefits and the cost of
those.
This act
will change and the impacts on employees hired June 1, 2018 or after and when
they actually retire and eligible for a pension, which is a requirement as well.
They will have a minimum of 15 years of pensionable service and commence
receiving their pension immediately upon retirement. The 50-50 that's currently
in place will be changed. There will be a sliding scale for new employees.
The
minister talked about, when he went through and talked about the periods of
service. It starts off, you would need 15 years, 15 to 19, the percentage of
premium paid by employee after retirement with 85 per cent; years 20 to 24 you
would pay 70 per cent; 25 to 29 you would pay 55 per cent and 30 plus you would
pay 50, which is currently what is paid today under the current system.
Again,
this relates back to what was negotiated with NAPE and is now being mirrored in
what we're doing here as well as the severance bill we just did and these actual
post-employment benefits here.
Again,
some of the same questions that we talked about with the severance in terms of
ABCs, agencies, which ones would they be applicable to when we look forward to
those other collective agreements that have not yet been negotiated. I would
suspect the minister and government were looking at, again, trying to bring
these into those other areas as well where it's applicable in regard to the
benefits and how they're laid out.
I
certainly look forward to further debate and maybe have a few questions when we
get into Committee.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Further
speakers?
The hon.
the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I'm
happy to speak to Bill 25, which of course is related to Bill 24, which we just
passed, as was pointed out both by the minister and the Member for Ferryland.
Again,
this bill is tied to the agreement signed between NAPE, the major public service
sector union in our province, and the government. That agreement has usually
been the template for government's relationship with workers who are not part of
the union. As has been said before, but I'll say it again, that includes
executive, managers, non-management, non-bargaining employees, House of Assembly
service staff and statutory officers and their non-bargaining staff.
The
particular piece that we're dealing with now has to do with changes to the group
insurance that we will all have, of course, unionized or not unionized when we
are working for government, but these changes have to do with what happens when
somebody retires.
The
bottom line is that the practice of government has been whatever the agreement
made with NAPE is and with the major public service sector workers is, then
government takes whatever that agreement is and applies it to these other
workers, the groups I just mentioned, those designated groups.
They
have no choice. I have no idea how they feel about the changes to severance, for
example, or to the group insurance, but it really doesn't matter. That's the way
the practice has been. They know that. Anybody who's in any of these positions
is fully aware of the fact that any changes that are caused by the collective
agreement between the public service sector workers and the government, then
become changes for them as well.
So there
you are, it is from that perspective and, I will say, in spite of what my
colleague from Mount Pearl - Southlands said about housekeeping, it's
housekeeping from that perspective. It's not something we can choose to vote
against. It's something that's going to happen, has to happen and the
legislation has to be put in place to go along with that.
Having
said that, Mr. Speaker, I once again will, of course, vote for this bill.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm not
going to take very long here. Again, this is pretty straightforward. Bill 25 is
really the same as Bill 24, just takes a different aspect this time. We're
looking at group insurance when somebody retires.
Obviously, if you're somebody who decides to make a career for yourself in the
public service, it's really not going to impact you. As I read this here, if
you're somebody who came into the public service, maybe in your mid-20s or
whatever the case might be, and you worked out your whole career, you're going
to have 30, 35 years of service and you're still going to end up with your same
50-50 cost sharing once you retire on your group insurance premiums.
I think
it's important to note for anyone who may be a long-time employee this is
probably not going to impact you at all. What this really gets at is the fact
that we've had people over the years who have been in positions for – well,
based on this, could be only 10 years, just 10 years of service, and then at
some point in time they retire and now they can get 50 per cent of their group
insurance premiums paid by the taxpayer for the rest of their life. That's what
this looks to address.
It puts
a sliding scale in place based on from 15 to 19 years of service, 20 to 24, 25
to 29 and then 30-plus. It's also moving the 10-year initial qualification from
10 years to 15 years before you can even qualify to have group insurance at all
once you retire.
That's
what's being done. Again, it mirrors what was agreed to by NAPE in their
collective agreement, so that's what we're doing here. Based on that, I will be
supporting it. I do have a question when we get to Committee.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
If the
hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board speaks now he will
close debate.
The hon.
the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands is correct in that this is a significant
accomplishment for government because of the costs associated with somebody
simply working 10 years and then the taxpayers paying 50 per cent of the health
and life insurance for the rest of their life; a significant cost to the
taxpayers.
What
this now accomplishes, if you're a life employee of the provincial government,
you're not penalized. If you're here 30 years, you get your 50-50 coverage – for
new hires – but if somebody's only here 10 years they're not going to get
coverage for the rest of their life. You have to commit to at least 15 years of
public service with the provincial government before you're eligible to have any
post-employment benefit and, even then, the employee pays 85 per cent. It does
encourage employees to stay with government longer as they develop knowledge.
It
accomplishes a number of things. It eliminates a significant cost on the
taxpayer, but if somebody is here, they acquire a great deal of knowledge and
they're an asset to government, there's more enticement for them to stay with
the provincial government and government saves money. Instead of having to
recruit and train somebody else for a job that person has developed 15 years'
experience in, it's an enticement to have them stay and keep their expertise
within government. As opposed to going to private sector and taking the
expertise they've gained here and bringing it to the private sector, and
government paying to train and going through that whole process with somebody
new.
I look
forward to questions in Committee and providing the answers.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Is the House ready for the
question?
The
motion is that Bill 25 be now read a second 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?
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 has now been read a
second time.
When
shall this bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?
MS. COADY:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Now.
On
motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Other Post-Employment Benefits Eligibility
Modification Act,” read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the
Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 25)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Deputy
Government House Leader.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, 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 25.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself 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 25, An Act To Amend The Other Post-Employment Benefits
Eligibility Modification Act.
A bill,
“An Act To Amend The Other Post-Employment Benefits Eligibility Modification
Act.” (Bill 25)
CLERK:
Clause 1.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 1 carry?
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have
one question for the minister. I'm pretty sure I know what the answer is but I
just want clarification for the record.
Minister, in terms of if somebody is a part-time employee or they're a seasonal
employee – because if you look at the sliding scale that's been given in the
handout, it talks about the number of years to qualify for post-benefit. If
you're somebody who's only working 20 or 25 hours a week as opposed to a normal
35-hour week or you're a seasonal employee, you're only working three or four
months of the year, I assume that you add up all those hours to make up the
hours as if you were full time in order to calculate whether you qualify for
post-employment benefits. Is that how it would work?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It is an
excellent question. In this particular piece of legislation it's only referring
to management and non-bargaining. For the most part they are full time.
To
answer your question, I guess, more directly for unionized – there may be cases
where a manager is seasonal. That may certainly be the case in a park. For
unionized employees there are different classes. Student assistants, for
example, have a different way of calculating their time before it actually adds
up to a year. There are other classes of employees, administrative staff in
schools, that a year is a year, but for certain classes of employees it has to
be a certain number of hours to add up.
It's
actually quite complex. To give you a simple answer to your question, it's
actually very complex because there are so many different classes of employees.
For the most part here, I think managers would be generally full time, but there
may be cases, such as park employees or highway depot employees, that could be
part time. I don't know the answer to that question but I can certainly get it
for you.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Just a
follow-up question to that, Minister: So a break in employment by someone that's
in one of the particular positions that this would cover, is there a restriction
on the amount of time or the number of breaks in employment a person can have
over a period of time that would discount them from eligibility here to get to
that 15-year period? For example, if over a lifetime they had 15 years ad hoc in
regard to one of these positions, would that basically still qualify them if it
was over a long period of time?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you.
In that
regard, nothing changes from how time is calculated with current employees to
how time would be calculated with new employees. It's simply moving from 10
years to 15 years and a sliding scale. There are different classes of employees
and there may be different conditions on how their time would be calculated.
Student
assistants would be different than ushers, for example, would be different from
administrative staff at the school. It is a very complicated area that I
wouldn't want to put an explanation on in
Hansard that could be taken out of context in the bargaining world. But
nothing will change in how their time is calculated currently to how it's going
to be calculated here other than it moves from 10 years to 15 years and then
there's a sliding scale.
CHAIR:
Shall the motion carry?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Those against?
Carried.
On
motion, clause 1 carried.
CLERK:
Clauses 2 and 3.
CHAIR:
Clauses 2 and 3.
Shall
the motion carry?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Those against?
Carried.
On
motion, clauses 2 and 3 carried.
CLERK:
Be it enacted by the
Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as
follows.
CHAIR:
Shall the enacting clause
carry?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Those against?
Carried.
On
motion, enacting clause carried.
CLERK:
An Act To Amend The Other
Post-Employment Benefits Eligibility Modification Act.
CHAIR:
Shall the title carry?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Those against?
Carried.
On
motion, title carried.
CHAIR:
Shall I report the bill
without amendment?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Those against?
Carried.
Motion,
that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Deputy
Government House Leader.
MS. COADY:
Thank you.
I move,
Mr. Chair, the Committee rise and report Bill 25.
CHAIR:
The motion is that the
Committee rise and report Bill 25.
Shall
the motion carry?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
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. Member for Baie
Verte - Green Bay and Chair of the Committee of the Whole.
MR. WARR:
Mr. Speaker, the Committee of
the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to
report Bill 25 without amendment.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Chair of the Committee of
the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them
referred and have directed him to report Bill 25 without amendment.
When
shall the report be received? Now?
MS. COADY:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
When shall the said bill be
read a third time?
MS. COADY:
Tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, report received and adopted. Bill ordered read a third time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Deputy
Government House Leader.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Order 2,
third reading of Bill 21.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Deputy
Government House Leader.
MS. COADY:
I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board,
that Bill 21, An Act To Amend The Liquor Corporation Act, be now read a third
time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the said be now read a third time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House 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
Liquor Corporation Act. (Bill 21)
MR. SPEAKER:
This bill is now read a third
time and it is order that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order
Paper.
On
motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Liquor Corporation Act,” read a third time,
ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 21)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Deputy
Government House Leader.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, 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 23, An Act
To Amend The Highway Traffic Act.
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 adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
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 23, An Act to Amend the Highway Traffic Act.
A bill,
“An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act.” (Bill 23)
CLERK:
Clause 1.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 1 carry?
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Topsail - Paradise.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair
We're in
Committee on Bill 23, An Act to Amend the Highway Traffic Act, as it relates to
the legalization of cannabis. I've said a couple of times now that we expect
we're going to have a fair bit of questions and information and clarification
and so on that we're looking for with this particular bill.
Under
clause 1, there's a number of areas that I'm going to enter into, and hopefully
the minister, who I see is listening carefully over there, will assist us in
trying to obtain some clarity and further information as we'd like to have.
I'd just
like to open, first of all, with a very general question for the minister. On
May 15, there was a story released from
Global News. The headline read: Ontario Police sound alarm over perceived
lack of funds from pending marijuana legalization.
At a
news conference that was held that led to this article being written, the
Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police commented that, and they said “it's fair
to assume based on other jurisdictions' experiences that drug-impaired driving
will go up once recreational pot is legal, and police will need to train more
officers to detect drug impairment.”
I would
ask the minister if she has any comment on that, whereby the Ontario Chiefs of
Police Association is indicating in their release and the information they
shared on May 15 that their expectation is drug-impaired driving is going to
increase as a result of the legalization of marijuana.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Mr. Chair, what I can say for
Newfoundland and Labrador, is that to prepare ourselves in the event, we are in
fact, right now, training more officers.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you.
I
appreciate that and I'm going to get to that about officers trained in SFST and
DRE and so on, but the general statement by the chief of police or the
Association of Chiefs of Police, which is a fairly significant organization in
Ontario, and these chiefs are saying in this article very early that – and
again, I'll just read right from the article, Mr. Chair: “… Chief Supt.
Chuck Cox said it's fair to assume based on other jurisdictions' experiences
that drug-impaired driving will go up once recreational pot is legal, and police
will need to train more officers to detect drug .…”
So my question is: Is the expectation here in Newfoundland
and Labrador that drug-impaired driving will increase as a result of the
legalization of marijuana?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Mr. Chair, what I can say is
that the RNC and the RCMP were consulted considerably on this and supported the
amendments we are putting forward.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
MR.
P. DAVIS:
Okay, so based on the consultation with the RCMP and the RNC, is it government's
belief that the amount of drug-impaired driving in our province is going to stay
the same, will decrease or increase as a result of the legalization of
marijuana?
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Service NL.
MS.
GAMBIN-WALSH:
As
the Minister of Service NL, what I can say is the RCMP and the RNC have relayed
that they are comfortable with the number of trained officers and the training
process that is in place.
It's really difficult for me, as the Minister of
Service NL, to answer that question.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for Topsail - Paradise.
MR.
P. DAVIS:
Okay, fair enough, Mr. Chair. If the minister doesn't know, if the government
hasn't reviewed their circumstances and all the factors to try and make a
determination if it's going to go up or if it's going to go down, fair enough.
That gives me the answer that they don't know or they haven't attempted to find
out.
Minister, you mentioned training more officers.
Officers are generally trained as drug recognition experts and also in
Standardized Field Sobriety testing. I know a little bit about the training
involved for both of those.
Can you tell me how many drug recognition experts the
RCMP have in Newfoundland and Labrador?
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Service NL.
MS.
GAMBIN-WALSH:
Yes, Mr. Chair, there are 19 right now in Newfoundland and Labrador.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for Topsail - Paradise.
MR.
P. DAVIS:
Thank you.
Minister, 19, I think the RCMP has around, somewhere in
the neighbourhood of 450 or 500 officers in the province. Do you know the number
of RCMP officers in the province overall?
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Service NL.
MS.
GAMBIN-WALSH:
I
can get that information for you.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for Topsail - Paradise.
MR.
P. DAVIS:
Thank you very much.
Can you tell me how many drug recognition experts the
RNC have in our province?
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Service NL.
MS.
GAMBIN-WALSH:
What I can say is the total number is 19 overall, for both forces.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for Topsail - Paradise.
MR.
P. DAVIS:
Thank you.
So that's 19 for the entire province for both police
services? Okay, I have to tell you, Minister, I'm a little bit surprised in that
I thought the RNC probably even had more than that themselves. I know they've
been training them probably for eight or nine or 10 years that I know of they've
been training them and in numbers. I thought there'd be much more than that.
Standardized Field Sobriety testing – and I realize, by
the way, that the drug
recognition training, a lot of it has taken place not only out of the province
but out of the country. It's a two-week training program initially and then, if
I remember correctly, there's an accreditation process once they're trained so
that they're qualified. They have to do so many tests and control sample testing
and so on before they're fully qualified.
Standardized Field Sobriety testing I know in Ontario is a week-long process;
it's a five-day class. It takes six instructors, according to the same article,
in Ontario. Can you tell me the same numbers for Standardized Field Sobriety
testing? How many RNC and how many RCMP officers are trained in SFST?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Mr. Chair, all officers are trained in SFST. That's the procedure they get in
their original training. I believe the Member opposite probably was actually one
of the first officers to be trained in the province.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Topsail - Paradise.
MR. P. DAVIS:
I'm sorry, who was that who was trained in DRE?
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
No, SFST.
MR. P. DAVIS:
That I was one of the first officers trained in SFST? I missed that course. I
missed that program. I don't know where that information came from. I don't know
that to be correct.
So
you're telling me that all officers are trained in SFST. I know you're looking
for numbers as we go along, so if there are some corrections as you're receiving
information, I fully respect that, Minister.
On DRE,
a total of 19 for the province but all officers trained in SFST. Are 19
sufficient? Is that meeting the needs today for police officers as they go about
their business? We've already established – and we believe there's going to be
an increase. Clearly, in all of the communications from the government, SFST,
DRE and, of course, the saliva testing, which I'm going to get to in a few
minutes, are all critical aspects of determining if a person's nanogram level of
THC exceeds what would become the legal limits.
In your
opinion, are 19 officers sufficient to have enough officers for the entire
province? Is that enough to have so we can follow the processes that are going
to become law in a matter of weeks? We're not sure when at this point in time,
but in the very near future.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Mr. Chair, not in my opinion but in the opinion of the officers. The 19 that are
presently trained are doing an efficient and effective job; however, we are
training more right now as I stand in this House.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
It's
amazing to me also that there are only 19. Does that include the Island and
Labrador? I would assume the RNC has a large proportion of those. Region by
region in the province, do you have any idea what we have on the West Coast,
Central, East Coast and Labrador?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Mr. Chair, I don't have the
number in front of me. I did have it, but we can get the breakdown for you.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
I, along with my colleague,
have the same concern. Everybody knows the demographics of our province. My
concern is that we're going to have legalization of marijuana and we all know
that Newfoundland, geographically, is dispersed so widely. With only 19 are we
going to be able to do an adequate job?
If
somebody needs to be called, for example, on the South Coast, does somebody have
to come from Grand Falls to do that test, which is three hours away? Or is it
Corner Brook that someone has to go to the Northern Peninsula to do that test?
It seems like to me that we don't have the adequate resources in place to be
able to bring in what we're bringing in. I'm just wondering as to how it's going
to work.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Mr. Chair, they're doing an
effective job right now. What I can tell you with the RNC break down is the RNC
have seven in St. John's, two in Corner Brook and one in Lab West. I can tell
you that much from the RNC perspective. From what the RCMP and RNC are saying
right now, they're doing an effective job.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
I understand that the RNC and
the RCMP do a fantastic job, but anyone that's expected to do their work also
needs the resources to be able to do the work properly. As we bring in this new
piece of legislation that we're going to legalize marijuana and people are
concerned about the road safety and whatnot, again my concern is that we're not
going to have adequate enforcement to be able to enforce this.
We
talked yesterday in this bill about a two-hour period of time that the person
has to test. If we're looking at areas in our province which we're all aware of,
especially our rural MHAs – and everyone is aware of – it takes time to travel
whether it's to Twillingate, whether it's to Harbour Breton, whether it's to
Bonavista, whether it's to Exploits, Botwood or whatever.
My
concern is that we need adequate – and are you happy. Is this good? Are you
saying we having sufficient resources available to enforce and to prosecute for
what we're bringing in here?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Mr. Chair, a considerable
amount of consultation has been done on this bill that we're presenting in the
House today. My staff and myself have had considerable consultation with the RNC
and the RCMP regarding the work they're doing today, regarding the work they're
going to do tomorrow and regarding the work they're going to do in the future.
Right
now, we are actually training more drug recognition experts. This is why we are
doing it. We know there's probably going to be a need for more so we are
training more.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
How many officers are in
training right now?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
For the RNC there are three
additional officers in training today. For the RCMP I will have to get the
numbers for you.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
MR.
P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
There are changes coming in the federal bill, under
Bill C-46, on impaired driving. There are also changes coming to the
Highway Traffic Act. One of the
changes coming to the Highway Traffic Act
is there will be zero tolerance for drug use or drugs, so any presence of drugs
for novice drivers, drivers under 22 and for commercial drivers.
Minister, how will an officer determine if a novice
driver, a driver under 22 or a commercial driver is abiding by those new rules?
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Service NL.
MS.
GAMBIN-WALSH:
Mr.
Chair, the same process that they would use today, the Standardized Field
Sobriety Test. Then they bring back the individual if they feel they have failed
the standardized sobriety test. They bring them back to the precinct and they
would do a drug recognition expert. If necessary, they would then have a blood
or urine sample withdrawn.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for Topsail - Paradise.
MR.
P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Minister. I appreciate your answer.
Once they have a blood or urine sample, then what
happens?
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Service NL.
MS.
GAMBIN-WALSH:
If
there is a need for a blood or urine sample – if there's a need – it would then
be sent off to the lab.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for Topsail - Paradise.
MR.
P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
If an officer stops and suspects – and I really don't
know how this operates. When my policing career was coming to an end, DREs were
brand new; there were a small number of them. I can tell you I have very, very
little experience with DREs and SFSTs and how they operate. I'm not asking this
to try and trip you up or trick you or anything like that; I really don't know
the answer to this.
I have spoken to police officers as well, Minister, to
try and get some understanding of what's going to happen, but I'm more
interested in the new laws and how they're going to be implemented.
So when we have a new law
coming in that says zero tolerance for drugs, I don't know how that – I'm trying
to understand how this can be evaluated.
In the
case of alcohol, a roadside test could be administered to a driver and a
roadside test – screening device – will generally tell you – the ones that I've
known in the past – if the persons between zero and 50, what their level will
be, if I remember correctly. It'll tell you if you're over 50 but under 100 and
tell you if you're over 100.
The
importance of that is that if you're between zero and 50, and you're in a
zero-tolerance category, the officer can determine very, very quickly if the
person has a presence of alcohol or not. If there's zero tolerance and if it's
anything above zero, then they're not abiding by that.
If they
are between 50 and 100, there are administrative rules within the province where
officers can issue suspensions and vehicle seizures and those types of things.
If you're over 100 then you're into the criminal range of impaired driving under
the Criminal Code of Canada. Under
that circumstance, if a person shows that their blood alcohol – if their
roadside screening shows it's over 100, then you bring them for a Breathalyzer
to get a true reading of what their reading is.
So my
question is, to go back to the zero tolerance for drugs for novice drivers, we
know that SFST and DRE are tools available to police officers today, but we also
know they're very subjective tests, and they're subjective because it's up to
the interpretation of the officer, which is never perfect. A person's
interpretation is never perfect. Good indicators, but never perfect. So if they
stop a vehicle today and they want to know or are trying to determine if the
person is abiding by zero tolerance, we don't have the Standardized Field
Sobriety testing for drugs yet.
That's
why I'm wondering, Minister, if you can help me understand, if you stop a person
today, you suspect they may have – if there's a smell of marijuana in the car
and the person shows no signs. They pass an SFST, a Standardized Field Sobriety
Test, and that's where you do a number of tests on the side of the road, balance
tests and put your head back and close your eyes to see how much sway you're
doing and you do those types of tests and the person passes it, then how do we
know that the zero tolerance is being followed, at that point in time?
How do
we know they haven't smoked a joint – and I'll use the alcohol equivalent: if a
person blows 10 on a roadside test or in a Breathalyzer, there's a presence of
alcohol, but they're likely not showing any signs of impairment. Under the
provincial rules, it's being suggested as zero tolerance
Anyway,
that's where I'm trying to go, Minister. I'm giving you a bit of time to just
search your notes and so on.
My
question is: How are police officers going to know that a person is abiding by
the rules of a novice driver, a person under 22 or a commercial driver being
zero tolerance? Can you help me with that, please?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MS.
GAMBIN-WALSH:
So, today, it's illegal to drive under the influence of drugs in Newfoundland
and Labrador. It was illegal yesterday. It'll be illegal tomorrow.
So, today, officers, if they hauled in someone who they
thought was under the influence, they would do an SFST and they would determine
whether or not that individual was impaired.
Mr. Chair, the officers are well trained. The DRE
officers in training, they go through – it's a vigorous process and then they go
through 12 evaluations on individuals who have consumed drugs before earning
their certificate; six where they observe and make determination and six where
in fact they are the primary evaluator. They must determine if the individual is
impaired and what category of drugs the individual has taken.
Today
and yesterday in this province, officers haul over individuals and it's illegal
to drive impaired by drugs today.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you.
That
answers some of my further questions, but it doesn't really answer the one that
I have now.
I'm glad
you shared all that with me. That's under SFST, you said, or DRE? All those
programs. I think she said SFST, which is fine.
My
question is – so let me use alcohol as an example. If a person consumes a small
amount of beer, for example, and they get in their car and 10 minutes later
they're pulled over. The roadside detector may show a presence of alcohol but
yet they exhibit no signs of being impaired. They're not impaired. There's no
level of impairment. The alcohol has not had an effect, but there's a very small
presence of alcohol.
So under
the provincial rule there's going to be zero tolerance for drugs, which doesn't
mean you can't be impaired. I get that. You can't be impaired by drug or alcohol
and drive today, but under what the province is proposing, to be zero tolerance
for drugs, which means there should be a way to find out if there's any presence
of drugs in a novice driver, a person under 22 or a commercial driver. That's my
question, Minister. How are you going to determine?
If
there's a very small amount or very small presence of drugs in one of those
three categories of driver, how is an officer to stop a vehicle on the side of
the road and be able to determine, fairly quickly, if there may be a presence or
not? Because you might pull a vehicle over, for example, and say: Have you used
any marijuana today? Well, yeah, I smoked a draw with a couple of my buddies two
hours ago, three hours ago I smoked a couple of draws with my buddies.
Okay, so
you do all your testing and there's no signs of impairment, which is a good
thing, but zero tolerance means there can't be any presence. How do you
determine if there's any presence of THC in that person?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Mr. Chair, today, as I
indicated, and yesterday, they use the Field Sobriety Test. Mr. Chair, into the
future, the new federally approved device will give the positive indication into
the future, but today they use the tests that are available to them.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
MR.
P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
So indications we've had, the reliability on the
Standardized Field Sobriety testing for the presence of marijuana, it's oral
fluids or some call it a spit test or those types of things hasn't been
finalized by – the federal legislation hasn't finalized or determined what
device they're going to use yet. So I think in all reality, it could be a year
or two years before such a device is available.
Device has to be identified and approved by the federal
government. I understand they're going through some testing and so on now. I
have some documents here from the federal government that I have been going
through. Actually, there's an RCMP one here, final report on oral fluid drug
screening devices, so that's not available and may not be available for some
time. They're going to have to be procured, obtained, policy developed and
training of officers, so it maybe some time.
Minister, again, I'm not trying to jam you up, I just
want to know where we are. Is it fair to say, at this point in time, there will
not be an available process to determine, for a driver who's showing no signs of
impairment, that there's not a presence, there's no way to determine if there's
no presence. If they're not showing a sign of impairment on a roadside and it's
a novice driver, there's no way for an officer to readily determine if there's a
presence of drugs to determine if they're abiding by the zero-tolerance rule.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Service NL
MS.
GAMBIN-WALSH:
Mr.
Chair, I thank the Member opposite for that very important question and actually
it's contingent on Bill C-46, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR.
K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much.
It's a very interesting line of questioning because,
yesterday, I spoke also about the effects of second-hand smoke, when it comes to
marijuana, and the effects it would have on your system, whether you could
inhale it and what that would have.
When you're talking zero tolerance, I know when we were
talking about zero tolerance when it came to alcohol that a lot of people had
concerns, especially young people. I spoke to a gentleman with his son, he said:
If he had a beer the night before or two beers the night before it would still
be in his system.
While we still do tests, roadside tests and we have
sobriety tests and we have DREs – drug recognition experts – when you're talking – and I think this is
where my hon. colleague is coming from. When you're talking zero tolerance it
doesn't seem like to me there is any mechanism that will be in place for at
least a couple of years.
I know
yesterday when I was doing – there was an article in
The Globe and Mail on May 23, actually. It was a lawyer based in
British Columbia, and they talked about saliva screening devices for the road,
and they said there's nothing approved right now with the federal government.
They are looking at different devices.
They
also said that by the time the new equipment comes in – like my colleague just
said prior, by the time the new device comes in, the training is going to take
time, but first it'll have to go through the federal government for approval.
Then it'll have to be discussed what type of training is going to be needed, and
then it would have to go out to the local officers, whether it's the RNC or the
RCMP detachment, and the training would have to – and the minimum that that
person said is at least two years.
In
comparison, what happened when the Breathalyzer system came in and by the time
it rolled out and took effect, people had the Breathalyzer and the results from
the Breathalyzer were used in a court of law was 18 months by the time they
started with the Breathalyzer to – my question to the minister is: Are you
expecting a lot of people to be challenging any kind of testing that's done
through either the SFST or the DREs in the court system?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Mr. Chair, I just want to
respond first to the article that the Member alluded to. In this article the
individual said: “Still, she said the existing regime for catching stoned
drivers through field sobriety tests and drug-recognition experts appears to be
working fine.”
So the
system as it exists today is working, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. LESTER:
Mr. Chair, statistically
there are two forms of conviction. One is related to alcohol and one is related
to drugs. According to Statistics Canada, we are already at a very low rate of
conviction when it comes to drugs versus alcohol. Alcohol is almost 85 per cent
conviction, whereas drugs are 60.
I ask
the minister: Does she expect that level to rise or fall with the lack of
scientific evidence as it pertains to zero tolerance?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.
I think
the question is a good one, because we had asked questions earlier on increase;
the chiefs of police in Ontario are suggesting there's going to be an increase
of impaired driving by drug as a result of the legalization, based on
experiences in other jurisdictions.
I talked
about this in debate last year. I watched a CBC program, which is actually
pretty consistent with a federal government report, because they said 40 per
cent, I think it was around the neighbourhood of 40 per cent of drivers charged
with impaired driving by drug based on the evidence of Standardized Field
Sobriety testing or drug recognition experts were being unsuccessfully
prosecuted in court. So 40 per cent were being lost in court with the lack of an
objective way of determining impairment.
I
thought it was an important question to ask, but in keeping with where I was
earlier – and, Minister, I'm following along on the handout given to us last
Friday, changes to the Highway Traffic Act
is the top headline on the page. The first line is zero tolerance for drugs for
novice drivers, drivers under 22 and commercial drivers. Then it talks about
impoundment.
I was
going to ask you if you have to rely on a – if there's no signs of impairment
for an officer – so an officer stops a vehicle, there's no signs of impairment
after an SFST, or drug recognition expert does an examination of the driver, and
if we can't determine if there's any presence at all of marijuana, then we get
into how vehicle impoundments and suspensions are going to happen for those
novice drivers, drivers under 22 and commercial drivers. Because the second
bullet on that page says seven-day vehicle impoundment for the presence of drugs
or a combination of drugs and alcohol for novice drivers, drivers under 22 and
commercial drivers.
Minister, would it be fair to say that until a Standardized Field Sobriety
testing device is finalized, obtained, trained and deployed to officers in the
province – right now there's only 19 DREs in the entire province – but until
that's deployed and readings are understood, is it safe to say it's likely no
vehicles at all will be impounded because you won't be able to determine the
presence of drugs of a novice driver, driver under 22 or a commercial vehicle
operator?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Mr. Chair, if there's no sign of impairment today, then there's – I'm not
certain. The Member is asking me about impoundment and if there's no sign of
impairment at roadside?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Yes, Mr. Chair. This is what
I was trying to discuss with the minister earlier.
Zero
tolerance is not about impairment. Impairment is one thing, but for novice
drivers, drivers under 22 or commercial drivers there will be a rule under the
Highway Traffic Act, our provincial
legislation that the minister oversees, to say that in the case of a novice
driver, a driver under 22 or a commercial driver which is operating a vehicle of
4,500 kilograms or more – a way one of the officials put it was it's considered
to be your office. It's not a regular, every day pickup truck that got a C plate
on it. This is about larger, commercial vehicles.
The rule
is going to be zero tolerance for the presence of THC, which is the active
ingredient that can be measured by testing from cannabis, for marijuana, from
smoking weed – however you want to call it.
The
second bullet says: seven-day vehicle impoundment for the presence of drugs. It
doesn't say for impaired driving. It doesn't say for being over the legal limit
or legal limits by drug presence or THC presence. It says seven-day vehicle
impoundment for the presence of drugs.
We
already have established that in the absence of approved screening devices – to
the best of my knowledge, what I'm getting from this exchange with the minister
– there's no way to determine on a roadside stop. If a person is not exhibiting
signs of impairment, how do we know if there's a presence of drugs?
If they
can't determine there's a presence of drugs, am I right to conclude that a
seven-day vehicle impoundment for the presence of drugs, as I just read from the
second bullet, is not going to happen until those devices are provided to the
police, which could be a year or two years down the road.
That's
what I'm asking. Am I right? Do you understand what I'm saying?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
What I can say is they need reasonable grounds to test, regardless of the
method, and the new testing device that is coming forward will be able to do
that testing.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
That's
exactly what I'm saying. Until the new testing device is available, we can't
determine that, and it could be months or it could be a couple of years before
those devices are actually available.
That was
my question. Is there another way to determine the presence? The minister just
answered for me, without those screening devices there's not. So the seven-day
impoundment for the presence of drugs won't happen, and there is no way to
determine if a person has abided by zero tolerance until those devices are
available.
Then we
have the Ontario chiefs of police, who feel there's going to be an increase in
drug use once it's legalized. That's the point I was trying to reach, Minister.
While you're changing the law, which I fully agree with – I know MADD fully
agrees with these zero-tolerance provisions – the problem is there's no way to
enforce them until those devices are available.
Would
that be correct, Minister? I'm sorry; the question was there's no way to enforce
the zero tolerance.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Mr. Chair, the premiers have
made the case for providing timely resources and training before legalization
and before the bill is put in place. It's hypothetical, what the Member is
saying.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. LESTER:
Mr. Chair, the median length
of impaired driving cases in criminal courts in 2015 for alcohol-impaired
accusations was about 56 days, versus drug-impaired cases of almost 200 days.
Do you
expect this median to increase? If so, are our courts prepared for this increase
in median court case length?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
What I
know is that we'll have more trained officers and more resources available to
us.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. LESTER:
We are all I'm sure familiar
with the recent case in Ontario where an individual was suspected of being
impaired by drugs. This was done by a drug recognition expert. It turned out the
individual had a stroke and that was causing his physical impairment.
This
concern was also raised by the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi. That is a
very valid concern. Are we going to basically suspend people's licences, cause
them economic hardship without scientific evidence? If so, if we do wrongly do
that, are we going to compensate them for their economic hardship?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
First I
want to say the individual in the case that the Member alluded to I know quite
well. The individual was not impaired. I'm very well aware of the circumstances
pertaining to that. Nor were they driving, they were walking.
There
are roadside admin penalties to keep individuals and to keep people out of
court, Mr. Chair. That is why MADD supported and wanted roadside penalties.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. LESTER:
My recollection was the individual who did suffer from the stroke was walking
because he drove his car into the lake. He was evidently driving at one period
of time. That's why they did arrest him for possible impairment of drugs.
Maybe
the minister could comment on that.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just
have a couple of comments to make. Mr. Chair, first of all, it wasn't something
that I really thought about in great detail until it came up earlier, and that's
the training of the officers and the numbers that we have.
I
appreciate the minister saying that we are training more officers – that's a
good thing – in the DRE. I know, for example, with the RNC – I can use that as
an example because I have experience there – that basically there are four
shifts because you have to have it 24 hours around the clock, seven days a week.
In order to make that happen you have four shifts: four days on and four days
off. Or maybe it's three, two, two, three – whatever; I'm not sure what it is
these days. It's used to be four and four. Then you have 12-hour shifts: day
shift and night shift.
In
theory, bearing in mind there are going to be people sick, on annual leave and
things like that are going to happen – they could be doing training. There are
all kinds of scenarios that could happen that, at the very least, there needs to
be two officers on a shift, maybe arguably even three officers on a shift,
bearing in mind officers gone for court time, sick leave, family leave and
annual leave. That happens. Given the geography, an officer could be tied up
with somebody already doing a test or whatever in the east end, while over in
CBS there's another incident happening.
As an
example, if you look at the RCMP maybe down in the Marystown-Grand Bank area –
I'm not sure what their shifts are or whatever – I don't know if they have one
officer patrolling the whole area in the night or maybe two. If it's two at
least one of them has to be trained because you can't have an officer going
around patrolling that's not trained or having nobody trained or nobody
available, or the closest available officer is two or three hours away.
All I'm
saying is I think it's an important point. We need to make sure we have enough
officers trained, bearing in mind the shift system, bearing in mind the
geography, bearing in mind the fact that people are going to be sick and off on
leave and there's got to be someone to replace them so that there's always
someone available to deal with these things.
Nineteen, to me, sounds ridiculously low to be honest. I'm no expert. I don't
know the geography. I haven't talked to the RNC or RCMP, but for the entire
province and Labrador that seems really, really low to me. I just encourage the
minister and the government to work with the RNC and RCMP to ensure we have
enough officers that are trained.
The
other point which has been raised – and I think it ties into my commentary or my
understanding during second reading. I kind of echo what the Member for
Topsail - Paradise said. It seems to me that with the exception of the section
in here to deal with somebody who is charged with impaired, if somebody is
actually charged through the DRE process and the Standardized Field Sobriety
Test process and an officer charges them with impaired, then there's a section
in here that kicks in that says in addition to the individual being charged
under the Criminal Code, we're also
going to take further punitive action in the form of suspension of your licence
and impoundment of your vehicle under the Highway
Traffic Act
That section of the
Highway Traffic Act that we're amending there can work today because
people can be charged with impaired today. All we're doing is we're adding under
the Highway Traffic Act –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
I'm really struggling to hear. I'd appreciate the
co-operation of all Members.
Thank you.
MR.
LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
What we're doing is we're adding a section in here
under the Highway Traffic Act to
accompany the existing situation today relating to impaired driving by drugs.
That's fine. That works fine, no issue.
I guess the issue I have and the Member for Topsail -
Paradise is raising – I do agree with him. By the way, this is not being
critical of what government is doing here per se. There are two ways you look at
it: you could either make the amendments that we're making relating to if
someone is charged with impaired and leave it at that and skip the other parts,
or you could have taken the approach to put it all in here and when the federal
government, through the bill that they're debating and it's tied up in the
Senate, comes up with a device, then it will work.
The point is that how are you supposed to know? Right
now if a police officer hauls someone over, they can do the Standardized Field
Sobriety Test and they can charge that person with impaired. They can't say that
person has 0.1 per
cent – or I'm not sure how the percentages are measured, but you get my point.
They can't say that they have a little bit in their system.
They can
say you're impaired and I'm going to charge you. They might think based on their
experience that they've got something in them. Maybe if the person admitted and
said, yes b'y, I just had a toke – they were stupid enough to admit it – they
could impound the vehicle under this. But barring that, until there's an actual
device in place they can blow into to get a reading, then there's no way they
can say they have the presence of a substance in their system and therefore I'm
going to impound your vehicle and fine you and all that stuff. There's no way
they can do it.
All
those sections, while they're good sections and they will work perfectly well
once the federal government approve this device – and it's a good thing. I'm not
arguing against it, I think it's a good thing. It makes sense; I understand why
MADD is supporting it. I support it. Until such time that the federal government
approves this device and everyone is trained, until that happens, then these
other amendments – outside of the punitive measures for someone who's actually
charged with impaired by drugs – are kind of dead on the paper at this point in
time. They're there, ready to go, but they're not enforceable.
Government had the choice of saying we won't put them here at all until the
device is ready and everything is ready to go. Or what they've obviously chosen
to do is they've said we're going to put it in place knowing what the
measurements will be, knowing what punitive actions we want to take and knowing
that at some point in time, whenever the federal government gets their
collective buns in gear and assents it and they do what needs to be done, then
we'll be ready to go from day one.
I think
that's what's happening here. That's how I understand it. That's how it makes
perfect sense to me to be that way. We can either say we don't support these
amendments because they're not worth the paper they're written on or we can say,
you know what, we support them because we know eventually it's going to kick in
and then they'll be ready to go. You're being more proactive, I suppose, would
be the argument.
I have
no objection either way to be honest with you. But it is important to note that
what the Member for Topsail - Paradise is saying is true when it comes to all
these amendments, with the exception of the amendment that says we will take
punitive action against someone over and above charging them with impaired in
terms of fines, suspensions and so on.
Thank
you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.
The hon.
Member that just spoke had the same train of thought that I did. My fear of this
whole piece of legislation –let me start by saying right off the bat that I have
the utmost respect for our law enforcement officers. I know there are two former
RNC officers that sit here in the House and they're not bad fellas either. The
people that –
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. K. PARSONS:
Are there three?
I'm
sorry, the Sergeant-at-Arms is also one here. There are three here.
We're
very fortunate in the province. We live in a province where there are only
500,000, so we have the opportunity to know most of the people that are around
us. We're a small community. We know most of the people that are either RNC or
RCMP because, like I said, we're a very small province.
Before I
make my statement, I'm going to just say I really appreciate all the work they
do. I know a lot of RNC officers personally, myself. Over the years, I played a
lot of hockey with a lot of them. They're very good people, very dedicated. My
whole thing with what we're doing here today – and I am very much supportive of
legalizing marijuana. I think it's time. We have to do it.
For the
people that are out there that have to enforce this, they need the proper tools.
They need to know they have the proper mechanisms, the proper enforcement, the
proper whatever it is that they need to do their jobs and do their jobs right.
They need to have the tools in order to do it.
I
listened that time. The one thing I thought about is if this is going to take
two years to have the proper equipment in place to be able to give the proper
readings, to be able to do the job that people need to do to make sure – because
when we talk about impairment, especially when we're talking about our
Highway Traffic Act, we're talking
about safety. We're talking about giving people in this province the confidence
to drive on our roads and know that we have enforcement officers out there that
are going to do their job to make sure our roads are safe. In order for these
people to be able to do their jobs, they need the proper tools to be able to do
it. That's what we're talking about here right now.
Minister, while I know what you're saying, it's done today, we have people that
are trained – and very surprising that there are only 19. We have 19 officers in
this province for the whole province trained to be able to do the recognition
that needs to be done. That's very low for me. I understand you said we're going
to have more training done in the future. I think that's what everybody would
like to hear and like to see.
Whenever
you bring in any legislation or anything, you have to make sure you're doing it
properly. I think that until we have the proper tools in place to be able to
detect whether there's marijuana or THC in a person's blood, the tools need to
be there to do it.
I spoke
earlier about how we say zero tolerance. I'm sure that MADD and all
organizations out there really want zero tolerance because of what they fight
for and what they do for everybody else so our roads are safe. When we're
talking impairment by drugs and you're talking zero tolerance, I don't know how
you're going to be able to do it properly. I think that maybe there should be –
and the Member just mentioned about bringing in an amendment until the tools are
in place to be able to detect the amount of THCs in a person's blood or
whatever.
I'll ask
you a question now so that you can answer it here also. We talked about urine
tests and we talked about saliva tests and everything else that will be done
afterwards. My understanding is that it takes a while. I don't know if when you
do a urine test, whether it goes into the lab at the Health Sciences or it goes
off to some medical place to be tested. How long does that take?
If
you're going to do a suspension for a person who is going to lose their car for
seven days, do they have to wait seven days before the results come back? Do
they have to wait a month? I don't know. That's a question that, as I was
sitting here today looking at the suspensions, I hope you'll get up and ask here
now.
Minister, I believe that we're on the right track. I don't think anybody over on
this side is arguing the legislation that we're bringing in. We just want to
make sure that it's brought in properly, it's well thought out and that we have
the tools in the tool box to be able to do the job. That's what I think the
general public will want to hear.
I'm
wondering about when you say you do some blood work or a urine test, how long
will it take for those tests to come back once they're done.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Mr. Chair, I just want to say
that the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands understands this bill. I thank him
for his commentary.
We
referenced the Criminal Code in the
Highway Traffic Act for a number of
reasons indicated by the Member. We have great enforcement officers in this
province. You're correct, they're really good. Mr. Chair, all new recruits are
being trained today as we move forward.
Both
agencies are working together and the federal Parliament, Mr. Chair, will set
the date for legislation. The House of Assembly can't change that.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
I'll just ask my question
again: How long will it take for anyone that needs to do a urine or a blood test
to detect the THC? What's the turnaround time? It's not going to go to the
Health Sciences. Is there a lab that's going to do it?
A person
who gets picked up, and they're going to be waiting for a certain period of
time, is their licence going to be suspended until the results come back or are
they going to get results right away?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Mr. Chair, under the Highway Traffic Act right now those particular specimens will be
sent off to the forensic labs. I believe there are two in Canada and there are
two private labs, too. I'm not sure if they're under the
Criminal Code or not, but we do have two labs in Canada. The licence
would be suspended for seven days, Mr. Chair, and then, pending the results of
the specimens, 90 days.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
If the blood levels come back
and show that there's no detection of any drugs or anything in their system,
they're still going to lose their licence for the seven days. Is that correct?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Because of the Standardized Field Sobriety Test, the officers would then take
the individual back and DRE could be done. Then, they would indicate whether or
not they would withdraw a sample.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
One part of this legislation
that's a little bit different then, when it comes to alcohol, talks about
commercial drivers. We're talking about commercial drivers whose livelihood
depends on their driving, obviously. We don't want them out there and don't take
this in any way – they shouldn't be drinking or they shouldn't be on drugs
anyway.
The
Member mentioned a gentleman who had a stroke. Or it could be some kind of
impairment that the person has and maybe the officer may think because we're
talking zero. We're not talking a person that's intoxicated, we're talking
suspicion that maybe – and it could be as much as a smell on a person's clothes.
We all know that marijuana, if you're in the presence of it, stinks. It really
does.
It could
be the suspicion there that a person is impaired. When you're talking
commercial, we have two labs in Canada that will detect this. That would have to
be sent from anywhere in Newfoundland. It could be from Bonavista, it could be
from Grand Bank, it could be anywhere in this province. That has to go to a lab
somewhere in Ontario, Canada somewhere, the results done and then come back.
I would
assume that's going to take a fair period of time. It could be six to nine
months. The person who could be innocent will lose their licence, especially
when we're talking commercial drivers and stuff like that. Don't you think we
should have an amendment on this until we have the proper tools, that we don't
take people's livelihoods away?
I'm not
endorsing anybody that does this, I'm not, but there has to be mechanisms in
place to ensure that we do it properly and we don't affect people that depend on
their livelihood. Do you believe there should be some kind of an amendment on
this?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Mr. Chair, the Atlantic
Provinces Trucking Association, the Canadian Trucking Alliance and the Private
Motor Truck Council of Canada all support zero tolerance for commercial drivers.
The SFST will be completed by our trained officers at roadside.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
MR.
P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The question where my colleague is going right now is
about testing. I heard a comment, I'm just trying to recall exactly what one of
the officers who was interviewed a couple of days ago – maybe it was yesterday,
anyway this week – talked about length of time.
The Chiefs of Police from Ontario are already
anticipating an increase. I think you indicated earlier – and you can correct me
if I'm wrong – but the government doesn't have a sense if it's going to increase
or not. The Chiefs of Police of Ontario believe there's going to be an increase
in impaired driving by drug which is going to put more pressure on laboratory
analysis and could – unless all the proper beefing up of services and so on
takes place – cause delays.
Do you have a sense of what is anticipated? How long
would it take for a crime detection lab or a private lab, as the case may be, to
examine, analyze and return results from a blood sample?
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Service NL
MS.
GAMBIN-WALSH:
Today it's taking about six months maximum. Mr. Chair, what I can say is the DRE
results can determine impairment without samples.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for Topsail - Paradise.
MR.
P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I appreciate that but as I read the law here, we're
going to require laboratory analysis. In a case, for example, when you have a
new law – just a moment, Mr. Chair – that's going to be so specific to say if
you have between two nanograms but less than five nanograms of THC per
millilitre of blood, then it's a maximum of $1,000 fine. Five nanograms or more
of THC per millilitre of blood, a first offence is $1,000 fine, the second is 30
days imprisonment and the third, 120 days imprisonment as a hybrid offence.
Right from your own briefing materials what it
indicates to me, and what the federal legislation is going to say, is that we're
going to actually have to know what the level is. A DRE, a drug recognition
expert, or SFST cannot determine how many nanograms of THC is present in a
millilitre of blood,
that will have to be a test. The chiefs of police from Ontario say there's going
to be an increase in demand on these services. There's going to be an increase
in impaired driving by drug.
That's
the point, it's going to take – if we're at six months now, is there any
anticipation of how long it will take when the increase as anticipated happens
or what the results will be? Is it going to take longer? Is it going to take
less? How is that going to happen, Minister?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Two to five nanograms that
the Member is alluding to is a Criminal
Code of Canada fine, Mr. Chair.
What I do know, right now, today, it takes about six months to get the results
back.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
MR.
P. DAVIS:
Thank you.
Just a quick comment, I know my colleague and I – I'll
get back up shortly. I appreciate the fact that it's a
Criminal Code offence, but even to go back to the zero tolerance,
would a blood test or urine sample be utilized to determine if a person is in
breach of zero tolerance for a novice driver, drivers under 22 or commercial
drivers? Is that an option for police to use, to give a blood demand or a urine
sample demand to determine if a young person, a novice driver or commercial
driver is abiding by the zero-tolerance rule?
AN
HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for Topsail - Paradise.
MR.
P. DAVIS:
What we're inquiring about here, let me just back up a little bit and just try
to explain this a little bit further; back off on it a little bit.
We're going through a process where there's the
legalization of marijuana that's happening and part of that is going to be new
recruitments for policing in Canada in which, in this province, the provincial
government has oversight on.
In a briefing we had last week, it was laid out to us
what's potentially going to happen in C-46 and changes to the
Highway Traffic Act such as zero
tolerance for drugs for novice drivers, drivers under 22 and commercial drivers.
What we're asking about is when samples are taken,
because in order to find out if a person is abiding by zero tolerance, to
determine if a person under federal rules is going to be between two nanograms
and five nanograms or five nanograms or more, which are different breaches of
the law or in a combination when there's 50 milligrams of alcohol if the person
has more than 2.5 nanograms.
The line of questioning here is: How long is that
process going to take and how onerous that will be on police? My question will
also be: How onerous will that be on police to have to process those samples and
send them away and analyze them? How long
is all that going to take?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister for Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Mr. Chair, what I can say is that there would need to be reasonable grounds to
lead to requesting a sample. So I really can't explain how onerous or how long
it's going to take.
Today,
when they need a sample, they do it today. They do it now.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I don't
really have a question, but I just want to say a couple of words again for the
record.
Mr.
Chair, I think everybody here in the House of Assembly, on both sides of the
House, we understand what it is that government is trying to do. I think we all
support, from what I can gather, I know I support what government is trying to
do with this bill.
I think
it needs to be said in this House – and this is not a partisan statement at all
but it does need to be said – that the federal government, in the last election
campaign, made a promise and they campaigned on the fact that they were going to
legalize cannabis. There's no doubt, it was front and centre in the campaign,
and the people of Canada, including here in Newfoundland and Labrador, voted
them in with resounding numbers. No question about it. Not disputing it.
However,
I have to say for the record that the federal government is putting all of the
provinces, including this province, in a tough spot, as far as I'm concerned,
with this particular legislation, with implementing cannabis and legalizing it
here in the country, because we're put in a situation now where our government
has no choice really. They're being proactive and doing the best they can to put
legislation in place to be ready as best they can.
I think
it's terrible that the federal government is going to legalize marijuana and, at
the same time, they still haven't approved a device and the tools that police
officers can use to deal with marijuana once it's implemented. I think it's
absolutely terrible that we were all put in this position.
Even if,
at some point in time, let's say if they did come forward with some device, as
somebody said, that was approved, it's going to take months and months and
months before the devices are in place and approved and so on, and police
officers are trained and policies are in place, all that kind of stuff is going
to take time.
Without
a doubt, what's going to end up happening, so it seems, is that the federal
government is going to move too quickly. They're going to legalize it and
they're not going to have the tools in place for governments to react properly
and for police officers and law enforcement officers to do their job properly.
I think
that it's absolutely terrible that in this Legislature and legislatures all
across the country that we've been put in this situation. So, once this happens
and if we're ill-prepared and if people start complaining, I would say that
nobody in this House of Assembly on either side should wear it. It belongs with
Ottawa for not planning it properly and not putting things in place, first,
before they forced this on us and shoved it down our throats.
Thank
you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.
Again, I
kind of agree that this is a federal government initiative and it's the federal
government that are forcing provinces to do what we're doing here and to bring
in the legalization of marijuana. I agree that this is not a bad thing.
Actually, I think it's a good thing, but, again, my comments are that you have
to be ready. You have to be able to do the proper enforcement especially when
we're talking about zero tolerance and how to detect whether it's zero tolerance
or whether somebody has something in their system.
I
understand that under the federal government, C-46 – and that's what the whole
basis of C-46 is. It's the new drug impairment driving offences that are under
the Criminal Code of Canada. Again,
what this is going to do is this is going to authorize police officers for new
oral-drug screeners on the roadside to detect drugs in a person's system. So
that's what C-46 is mainly about.
So C-46,
obviously, is not going to come into effect until we have the proper tools to do
the job. Whether we can check and see whether a person's levels are – I don't
know it, but in the briefing two nanograms is one billionth of a gram of weed,
which is very, very, very, very small, as far as I know. Whether a person can
actually test that on the side of the road by looking at a person or seeing if
they walk differently. They're different tests and I don't know how the tests
are done, but it seems like to me, we're bringing in legislation to novice
drivers and commercial drivers that I don't know if we can enforce and I don't
know what's going to happen in a court of law.
Part of
the question that I asked you earlier is: How long is it going to take? For a
blood test or a urine test to go away to a lab on the Mainland, which we have
two in Canada, I believe the minister said it's something like six months to
nine months.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Six months.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Six months.
It was
also said here earlier that the police chiefs of Canada, or maybe just Ontario,
also stated that testing is going to increase because of the number of cases. We
all have to agree, and hopefully not, but I think that once marijuana is
legalized – and when I looked at it in Colorado there was a big bump in the
first of it. When it started they saw a big bump in people using marijuana, but
after a while it levelled off and went back to the levels of where it was.
I could
see that could happen here also. I have concerns with it. I really do have
concerns with it because I'd like to see us be ready and to do the job proper. I
go back to the fact that we have great law enforcement officers. They do their
best. They work very, very hard for us to make sure we're safe, but we also have
to give them the tools to be able to do their job.
I'm not
going to harp on it anymore. I think the minister should get what we're trying
to say here and I think they should be in agreement. I'd like to see some kind
of an amendment brought in place, probably to force the federal government's
hand, to expedite what they're trying to do when it comes to something to detect
for drug impairment.
While we
bring in laws, we still have to be able to enforce the laws. We don't want to go
to a court system that's going to be every person that gets picked up there's a
technicality that can be used in a court of law that's going to cost thousands
and probably millions of dollars. Take our court system, which right now is
strained, and have it even more so, that there's more people going because maybe
there will be a way to get around this, I don't know. I really don't want to see
it.
Minister, have you received any official communications – probably the Minister
of Justice can answer this – from the federal government regarding the
legalization date change? I know July 1 was the date we talked about and now
it's stretched out. What communications are you having with the federal
government on the date basically?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
There
are actually no official conversations going on right now because it's actually
out of the federal government's – it's in the Senate and the Senate controls it.
I don't mind saying it; you can have your perspective on the Senate. Some
of the conversations I've heard in the Senate about this bill, the best word I
could use is “inane.” These are people that it makes the
Reefer Madness crowd look very sensible. Some of these Conservative
senators, it's just ridiculous some of the commentary.
The
problem is the feds had the July date. I want to put out just a few things. It
was never going to be July 1. Everybody sort of said July 1, but I don't think
there was ever any plan. It was July 2018 thinking about would it start on a
Monday, would it start on whatever day. Then that July date sort of got looser.
The problem we have now, it's in the Senate. There are amendments being put
forward. We don't know where it's going to go, so I can't tell you what's going
to happen.
Our
operational mindset from this perspective, from our government's perspective,
was it's going to be July. If it goes down the road, August, September, later
on, we'll be ready. If you use that deadline and you move your own, then the
possibility is you won't be ready. What I'm going to suggest is we are ready.
I want
to say not just to the speaker opposite – I may have missed some of the earlier
conversations – a lot of this conversation is around C-46, around federally
approved screening devices and everything else. What I would say is that has
nothing to do with our legislative process per se. The question becomes: Are you
ready? We are ready.
Right
now, we have an illegal drug that is being inhaled, is being used and people are
driving. We have the ability to detect that right now using these tests, and
I'll call them objective tests, that are being done by experts. You can go – and
there is blood and there's urine. There are some timeline issues with that but
we're facing that everywhere.
I think
as we go on, those issues will be ameliorated. We will be able to work through
that. The fact is that when you get it, you still deal with it down the road.
There's a suspension, and then what happens is later on, when you get the
information back, you proceed. Every province is dealing with that.
We are
already farther ahead than many provinces in terms of the legislative framework.
We can't help what the feds do. What we can do is be ready from this angle. I'm
not saying that the point the Member makes is not valid. It's a valid point.
You're saying: Let's be ready. I get it because that's how I feel.
What I'm
saying is we're ready but I can't do anything – anything. This government,
nobody here, can do anything to speed up that federal process. We're sitting in
the Senate. That's a matter the current government has to deal with, with the
Senate, who are also dealing with Opposition Parties, primarily Conservatives.
I'm not aware if there is an NDP caucus of the Senate.
The fact
is we have Conservative senators that are lined up with the Conservative Party;
we have independent senators that used to be lined up with the Liberal Party.
I'm sure maybe there's still an affiliation of some sort or there's not. Either
way, that doesn't change where we are.
Right
now what we're going to do is move this legislation forward so that we're ready
when it happens. We'll deal with whatever comes, whatever federal-approved
screening device, whatever comes out of C-46. If there's something new and
radical that comes out that no province is aware of, we'll be in the same
position as every other province. We will be ready for when legalization
happens.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Cape St. Francis.
MR.
K. PARSONS:
Mr.
Chair, I respect the answer from the minister. Minister, part of this debate
today – and maybe you can answer this also – is we're talking about the
legislation that we're bringing in. A lot of it was to do with testing and how
to do proper testing. I spoke several times already today about the respect we
have for our law enforcement officers that do great work in this province.
Our question basically is we're bringing in similar to
what we did with the Breathalyzer with zero tolerance to people under 22, to
novice drivers. Different from commercial drivers when it relates to alcohol,
but when it relates to drugs, we're talking about zero tolerance for commercial
drivers also. Being the Minister of Justice, I know your interest in the court
system; we hear a lot about it.
My question to you today is: Where there is no defined
mechanism that can actually measure blood levels, other than urine, are you
anticipating a lot more court cases? What would the cost be to the judicial
system, to the province?
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think I may have alluded to this in a previous
comment. I think with all of our legislation, I think with Bill C-45 and 46 and
I think with every province going through this, there will be challenges to the
legislation just dealing with the fundamental nature of such a huge policy
shift.
There are lawyers out there, whether they're defence
lawyers in criminal cases, whether it is lawyers that want to talk about
constitutionality, charter rights, you name it. There are going to be
challenges. In many cases, what you will see is you may have a challenge in
Manitoba to deal with one part of theirs and depending on if it's a federal one,
other provinces may intervene and be a part of that.
On our end, I'm very confident that what we've put
forward is stringent enough to ensure that we have road safety but, at the same
time, I do think it will stand up to constitutional scrutiny. That can't stop
from somebody challenging it.
The biggest thing that we can get across to people is
not about the – one of the questions earlier today was about our tolerance. We
talk about alcohol; there's that sort of you think you might be able to have
one, you might be able to have two. The education, to me, comes from we need to
get across to people if you partake, get out of the car.
Driving is not a right, it's a privilege. If you want
to smoke, if you want to inhale, if you want to vape, stay the hell out of the
car. That's the biggest message that I think we can get across to people, that I
think we all want to do that. If you're intoxicated, it's not just your own life
you're putting in danger it's mine and my kids, and yours and your kids and your
grandkids – all of ours.
I'm confident that you may see early on, like any new
legislative change, some challenges, you may see some new
cases, but I think over time
– the other thing, too, is when we talk about a legislative change like this,
some States actually saw a spike in numbers in terms of usage but then it went
down. We may see a spike in terms of cases that go in, I think that will go
down.
Our
director of public prosecutions is quite ready to deal with this on their front.
We can't help what comes from people that get charged, their lawyers, whether
they are Legal Aid or private counsel, they'll make a challenge. That's what
they do. Their job, at the end of the day, is to advocate for their client's
rights, so if that means that they can challenge the constitutionality of a
rule, they're going to do it, but it's not something I worry about in terms of
our challenges.
The
biggest challenge we've had to face in terms of courts came with Jordan a few
years ago, and I think the changes we've made to address that will help us when
we go forward with this.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.
Thank
you, Minister, for your answer.
This
legislation that we're bringing in here this week, I'm just wondering, have you
been talking to other legislatures right across the country to see what they're
bringing in and how does theirs differ from ours? Are we doing similar things to
what other provinces have done? Have you done a jurisdictional scan to see
what's been done in other provinces?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I can't say that I personally
have, but every Department of Justice, same as every government department, has
policy people and analysis that is going on. I know that our people, people who
would have given you the briefing, somebody named Chad Blundon and Mike Harvey,
they would have talked to all the other jurisdictions and done a scan. Okay,
what are you suggesting? What are you suggesting? Every province is different
and has the right to do what they want. We've all dealt with differences in
terms of even the age. Some provinces have gone with 18; some have gone with 19,
which is a big factor.
Actually, I have a piece of information. This is a great piece of information
from the Department of Service NL. Quebec and Saskatchewan have gone with zero
tolerance for drug impairment for all drivers. Other provinces have determined
it's best to take zero tolerance for certain classes.
Nova
Scotia, Alberta and BC have zero tolerance for drivers on the graduated licence;
New Brunswick has zero tolerance for drivers under 21; PEI, Ontario and
Northwest Territories have zero tolerance for drivers up to age 22; Ontario, BC
and Northwest Territories also have zero tolerance for commercial drivers;
everybody has driver's licence suspensions for drug-impaired driving.
So what
we've done, obviously, is zero tolerance for novice, 22 and below and
commercial. Where I am on this is every province is going to say what they like,
but then we looked at national organizations who, again, would be able to do
that look and give you that impartial view, that unvarnished view. We're going
to say what we have is good and we like it, but these are groups that have no
ties.
MADD
Canada likes ours. MADD Canada praises ours. So when I see somebody like Trish
Coates, who we're all familiar with, and she says: You're on the right track.
That gives me hope that we are doing things right, but each province is going to
do what they have to do.
I like
where we are. I think it promotes safety. I think it's also reasonable. It's
like when we talked about the age, whether it's going to be 18, 19 or 25. That's
why doctors even said: You can go with 25 and it's probably medically safer, but
how are you going to enforce that? There has to be a reasonableness when you're
enforcing the law.
I think
we're in good stead here.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Minister, I'm not arguing with anything that you said there. I think we all
should be doing our proper work here in the Legislature in making sure that
proper legislation comes through, that our concerns are the concerns of the
people of the province, and that we all work together to make sure we get the
best possible piece of legislation that's going to be here.
A
concern that I have is with the federal government, and while I understand that
our province – I have to give Chad Blundon the other day when he did the
briefing for us, I thought it was one of the best briefings I was ever to. It
was very informative. He did a fantastic job, and the people who were there with
him at that, again, the briefing was one of the best that I've ever been to and
kudos to the department for the great job that they're doing.
The
federal government is saying now that even though Bill C-46 may be hung up in
the Senate, they're going to bring forward this legislation and force provinces
to adapt to the legislation.
Do you
have concerns with that, that the Highway Traffic Act is not going to have the
proper legislation there in place before the actual legislation for marijuana
comes into place? So Bill 45 could get passed but Bill C-46 could be still in
the Senate. Is that an issue?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would
suggest that when it comes to the feds, we simply have no control over what they
do. We can only debate the legislation that our House is allowed to do, so the
things that are within our mandate as a province, within our control. I can't
talk about the Criminal Code of
Canada, it's federal. We've had input. We've talked to them and we know what was
proposed with 45 and 46.
One
thing that gives me hope, I will say this, one of the main players in this
scheme from the beginning, in terms of the legislation for the Liberal federal
government, was a fellow named Bill Blair. Bill Blair was the chief of the
Toronto police. The man, I've met him, I've talked to him; we've talked about
this.
I take
faith in what he says, and we can get into sort of the partisan Liberal,
Conservative, whatever, at the end of the day, I think the man is an officer.
That's what I look at. I don't care what – I think the man is an officer and
he's devoted his life to safety of individuals. So when I hear what he has to
say about going forward, I take great faith in that and I give credence to what
he has to say.
Again,
I've mentioned this in my first answer to your question, I know there are some
issues with the federal process. I get that, but when it comes to the bill we're
debating now, whether it's clause 1 or any clause, I can only talk about the
provincial side, and we're ready.
The flip
side is that if we were here and we didn't have it ready, we'd be accused of not
being ready. Nobody is going to accuse us of not being ready. We are ready. What
we can do is do the best we can with the information we have and, again, I still
think we're farther ahead than other provinces.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
I don't believe that we'll
argue or discuss whether we're ready or not. It's just my problem is that I
don't know if the feds are going to be ready with what they need to bring in and
what they need to put in place.
Minister, you stated in the past that the legalization of marijuana is going to
be additional spending for enforcement and also the different costs related to
the, I guess, the justice system. You said that on November 23, 2017.
What
additional costs are you looking at for our justice system and the additional
cost that you can see coming for enforcement?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
The biggest additional cost –
which we will be getting some federal funding – is with the training of
officers. There's been a lot of work to make sure that DRE training is provided
to officers all across the country. In terms of our forces here, I think we're
doing pretty well, but I don't think there's enough training. We could always do
with more.
The feds
have allotted – I can't tell you the number right now, but it has come out, it's
publically available. The feds have announced a significant amount of money for
training for officers. In fact, the RCMP just announced last week, their new
Commissioner Brenda Lucki just announced that training would be rolling out for
RCMP across the country. Constable Karen Didham was in with me yesterday, spoke
to the briefing, she talked about the training she has and that we have the
ability here to train our own.
That's
one of the big costs. We won't be hiring any more prosecutors. We won't be
appointing any more judges. We're not anticipating a huge cost to the justice
system, per se. We will be able to handle what comes in, whether it's
Highway Traffic Act, whether it's the
Criminal Code, we'll deal with it.
The
other thing too is that for every increase there might be with a ticketing like
that, there will be a decrease on the other side where somebody is being charged
with possession of cannabis.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
I agree, and like you said
earlier and I also said it, I think we're going to see a huge bump in usage and
probably impairment and, hopefully, then it will stabilize and we'll see what's
happening in other jurisdictions right across.
I have a
question though. It was a question that I wanted to ask in the briefing and I
never got the opportunity to ask it because we talked about open marijuana in a
car. The briefing was a really frank conversation. We had a talk. It's just like
you would be sat down at a table having a conversation. It was really, really
good. I wanted to ask about products that are edible products. When we come to
marijuana, I believe there's also going to be things like cookies or whatever
they eat, whatever it is. I was wondering about that when it comes to a vehicle.
I know
that when we talked about boats, and we also talked about vehicles, it had to be
stored away in a certain area, the same thing that's similar to open liquor, I
believe, in a car or whatever. I was wondering if there was any part to the
legislation or was there any consideration given to that product and what would
have to be done for people having that in a vehicle or in a boat.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you.
Right
now edibles are not something that the feds have talked about until 2019, so
that's not something we're going to deal with. Right now they're worried about
cannabis in terms of smoking or vaping. Edibles are going to be a whole other
debate, I think, down the road.
In terms
of what goes on in a car or a boat, unless they are deemed a dwelling house,
both of those it is illegal to consume.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Cape St. Francis.
MR.
K. PARSONS:
Okay.
Last night I brought this up also about public
awareness. I think it's a very important part – I'm sure, Minister, you will
agree with me – making sure the public are aware of the situation and understand
the laws of the land, the same thing we do with impaired driving. We've done a
very good job and I commend the people like MADD who have done such a great job
on the awareness factor to young and old about the effects of driving. I've
heard some commercials already – it may not be called MADD but I think it is –
when it comes to drug impairment.
As a province, are we going to be doing with the new
legislation – and maybe it's something the federal government will be bringing
in to introduce to this part of the legislation that they'll have some kind of
awareness. I wonder if you could just inform us if there will be any awareness
programs. Will there be advertising just for the impairment and the use of drugs
in general, really.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Yes, certainly, there will be a public education and awareness campaign that
you'll see coming out in the coming weeks and months to talk about everything,
including physical effects, impairment, you name it.
There will also be an educational component that will
be ready for the start of the school year. It's being led by the feds but,
obviously, we have to take ownership ourselves as well. That's why when we look
at the implementation
across the board, sometimes you only think of it as Justice, but just about
every department is involved.
We'll be
working closely with Education as well as the school board. This is an issue
that they are aware of and will be dealing with. We'll work with them as well as
the broader, general public will want to know. Even little things, when you talk
about the usage when you go into a store when it becomes available, there's an
education as to the product itself. What does each one mean? That's why the NLC
will be involved in that.
When we
have something as big as this, I don't think there's enough education. I don't
think we can do enough but, certainly, it's top of mind for us.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you, Minister, for your answer.
I just
want to continue with my line. I'm glad, because that was my next line of
questioning, about our schools. I think we all can agree that any time we get to
our youth and our young people at an early age and educate them on not only when
it comes to alcohol or drugs what can happen.
I've
seen various scenarios where the school has a certain kind of a day where they
see our law enforcement, our fire department, our ambulance and even people from
different funeral homes show up to the training to show what can happen when
there's an accident. Stuff like that is where we need to be because people see
the real effects of impairment and what can happen to loved ones that are on the
road.
We hear
stories from MADD and different people all the time of the effects of impaired
driving, whether it's impaired driving by alcohol or impaired driving by drugs.
The effects that it can have, the person that gets killed is gone. The family
lives on with the pain for years and years and years to come. Minister, I'm glad
to hear this is going to go to the school level. I think it's very important
that we do an educational part with the Department of Education in any way we
can.
I always
give an example of growing up and how I grew up. I talk about little things like
recycling. I never thought of it until my children started to recycle. Maybe if
we can educate our children about the use of drugs and the use of alcohol behind
the wheel, and the effects that it can have on so many, maybe that will snowball
and have an effect on our adults that are going to be out there on the roads.
Minister, have the stakeholders all been informed of these latest changes in the
Highway Traffic Act? What
consultations have you done with different groups? I know we talked about MADD
and the different truckers, but I'm talking about driving schools like Young
Drivers of Canada and stuff like this to ensure that comes in, that these people
that are teaching our people on the roads understand the rules coming in right
now are zero tolerance. I think that's another place we could be with different
organizations like that. I just want to hear on that also.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I don't think I have an
exhaustive list here. What I can say is we consulted with organizations like
MADD. All the industrial commercial truck driving organizations have not only
been consulted, but have supported the legislation. The RNC, RCMP and Service NL
have met with the various groups.
I've had
calls from, not organized stakeholders but individuals that have had an interest
in road safety; people, like you say, who have gone through a tragedy. People
have spoken out. I've heard from these individuals and that formulates part of
this.
It
wouldn't just be with Justice; obviously Service NL has been working on this for
some time being the lead department. That's the biggest part of the
stakeholders.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. LESTER:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I still
have a question concerning the efficacy of our court system to be able to handle
this. I apologize for not expressing this earlier, but I expressed to the
minister that I have a concern with the low rate of convictions as it stands
now.
We're a
little over 60 per cent and with the new legislation, which I'm in full support
of. My concern is that we will be tying up resources in our law enforcement
agencies through appeals and court processes. The current median length of a
drug-related impairment trial is over 200 days. Now, I think we've all
identified a gap in the ability to convict an individual of zero tolerance when
there's no immediate equipment there that can verify any trace in an
individual's bloodstream or system.
I think
that's my biggest concern, that we can put this legislation in place but we're
actually going to slow down the enforcement because once one case gets through
and it's overturned, we're going to see a floodgate of those individuals lined
up to appeal their cases. In the case that we do accuse or arrest somebody on
the basis of subjective evaluation, through just visual assessment. I have a big
concern that somebody's commercial viability is going to be affected, possibly
their business and possibly their whole family's livelihood. They're waiting six
months in before they are cleared of these charges.
So does
the minister have a way to address this, especially for the commercial operators
of vehicles that may be subject to an improper assessment, which is one person's
opinion?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Minister, I never heard anyone ask this tonight, and last night got a little bit
foggy, I've got to be honest because it seemed like it went on for a while, so
it might have been asked and I might have missed it, it's possible. I'm just
wondering, repeat offenders, I think, if I'm not mistaken, when we made changes
to the Highway Traffic Act for people
impaired by alcohol, that there was maybe longer suspensions and other penalties
under the Highway Traffic Act for
repeat offenders.
So is
there anything in here for repeat offenders by drug or – it could be by drug or
it could be if you were picked up for impaired and now you're picked up for
drugs. Are you still considered a repeat offender even though one is drugs and
one is alcohol? Is there any further punitive action in the bill?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
That's
actually a really good question. The biggest part of that would be under the
Criminal Code. When it comes to
alcohol right now, basically, it starts off first, second, third and continuing
on. Off the top of my head, I can't tell you what that is. The first one comes
with a fine and a driving prohibition, the second one has a longer driving
prohibition and you start getting into jail time and then the third one it gets
more.
Each of
those has mitigating and aggravating factors that may – in fact, I remember I
saw one case where the person got arrested near a playground during daytime
hours. That was an aggravating factor. A mitigating factor might – these are all
things, but at the end of the day, there are mandatory minimums. So when it
comes to this, my understanding is that this will also be encompassed within the
federal bill under those amendments that are coming in there.
My
understanding is that, yes, impaired is impaired. That's why we have drug,
alcohol and drug and alcohol combination. If you get the second one, that should
be added on and should be considered a second offence, which gets you a more
severe penalty.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Mr. Chair, I thank the
Minister for that answer.
It kind
of fell in line with what I thought, but maybe he wasn't understanding my
question. I do appreciate his answer on the federal side. What I'm wondering is
under the Highway Traffic Act, like in
this particular bill here is about the
Highway Traffic Act, it's not about the
Criminal Code or impaired. What I'm
wondering is, I didn't see anything in the briefing, was there any thought given
to further suspensions for repeat offenders? So in other words, somebody was
picked up for impaired, whether it be for alcohol or drugs and they got a
suspension. In addition to being charged criminally, they got suspended under
the Highway Traffic Act.
So I'm
wondering why there would not be a stiffer suspension if someone got charged
with drugs for the second time under the
Criminal Code, then they should get their vehicle suspended under the
Highway Traffic Act for a longer
period of time or get bigger fine and so on.
I don't
see that in here, I'm wondering was that considered and why repeat offenders
weren't considered?
CHAIR (Reid):
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
What I can tell you, Mr.
Chair, and tell the Member opposite is that repeat offenders will get more
severe sentences when it comes to vehicle and driving prohibitions. That's
there, that's not an issue.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Minister, I just want to start, I meant to do this earlier and I thought about
it when I sat down a little bit earlier in Committee here and I didn't do it
then, I don't think I did it then. In case I missed it the last time, I just
wanted to highlight that last Friday we had a Friday afternoon briefing by
officials, a room full of people that were there, and I just wanted, in the
Committee process here, to acknowledge the patience that they provided and the
information and the assistance they provided to us in trying to fully understand
exactly what was being proposed here in the House today. So I want to thank them
and thank both ministers for assisting with that matter.
Minister, I know there's been some discussion about the Senate. A committee of
the Senate has been meeting and last night a Senate committee passed – according
to Canadian Press article from 11:20
p.m. last night, yesterday, the Senate committee passed more than two dozen
amendments to the federal government's cannabis legalization, including one that
will allow provinces to ban homegrown marijuana and so on. However, one of the
amendments that passed was the committee agreed and they – I'm told, by the way,
it was a unanimous agreement by the committee on these two dozen amendments. One
of them was agreeing that regulations would be provided to members of the House
of Commons and the Senate – were given 30 days to review the regulations.
I'm
wondering, Minister, if you would afford the same opportunity for Members of
this House on regulations that are going to come in related to this and other
legislation, but we're on this one now. I wonder if you'd be agreeable to
provide those regulations or a draft of those regulations.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I'm just trying to make sure
I – I apologize, I may have not quite heard the full end part of that. I think
what I heard is that the Senate has proposed a bunch of amendments that they'll
then send back to Parliament and they want 30 days in order to see that, I guess
when it goes ….
What I
would suggest is that we're going to have the debate here on legislation. My
biggest concern, to be quite honest with you, is does the federal changes and
does the federal process affect what we have here? Right now, what we've put in
is what we've put in.
The
regulations, as you know, when we deal with that, that's a process that's been
pretty consistent for a number of years now, which is they are drafted and
brought into place. I can't, right now, promise a 30-day commitment of that
nature, right now, no.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you.
What I'd
ask, Minister, and I think it goes without saying that you'd probably bring that
back to your colleagues and reference the fact that it was asked here.
I'm
reading from a Canadian Press article
dated 11:20 last night. It's listing some of the amendments that were agreed
upon, so maybe you could further consider that, but give opportunity for us – I
would say even the public. I think it would be a good thing for the government
to do to make sure the regulations are available to the public ahead of time so
that proper education, awareness and stuff can be done 30, 60 or 90 days before
they actually come into effect. That's been done in the past as well.
Minister, we had a discussion earlier with the Minister of Service NL about the
number of DRE, drug recognition experts in the province trained and qualified
and also SFST. I understand all SFST or all officers now are trained SFST in
their basic training, but also the Minister of Service NL, I had asked about RNC
and RCMP and she indicated there were 19. I really, honest to goodness, thought
there were more than that in the province.
I don't
know if the Minister of Justice could just confirm if that's the accurate
number. I'd also be interested to know from the minister: What plans are
underway for training more officers in DRE and is there a goal for this year for
how many you hope to have trained in the coming months?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I don't
have any information or evidence that would contradict what was provided earlier
in terms of numbers. What I do have here is an indication from the feds that the
RCMP will be dealing with a new introduction training course for police officers
across the country, which will be called Introduction to Drug-Impaired Driving
and will be required for law enforcement officers in addition to pre-existing
standard field sobriety testing. CDSA officers will also get the training.
We're
talking about legalization here but as the Member opposite would know, cannabis
is not always the big issue. One of the big ones to deal with is prescription
drugs, which is something that's legal, especially the combination of
prescription drugs with alcohol. It's a huge issue. These are both legal
substances. This is something where there is training right there, but we're
seeing that there are a lot of factors here. I have full confidence in their
training, as I know the Members opposite do as well.
The big
thing will be with the approval of the federal device, which I really do
anticipate that we are going to see that prior to this process being completely
done. We'll be done and ready here; whatever comes, comes. It's the same as when
they changed it for the Criminal Code
a few years ago; we have to prepare for whatever comes.
In terms
of the RNC, we are already above the national average in terms of DRE-prepared
officers. After speaking to the chief, after speaking to Karen Didham and after
signing a lot of the travel sheets that officers fill out – we have to sign them
within the department to send them to Jacksonville or Phoenix, I'm signing a lot
of them – they're doing more.
I think
the challenge will be, and not a challenge, but we're going to get more money
from the feds. We have to put it into their forces so that they can send more
officers out to do this. I think we all know that's going to be the big thing.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Topsail - Paradise.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Minister. I
appreciate that.
I agree.
I know we've talked many times about capable police officers we have in the
province. We certainly agree on that.
Minister, I've been reading and I have over here a copy of the RCMP-Canadian
Council of Motor Transport Administrators
Final Report on the Oral Fluid Drug Screening Device Pilot Project. One of
the interesting aspects that I read in the report – and I just read this here
today, it came to my attention today and I had a look at it since I've been in
here – is during the pilot period where a number of officers were given one of
two devices for doing roadside screening, and they were essentially testing
these, was the presence of other drugs that were picked up by this screening.
The most
common drugs found were cannabis, 61 per cent; – I'm reading right from the
report – followed by methamphetamines, 23 per cent; cocaine, 14 per cent;
opioids, 9 per cent; and benzos at 3 per cent. I'm just wondering, in all the
work that you've done in preparation for this – we have a zero-tolerance rule
for cannabis or THC when it comes to driving under the provincial legislation.
We're going to have a zero tolerance for novice drivers, drivers under 22 and
commercial drivers.
Is that
zero tolerance going to be for cannabis, marijuana, weed only, the presence of
THC? Once we get those roadside screening devices and you pick up that someone
has cocaine or any of these other drugs that have been picked up during the
pilot project, will that be considered to be a violation of the zero tolerance,
or is it only cannabis that the zero tolerance applies to?
CHAIR:
The hon. Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you.
Right
now, what we're dealing with strictly when you look at the legislation is
cannabis. Most of these, if it's an illegal substance, it's an illegal substance
under the Controlled Drugs and Substances
Act. That would, to me, constitute impairment, but I'll leave it to a
smarter defence lawyer to say how that would work.
When it
comes to prescription drugs, that's the challenge because they are legal, so
what it comes down to then is the impairment. That has to be measured by the
DRE, by the officer who can look at the level of impairment. That's one of the
challenges that we saw, especially with the increase in prescription drugs. I
don't think you're going to get a device that can tell you the levels on every
prescription drug, but it may be able to detect it once we get the device. I
can't tell you what it's going to come up with.
Once you
get the device it may be able to tell you certain classes of drugs but the big
thing right now, obviously, when it comes to the legislation, we're referencing
cannabis itself right now because that's the drug that's going from illegal to
legal.
CHAIR:
The hon. Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
MR.
P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister.
I realize that the
Criminal Code is a federal regulation;
however, it's the police in Newfoundland and Labrador which comes under the
jurisdiction of the provincial government that have to execute that. The federal
bill is proposing essentially three different levels of drug use: two nanograms,
less than five; five or more; 2.5 or more with the presence of alcohol of 50
milligrams or more.
My question, Minister – I'm just trying to make sure I
get this worded appropriately for you – I understand that the roadside screening
devices will be calibrated at a certain level, similar to what roadside alerts
are calibrated at now. Knowing that the maximum level will be five and anything
over two nanograms will be an offence, can you tell me what level these devices
will be calibrated at? I've heard talk of a very high level of calibration, a
high number for calibration.
As you're just having a look at your notes, I can give
you an example. Roadside alerts right now or screening for
alcohol are set at 50 and
100; 50 is when the provincial administrative rules kick in; 100 is essentially
the level they use. If you're 100 or over 100, it's enough grounds to bring
someone in for a Breathalyzer.
So when
it comes to the presence of THC, do you know how many nanograms it'll be
calibrated at?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I wouldn't have an answer to
that, I guess it would depend on what comes out of C-46. I know that the
calibration question is brought up in the
Criminal Code as well, and that's often one of the things that's brought up,
if you try to have a defence to this, it's often coming down to the device, was
it properly calibrated and everything else.
Right
now, what I can say, and the department of motor vehicles or DMV, as we call it.
That's what they formerly called it, what's the –
AN HON. MEMBER:
Motor vehicle registration.
Motor
vehicle registration, they're obviously very much watching this, and what
they're saying as well is that we don't know, at this stage, when it comes to
calibration. We have to wait and see what comes with C-46.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much.
I'm
concerned a little bit, Minister, and you may not have an answer for this but
it's just something that I would like to throw out.
Impairment with alcohol and impairment with cannabis, in terms of people's own
experience and some of the guidelines that have been given to people, sometimes
people can regulate that a little bit better, in terms of some folks know that
they're okay if they have a beer; one beer a night. They know that, although we
know we really want, if you're driving, don't drink. We know that.
It's a
little bit different with cannabis, and we know that there are different
strengths of cannabis in terms of the THC. We also know that cannabis stays in
your system longer. I think I raised this the other evening and I think it's
really tricky; it's really, really tricky.
So if
you've imbibed and used a lot of cannabis, say, on a Tuesday night, a lot, and
maybe way into the morning and then Thursday morning you're going to drive to
work. Sometimes people won't know. How will that be measured?
Also in
the Smoke-free Environment Act, we
talked about second-hand smoke and second-hand exposure to cannabis smoke, which
can lead to cannabinoid metabolites in bodily fluids sufficient for positive
results on testing of oral fluids, blood and urine and can lead to psychoactive
effects.
It's
complicated, isn't it? It's really, really complicated. So does it mean that you
can't drive to work the next day or maybe even the day after and how will that
be dealt with?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I
appreciate the question from the Member, we're talking about basically the
contact high where you're not consuming it, you're talking about the smoke
coming – I remember the first time I ever saw that was the – what Olympics was
it Ross Rebagliati famously said that he hadn't – I will say he's also very
involved in the cannabis movement now in Canada.
Here's
the question, when it comes to alcohol – and I will say, I'm willing to bet if
you spoke to officers, it's not often the night of the actual when you are
drinking and driving, in many cases it's the morning after, where you think
you're fine but you're still quite impaired and that's been one of the issues
here.
It's
going to be the same as this. One of the big issues has been is that the devices
test presence but presence does not constitute impairment. That's why, if we had
gone a certain route then what you're going to have – so you can either have
zero tolerance all together, which may have a constitutional issue, or we're
going to take away your licence just because you tested positive, even though it
could have been four weeks ago. That's one of the challenges and that's why one
of the big parts, as we referenced earlier with the education, is your own
education of figuring out the impairment on your body.
There
are a lot of unknowns here. The big thing though is that people – I always
suggest when it comes to driving, when it comes to consuming an intoxicant,
better safe than sorry and it is not your absolute right to drive. It is a
privilege to drive. So if you feel in any way, shape or form that you're
impaired, your best bet is to get a cab or get a ride.
It's no
different right now with alcohol, everybody knows where they say I can have one,
but I've seen cases where people think they can have a lot more or a lot less,
but it determines on bodily factors: sleep, how much food you've had, everything
else. Even a person's sort of idea as it relates to alcohol, something we've
been dealing with for years, people still misjudge it and that's why we come
back to the default which is just don't do it.
It is
going to be a challenge. What we do know is that once you see the test has been
laid out, I think it was in the briefing, is if you get to the point where you
do the test, and even if it's just presence, that's when, in certain case, we
have the right to go back and do the urine and the blood, which is where you get
the actual amount.
The
biggest thing, especially for young people 22 and under, is if you've consumed
in any way, shape or form there's going to be an issue.
The good
thing we also know too, when we're dealing with the feds, is that the medical
side, one of the big issues I had brought to me by medical users is: Well, I'm
always going to test positive, forever. I'm consuming it every day.
So the
big thing is that, obviously, it doesn't mean that you're allowed to drive if
you're impaired but the fact that it shows up in your system doesn't necessarily
imply impairment.
Like I
say, there are some tricks to that, but we have to work with everybody in the
province. I don't think the duty is necessarily on us to educate everybody. I
think that the duty is on individuals also to work on educating themselves. We
will have the materials there, but ignorance is no defence as well.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.
MS. ROGERS:
I'm not interested in arguing this point, except to say how slippery this is and
how difficult it is and how difficult it is on individuals to be able to judge
as well.
For
instance, we know that there are people in different industries who, when
they're working for weeks and then weeks off, may not use cannabis because it
stays in the blood so long. So they do use prescription drugs or they may use
cocaine or whatever they may use, but how difficult this is going to be, even
for people to try and educate themselves because, at this point, we know it's
not yet an exact science.
I just
wanted to say, I think that the realization that it is not so cut and dried and
it's not like a Breathalyzer, at least at this point.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Before I
get to my question, I just want to say to the Minister of Finance, I really
wanted to get to the House of Assembly today and see him hung but,
unfortunately, – well, fortunately, my daughter convocated so that's why I
wasn't there.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. LANE:
Congratulations.
Mr.
Chair, I just want to pick up where the Member just left off. I understand the
Member is talking about impairment. I think someone told me one time there's
more impaired drivers picked up on a Sunday morning than probably any other time
because of people who were out on a bender on a Saturday night and they got up
on Sunday morning on their way home thinking they were fine and they weren't.
With
marijuana, as I understand it, and I stand to be corrected and someone can
educate me if I'm wrong, but I think marijuana can stay in your system for
several days. I heard a month. Maybe it's not a month but I heard someone say a
month. Maybe it's a week. I don't know what it is but it's an extended period of
time.
While
that would not make you impaired – and I can understand, as the minister said,
govern yourself accordingly. Take in mind that it's no different than if you
were drinking on a Friday night. You ought to think twice about getting aboard
the car early Saturday morning, the same thing with marijuana. But if you are
under 22 or you're a commercial driver under the legislation, it's zero
tolerance.
It's
going to be really tricky. That's something that I don't know how they're going
to deal with. Theoretically, are you going to say to somebody if you are a
commercial driver, then if you had a joint or something on a Saturday night, you
can't get behind the wheel for a full month because it could be in your system
and it would register that you have something in your system.
I'm not
talking about the impaired piece; I'm talking about the zero-tolerance piece and
the length of time it's in your system. I could see that being problematic. I
don't know if the minister could talk about it or not.
CHAIR:
The hon. Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Chair, what I would say
is I'll try my best to keep to the three points and I'll try my best to actually
remember those points as I'm going through this.
The
first one is there is uncertainty. This is a huge change. Anybody from the prime
minister down that says this is going to be exactly figured out would not be
telling the truth. The fact is we realize that. What I think we've done is as
provinces, as departments, as legislators, as everybody, let's do the best we
can to be as prepared as we can. You're exactly right when you say what about
this, what about that. These are the hypotheticals and the questions that we
will face.
The
second part, I would say, is that we already have these commercial issues in
play where people going to certain worksites are not allowed to consume certain
drugs. That's still there. Even when it becomes legalized it comes down to the
impairment. That's why it's even on the website here. WorkplaceNL is dealing
with that. They're already dealing with that but, again, another challenge that
employers face.
The last
part I would say is – and this is probably going to be a big point for all the
debate on all the bills which is – I know there's uncertainty, I know there's
federal stuff we're waiting for, but we must continue on. We have to put in the
legislation right now. We cannot delay. Delay will be fatal. We must continue
on. I'm not saying that in the sense of rushing it, I'm saying it in the sense
if we don't do anything inaction is the possible worst-case scenario here.
I can
stand up and speak to the legislation and you're right, when we talk about
drugs, in fact, the rule of thumb I always heard was 28 days or 30 days. After
speaking to somebody yesterday there's new science to suggest it might go up to
60 days. That's an issue. It just goes back to tell you that this is not an
exact science.
A couple
of things, though. I'd like to think that, as I said in the House yesterday,
we've had the same debate here with the advent of when drinking became legalized
again and moved into new driving rules. I'm sure they had similar debates about
road safety, about people doing that, even though look how long it's taken us to
get that message. It's been decades and people are still doing it and too much.
We look at our rates here just in this province.
With
this new policy shift comes challenges. I'd like to think that now, with the
advent of the legalization, the science will improve exponentially. I think the
research is going to improve and rapidly. I'd like to think that law enforcement
will be able to adapt as they do to everything. You look at something like
fentanyl, that's something that just burst on the scene; the police ability to
react to something that the touch can be fatal.
We face
a lot of challenges but what we can do is our best to adapt and be prepared. I'd
like to think as a province we are prepared. That's why it has taken so long to
get this ready. It's because it's been a lot of work and a lot of the questions
you ask are questions that we have asked.
Even
then, a lot of the questions that you ask now might be ones that may not have
been considered. There are so many different hypotheticals that can come up. I'd
like to think that we addressed them, but like any of the legislation we deal
with here, in a lot of cases we deal with situations that were not considered at
the original time of implementation.
This is
going to have to be reviewed again. Departments will be ready, regulations can
be put in place and we'll deal with those issues as they arise. The best thing
we can do is ensure they have the resources when it comes to police training,
that we get as much education out as we can and we update that as we find out
more.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE:
I thank the minister for the
answer. I agree, I've already said numerous times that I think we all support
the bill. We know why you're doing it and moving forward.
I think
something else that's going to play into this, perhaps – is going to have to
play into this in the interim at least – is there's going to have to be some
level of discretion, I would suggest, on behalf of the police officers when
they're hauling people over. There would have to be some level of discretion.
I would
think that if somebody is a commercial driver, that's what they do for a living
to support their family, and they're not impaired but there's a very, very tiny,
minute scent – and they said have you had any marijuana and he says, yes b'y, I
had a joint three days ago or four days ago or last weekend – I would think
there would be some level of discretion there on behalf of the police officer.
We don't want to be destroying people's livelihoods over people who are safe to
drive, but it's just that there's a very minute trace from a week ago or
something like that. Discretion, I'm sure, will be part of it.
CHAIR:
The hon. Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I would remind the Member
opposite that our Charter prohibits from being stopped without reason. If
somebody is getting stopped and getting tested, there has to be a grounds to get
there.
I get
what you're saying because somebody's livelihood could be ruined because of
detection and everything, but in order to be stopped by our police there has to
be reasonable and probable grounds. There are Charter rights to prevent people
just being stopped for no reason.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. A. PARSONS:
Those are Charter approved.
Those matter. This is the same challenge people face even when they're having a
few drinks and they think they're smart enough to get home and then they come
into a roadblock. That's the risk you face.
I'd
rather err on the side of safety but, at the same time, I am a student of the
Charter. We must uphold those rights.
CHAIR:
The hon. Member for
Cape St. Francis.
MR.
K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Minister, I asked this question earlier and hopefully
I'm going to get an answer from you now also. We talked about there are only 19
people right now with DRE training in the province. I understand you said that
signing off – a lot of people are going to get it done right now. My concern is
– and I asked this question – about different regions of the province. Have you
looked at all the regions of the province to ensure that we have the proper
resources and people in place?
I gave examples, Minister, of the Burin Peninsula. As
you know, where you're from down in your district alone, Burgeo and stuff like
this, do we have the adequate people in areas like that, that are off the beaten
path really? I know that there are only two or three. Will we be concentrating
on those areas? It's about the rural areas of the province. I'll just ask that
question.
CHAIR:
The
hon. Government House Leader.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
In
defence of my colleague I will say I believe she did answer this. The problem is
now you're probably going to get a worse answer, but I'll still try to put it
out there.
A couple of things; it's a concern, obviously, but the
fact is right now, as we stand today, there's impaired driving going on,
impaired driving by drug. This is something that the RCMP and the RNC are
cognizant of and have to deal with right now as we speak. Even with the
legalization, I don't think that's going to change the fact that this is a
concern to safe roadways.
Just so
people know, we spoke to a DRE officer; training takes two weeks in class, one
week certification, which comprises 12 hands-on evaluations and there's a
recertification every two years. So, right now, between today and legalization,
we have plenty of time to up the training and we have the resources to do it as
well.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
You answered my next
question. I was wondering about the timeline to get somebody trained.
I
understand your answer, Minister, but my question that I'm going to ask you now,
and I understand that law enforcement officers, both the RNC and the RCMP, I
would imagine when they see somebody that's intoxicated and they look in the car
and they can see that that person is stoned out of their head, we'll say, and
there's a big sign of drugs in the car. Then they will come and they will say we
got to do something about this.
Under
this legislation, we're going to be looking at people with very small doses of
marijuana in them. Part of our legislation that we're bringing in is for novice
drivers with low amounts of drugs in their system. I would imagine it's going to
be harder for a RCMP officer or a RNC officer to detect whether that person is
stoned. It could be a smell in the car, I know people you look at sometimes
their eyes are bloodshot or there are different things that they will look at,
but where it's after changing from intoxication of drugs to minor offences of
drugs, I'm just concerned that we do have the proper enforcement.
I know
they do a great job out there and they can probably detect it a whole lot better
than I can.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Chair, I can confirm
that, yes, they can detect it a whole lot better than he can.
In fact,
what I could do is after we finish debate on this – I had it shown – I can show
you how the first part of the standard field sobriety goes with the pen on the
nose and then the walking. I've been educated on that, but this is specialized
training.
I come
back to your point, it comes down to our police are going to be prepared now as
they are already. It's going to be prepared. The fact is that cannabis, whether
it's legal or illegal, presents impairment in certain people. They have to have
the ability to do that training, which, like you say, there's standard field
sobriety, then we get into DRE.
One of
the big challenges is that, right now, I'm just going to guess because I'm not
an officer – in fact, there are a couple of officers. We have an officer sitting
across from us and we have a couple out in the lobby we could talk to.
Right
now, if you smell cannabis, it's an illegal substance, in many ways you know
that, but going forward, the smell of cannabis does not imply illegal behaviour.
So it is going to have some challenges. In fact, the presence of cannabis is
illegal, but going forward, you will be even allowed to have it in your car as
long as you follow certain rules.
So there
are challenges with this, but going forward, I have full faith in our police, I
have full faith in the training and I have full faith that as we go forward,
every day is going to be important until we get to legalization. There's going
to be a lot more coming from the feds.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Excuse my ignorance when it
comes to this because I'm not really sure, but it's a question I was thinking
about here earlier today. When we talk about commercial drivers, I'm wondering
about – we have school buses that are out there, but there's some smaller buses,
and I'm not sure now – I'm sure the Minister of Service NL probably knows this,
the different categories of driving when it comes to commercial driving. Is
there any school bus or anything that would be considered not a commercial
vehicle, when it comes to driving?
The
second part of the question is: I'm wondering about people that transport
people. For example, taxi drivers. I know that in some of the schools in my way,
there are some contracts. There are contracts that go out to transport children
with disabilities and stuff like that in different schools, and we all see it.
So would they fall under this category also because they're transporting some of
the children?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
School
buses are considered commercial vehicles. As it pertains to taxis, you're not
allowed to smoke cannabis in a taxi. Taxis are a regular car. You're not allowed
to consume and drive, to be impaired and drive.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
You're not allowed to drive
any vehicle with impairment, but what I'm wondering is because of the commercial
use and part of this legislation that is different from when we talk about
alcohol is when we talk about commercial drivers.
So,
again, I gave the example, and a lot of people over there shook their head and
understood what I was talking about, that a lot of children get transported to
school in the mornings, due to probably some disabilities or some learning
problems that are there and they get transport. We all have them in our
districts.
I'm
wondering would they fall – is this a commercial vehicle or would they fall
under the regulations in this legislation also?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think
where my colleague is going with this is we understand you can't use cannabis in
a vehicle such as a taxi; however, there's a zero tolerance for commercial
drivers and will the zero tolerance apply to taxi drivers or is it only vehicles
over 4,500 kilograms, which was discussed last week, and then buses. There are
different sizes and styles of buses, do they all apply under definition of
commercial drivers under the proposed amendments to the
Highway Traffic Act?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
The definition of commercial
vehicle does not include a taxi under proposed amendments of the
Highway Traffic Act.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.
There
was reference made to exemptions for people legally allowed to use the drugs for
medical purposes. I wonder can you give some details of how this is going to
work. This is probably one of the hardest parts of the whole legislation, how
you're going to be able to determine medical use versus recreational use. If you
could give me some details, I'd appreciate it.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
What I would say is when it comes to the medical, obviously, that is federal.
People that have the medical exemption would have to go with what comes with
that.
What I
would also say is that there's no exemption for driving if you're impaired, even
if you're medical.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Following up on the Member for Cape St. Francis' question, I thought they said
in the briefing – I could be wrong – but I thought the answer was with taxis
they're covered under the Occupational
Health and Safety Act, that the taxi is considered the work place, therefore
being under the influence, zero tolerance fell in place under the Health and
Safety Act and that's how we ensured taxis are zero tolerance.
Can the
minister just confirm that I was hearing that right and if that's the case? If
not, then it's definitely an issue. If we're saying you can't drive a commercial
vehicle, it's zero tolerance, then surely goodness we can't have taxi drivers
transporting people, transporting children and so on, and not have a zero
tolerance for them when we can have it for someone driving a chip truck or
something. It doesn't seem to add up to me.
I think
I was told in the briefing it was because of the
Occupational Health and Safety Act, it was covered off there. I'm
just looking for confirmation that is the case.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Section 26 under the
Occupational Health and Safety regulation applies to workers in a work place, so
you can't be impaired by anything when you're in your work place.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
We were told a person that
does show positive for drugs and DRE is carried out, and there are about a dozen
tests they can do. There's a reference to taking blood pressure, the temperature
of a person, or getting the blood or urine test sample.
Where
are these tests going to be carried out?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
My understanding is these
will happen at detachments. There's a standard field sobriety test, which is a
series of three tests. One involves the pen and the nose, where it looks for the
eye; the next one, there's a walking on the straight line; the last one is
holding the foot up and some counting. Depending on that, and once we get the
federal-approved device which will show presence, that will be enough to have
somebody go back and then you move further into the test.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Minister, right now – and
this is just curiosity, it's killing me – where is it to now? I know it's
against the law to drive under the impairment of drugs right now, but where –
for example, if I'm in Harbour Breton, do you take it to the local area doctor
that's there or do you take it to a medical place? If it's in St. John's, do you
go to the RNC office or do you go to the Health Sciences? It's just a general
question, basically.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
The DRE would be done at the
detachment.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. A. PARSONS:
But this is one of the
challenges we face, is that more than likely that would have to be done at a
hospital or somewhere that is capable of dealing with that. Again, that's one of
the questions we face going through this, is putting that pressure on hospitals,
or do you ask police officers to do that? It's still a question that's coming
up, one that everybody's grappling with.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay. Thank you very much for
that.
I just
want to go back to, a little bit on the medical person who's driving, because if
they're using marijuana for medical purposes or stuff like that, how are you
going – is there going to be a level that's going to be in their body that's
going to be detected, that says okay, once you're under this level or is there
something that will show a difference between a person who's medically on
marijuana than a person who's on recreational marijuana?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
What I would say is I'm one
that's certainly for open, positive debate. I do believe the question the Member
asked was answered earlier by the Member. I think the minister has answered a
question similar to that. So going forward – I have no problem standing up and
answering the question, and the reason I'm up now is to give the Member an
opportunity to get back up, but I'm not going to re-answer – if the minister's
answered, there's probably not much I can change.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
That's the first time I asked
that question, actually.
The
question I'm asking is: Is there different levels for a person who's on medical
marijuana – obviously, there's something in their blood system because they're
smoking marijuana. Is there a level they have to stay at or is there some kind
of – for a person who's smoking recreational marijuana, because I asked the
minister earlier and he said we'll be able to detect. It's not a free ride for a
person who's got medical purposes who can say I can smoke it anyway and drive,
you know what I'm saying.
I'm
wondering, how are you going to be able to detect that a person who is using
medical marijuana don't abuse the system?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
What I would say is that
impaired is impaired, whether you're a first time smoker or a medical long-time
constant chronic smoker. Impairment is impairment; they'll have that level set
out. That's the best thing I can say at this point.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Cape St. Francis.
MR.
K. PARSONS:
I'm
down to only a couple of questions. Minister, thank you for your patience,
before we get to the next section.
Minister, a question I was asked this weekend, and
actually I brought it up myself when we went to the briefing. Workers that work
offshore and are working and are users of marijuana, it stays in their system
for a long period of time, and obviously they can't smoke marijuana and stuff
like that. Is there any indication that – I know we talked about two hours use
and stuff like that. Obviously, there must be something that can detect the
length of time that marijuana is in the system and the effects it has.
I spoke to a person yesterday who told me if you smoke
marijuana there's a test you can do down the road ten years that can show it's
actually still in your system. I'm just wondering how you're going to regulate
this because offshore people who work offshore, that's one of the reasons they
can't smoke marijuana because it's detected like six weeks or so down in their
system. I know it's a question you probably don't want to answer or whatever,
but it's a question people have out there because they know the rules and
regulations of it.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for Topsail - Paradise.
MR.
P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We've had a little bit of discussion in the last couple
of days about education and I think it's very, very important. I was trying to
understand earlier what a nanogram is or two nanograms and how do we articulate
to the general public that you can't have any more than two nanograms of THC.
Then there's active THC and residual THC, which my colleague just talked about.
I was looking on the Government of Canada services
website on drug impaired driving,
and just to reference it for a moment because I think there's some
interesting points here. They are interesting to me and may be interesting to
other people as well. It says: “Drugs can impair your ability to drive safely
and increase the risk of getting into a collision. In fact, marijuana increases
your chance of a car accident.”
While I
say this, bear in mind the recent commentary by the Ontario Chiefs of Police who
are anticipating that drug-impaired driving will go up once recreational –
according to what I'm reading from the article – pot is legal and police will
need to train more officers to detect drug appearance. So knowing that it's
going to increase.
Then
when I read this one, it goes on to say: “Marijuana is second only to alcohol as
the most commonly detected substance among drivers who die in traffic crashes in
Canada.
“Impaired driving is the leading criminal cause of death and injury in Canada,
and drug-impaired driving is increasing.
“Getting
behind the wheel while impaired … is not only dangerous, it's again the law.
Drug Recognition Experts can determine if you are under the influence of a drug
and can charge you with impaired driving. You could have your license suspended
...” and so on.
“If
you're the least bit impaired, don't take a chance with your life, your future,
or …” your safety, and encourages you to “Always drive sober.” Which is always a
good message, Mr. Chair, when we're talking about driving a motor vehicle.
There's
a couple of bullets I've highlighted here that I just want to take a moment to
run through.
“Young
people continue to be the largest group of drivers who die in crashes and later
test positive for alcohol or drugs, and yet, only 11 percent of parents surveyed
said they had discussed the risks of driving under the influence with their
teenagers.”
“Driving
under the influence of drugs is a major contributor to fatal road crashes in
Canada and young people continue to be the largest group of drivers who
die in crashes and test positive for drugs.”
A few
facts they lay out here as well: 81 per cent of people – there was a public
opinion research on drug-impaired driving that was done in 2017.
“Public
Safety Canada conducted research with Canadians on drug-impaired driving in
2017. A summary of the findings shows that: 81% know someone who has used
cannabis and 56% have consumed cannabis at some point in their lives
“Among
those who have used cannabis, 28% reported they have operated a vehicle while
under the influence.”
There's
a reason why I'm reading all of these, Mr. Chair, I will get to it momentarily.
“One in
three Canadians report that they have ridden in a vehicle operated by a driver
who was under the effects of cannabis.
“Among
those who have driven while impaired, 4 in 10 downplayed the risks by either
indicating that driving while under the influence of cannabis is less dangerous
than driving under the influence of alcohol.”
I think
that's a very important one. People who have driven under the influence of
cannabis, four out of 10 downplay it and say it “is less dangerous than driving
under the influence of alcohol.
“65%
agree that cannabis users often fail to realize that they are impaired from
using cannabis, and 25% believe that the impacts of cannabis consumption are
less detrimental to their driving ability than alcohol.”
Mr.
Chair, the reason I raise all of those is we've had some discussions about
advertising – and the federal government has the graphic there that they use as
well. We've had some discussion about, I say, advertising education because we
know it takes a long time for the message to get in. We know that people who
study advertising will tell you that you have to drive a message and drive a
message and drive a message and sometimes it takes a while before it clicks in
with people and they say oh yeah, now I get it.
When you
talk about branding and understanding, for example – I've talked in the past
about branding. We talk about McDonald's. When we say McDonald's, you think
burgers and fries and coke; but, in actual fact, McDonald's sell a lot of salads
these days, but you don't think about that. So that's the kind of branding.
It takes
a while sometimes for that to happen. While the Government of Canada have done
some graphics like the one I have here that says don't drive high, your life
could change in an instance, and they put a number of facts real quick that are
easy to see: 50 per cent of cannabis users don't think that it affects their
driving much. Well, one in five doesn't think it has any negative effect at all.
Over one
in three, 39 per cent of those who've used cannabis in the past year, have
driven within two hours of consuming cannabis – 39 per cent. That's just under
40 per cent – very close to 40 per cent I know. The number of fatally injured
Canadian drivers who tested positive for cannabis in 2014 was 149.
Anyway,
my question for the government – and I don't know which minister wants to answer
it, but my question is: There needs to be a comprehensive plan laid out on
education. Education for the very young, for adults of all ages, young,
middle-age, older adults so that everybody understands the risk of driving while
impaired. I wonder if the government can shed some light or maybe the Minister
of Service NL can give us some indication of what the plan is; how soon will it
be rolled out; and will it be rolled out before the legalization actually
happens so people can be educated and understand before this actually happens.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.
Again, I
think my colleague had a very important point there and it was about the
education part of this and what we're going to be rolling out through the
departments. We talked earlier a little bit about the Department of Education.
But there are a number of references, details provided with regulations to
amendments. I know that regulations usually do with new penalties and have been
highlighted.
When can
we expect to see all the regulations associated with this bill?
CHAIR:
Seeing no further –
The hon.
the Member for Topsail - Paradise.
MR. P. DAVIS:
I'll be very brief on this.
What I
was interested to know is can the government give some indication of when
education campaigns on impaired by drug will begin.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Obviously, we're getting to
the end of the bill. I guess the questions are not going to be answered to that.
But that's okay, and I appreciate all the answers that were given here this
evening. Really appreciate it.
Thank
you very much for the answers that were given.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. K. PARSONS:
I learned a lot and I hope
that anybody that's watching this and people that I can talk to down the road
will be able to have answers that I can give them when it comes to different
parts of this legislation.
Again, I
appreciate that this is something that's completely different. It's a different
bill that we've seen and ministers, both ministers, I understand that there are
a lot of unknowns because this is not a regulation –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MR. K. PARSONS:
This is not something that
your government is bringing in. It's something that we have to be ready for
obviously, and it has to be something that we look at as a province to make sure
that we're ready –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
There's
too much noise in the House.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Yes, there is, Mr. Chair,
definitely too much.
I'm
going to just finish on how I feel about this bill because I know once we get
into section by section, you got to stay to the section and stuff like that.
There are some interesting comments we made here today. I hope that government
will – and I understand that training is being done, that we have the proper
enforcement on our roads because we're all here for the one reason: We want to
make sure that safety plays a huge role in anything, and making sure that our
roads are safe should be priority of everybody in this House of Assembly and
everybody in the province.
I see a
big difference today in what I've seen years ago when people were driving along
the highways. I think people are more cognizant of making sure that people are
safe and our roads are safer.
I
commend government. We brought in some good legislation the last number of years
with the Highway Traffic Act. I've
been critic for Service NL but whenever I see that there's good legislation come
in I have no problem standing up here in the House of Assembly and commending
government for a good job and making sure that our roads are safe. It's
something that we all have to work together at.
I hope
that Opposition, our opportunity to ask questions may improve things. I think
that's the reason why we're here. I appreciate answers that are coming from that
side of the House, but I do have concerns when it comes to the
Highway Traffic Act with drug impairment. Again, like the minister
stated earlier, it's all new to us. There are going to be a few bumps in the
road along the way. I'm sure that our justice system will have more than a few
bumps in the road when it comes to the courts and to understand the court system
and how it's going to work in court.
My
concern here is that I hope that when it does get to the court system that it
doesn't bog down our system. I know the minister stated earlier that there'll be
no new hires or anything like that in our justice system, but our justice system
today is strained as much as possible. Anything that we can do as people in this
House of Assembly to alleviate any of the issues that they have, we should be
able to bring in the proper laws and make sure that that system works the best
it can for everybody.
When it
comes to drug impairment, I know that both ministers have stated that impairment
today is the same as it was yesterday and it will be tomorrow. Okay, I
understand that. But the new laws that we're bringing in the House of Assembly,
that we're adapting to be able to go online with the federal government – these
are new laws. Reading what I've read and understanding from the ministers today,
we are expecting a big bump in the usage of marijuana. And when there is a bump
in the usage – it would be the same thing as if alcohol saw an increase in
people using alcohol. People will drive. They will go behind that wheel. We have
to have the mechanisms in place.
The new
laws that are coming in when we talk about zero tolerance – and I understand
from MADD Canada and everybody else out there that zero tolerances is zero.
That's what it means, and that's not a bad thing. But we also need to make sure
that we have mechanisms in place. It's very unfortunate when you look at the
tools that we need that law enforcement officers need to do their job won't be
available when this comes into force.
That's
not deflecting anything that a law enforcement officer does today. That's not
deflecting the great job that our officers, our men and women that are on the
roads today, that make sure I'm safe, my children are safe, and as the minister
mentioned, my grandchildren are safe. So there's no doubt about that, that's
what we all want to see, but I also would like to see them given the proper
tools to do the job.
The
Member for
Topsail - Paradise mentioned about education, again, I just want to touch
on it. I think it's a very, very important part of this whole – not only the
Highway Traffic Act, the whole of what
we're doing here to bring in the new laws to legalize marijuana. Education has
to play a major role in this.
When we can educate children in schools, they will
educate us. They'll educate people out there, but we need to make sure that the
education factor is there. I've seen some ads, and the Member for Topsail -
Paradise just put up a couple that he had out there that the federal government
has put out also and it's very important, but this province has to do the same.
We have to make sure that we have education in our schools so children and
students, and we all, can see the effects of impaired driving.
It's too late when it's a family member. I don't know
the effects but I can only imagine. I've seen and I've heard from family members
that had the unfortunate thing of an impaired driver causing death to a loved
one. I can only imagine what that's like.
I look at Ms. Coates who is a great ambassador for
people who go through that and I look at people like her and understand that
they'll fight, and they're doing a great job for all of us. They're doing a good
job for me and they're doing a good job for the general public.
We need to support those groups and make sure that they
have the means to be able to educate everybody. We can never be wrong when it
comes to education, especially when it comes to anything that we can control
ourselves. Education on the Highway
Traffic Act is huge. We should be able to enforce and do the proper things
to make sure that people who drive along our roads in the daytime or in the
night time are safe.
Just in closing with the regulations, I think it's
going to take a bit of time for everyone to get used to this. It's not going to
be something that's going to come overnight. I hope the federal government and
the minister can get the federal government to make sure that they do the proper
analysis, have the proper tools in place and have the proper education in place
before this really does become law.
Whether it's July 1 or it's August 1 or September 1 or
October 1 or whenever this comes into rule, it should be done properly. All
the analysis that needs to be done, the tools that people need to enforce the
rules and regulations should be put in place. This is all about safety of our
people. It's about safety of people that drive our roads every day.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
MR. P. DAVIS:
I was going to start by
saying: I want to thank the Member for Cape St. Francis for his comments, but
I'm only kidding.
I have a
serious question for the Minister of Justice and Public Safety. I was going
through my notes to see if I've covered off everything that I had noted to ask
and there was one question I came across here that hadn't been asked.
During
Estimates of Justice and Public Safety earlier this year – we had a very good
Estimates session and a lot of good information from the minister and officials
– the department pointed out that $500,000 from the federal government was being
provided to the Department of Justice and Public Safety. I think it's $100,000
for Fines Administration, $300,000 for Provincial Courts and $100,000 for public
prosecution, if my memory serves me correct. At that time, the funding was being
anticipated to be received. It hadn't been confirmed and it certainly hadn't
been received.
I was
wondering if the Minister of Justice is able to provide an update on the
$500,000 that was anticipated to be received from the federal government.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I can't confirm whether we've
actually received that. I think it still maybe waiting sign off from the feds.
What I
can do, and I would have no problem bringing to the House and tabling a document
coming from a lady named Virginia English who was actually here during the
Estimates who is basically the comptroller for the department. I could certainly
find out because that's a simple question and I don't know the answer now. I can
find out and report back. I have no problem doing that.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I thank
the minister for that information.
Just to
reiterate what my colleague said here, we've been here for two-and-a half hours,
almost three hours, it's been a good exchange of information, it's certainly
been beneficial for me in grasping a little bit of a better understanding in
some areas. Some areas I'd like to have more information, but it certainly gave
me a little bit better of an understanding. My colleagues here and I were just
discussing the same thing. It's been a helpful process for us to get a bit of
understanding. So I thank the ministers for their co-operation.
CHAIR:
Shall the motion carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, clause 1 carried.
CLERK:
Clauses 2 through 11
inclusive.
CHAIR:
Shall clauses 2 to 11
inclusive carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, clauses 2 through 11 carried.
CLERK:
Be it enacted by the
Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as
follows.
CHAIR:
Shall the enacting clause
carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, enacting clause carried.
CLERK:
An Act to Amend The Highway
Traffic Act.
CHAIR:
Shall the title carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, title carried.
CHAIR:
Shall I report the bill
carried without amendment?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion,
that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Deputy
Government House Leader.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I move
that the Committee rise and report Bill 23.
CHAIR:
The motion is that the
Committee rise and report Bill 23 carried without amendment.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
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 the matters to them
referred and have directed me to report Bill 23 carried without amendment.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Chair of the Committee of
the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them
referred and have directed him to report Bill 23 without amendment.
When
shall the report be received? Now?
MS. COADY:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Now.
When
shall the said bill be read a third time?
MS. COADY:
Tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, report received and adopted. Bill ordered read a third time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Deputy
Government House Leader.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I call
from the Order Paper, Order 10, second reading of Bill 26.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Deputy
Government House Leader.
MS. COADY:
Thank you.
Mr.
Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and
Innovation, that Bill 26, An Act To Establish The Innovation And Business
Investment Corporation, be now read a second time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
Bill 26 entitled An Act To Establish The Innovation And Business Investment
Corporation be now read a second time.
Motion,
second reading of a bill, “An Act To Establish The Innovation And Business
Investment Corporation.” (Bill 26)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
pleased to rise in this hon. House today to speak to Bill 26, An Act to
Establish the Innovation and Business Investment Corporation. This bill, Mr.
Speaker, is really a continuation of the work that has been ongoing in my
department for the last number of months to create a focus on innovation and
investment here in this province.
Mr.
Speaker, hon. Members will recall last July our government launched InnovateNL.
InnovateNL, through the Department of TCII, is a single window in the delivery
of the provincial innovation programs and services to clients in a seamless and
more efficient manner that supports our approach to working smarter and more
collaboratively.
Our goal
through InnovateNL and the Innovation Council is to improve service for clients;
to reduce red tape for business owners and streamline client access to
government supports; leverage research and innovation support; extend innovation
programming province-wide; provide a full continuum of supports for clients for
idea to market to internationalization; and ensure that other non-funding
business supports are provided to clients and available in a very timely manner.
We want to focus research and technology investments and projects for clients
with global reach, and to build on the priorities certainly of
The Way Forward.
I'm
pleased to say, Mr. Speaker, that we have made progress in this regard, and many
of you may have followed some of the tech tours that myself and my parliamentary
secretary have taken earlier this year. The purpose of these tours was to raise
awareness of innovation that was happening here, right in our province.
Prior to
the launch of Innovate NL, many of these companies were clients of both the
Department of TCII and the Research & Development Corporation. This meant that
in order to apply for funding they would have to go through two application
processes and deal with two separate entities. If the funding was coming from
the Business Investment Corporation, they would have to deal with two different
boards as well.
Mr.
Speaker, keep in mind that this was all to apply for provincial government
funding. So during our engagement sessions on the development of our business
innovation agenda, stakeholders identified a need for one-stop coordinated
advice, integrated service delivery, match with employer needs, as well as
better linkage to various supports of capital required.
Through
the consultation and review process, it was determined that having both a
department for economic development – TCII – and a Crown corporation specific
for R & D was disjointed, it was confusing to commercial and non-commercial
clients. It was also felt that there was little collaboration between TCII and
RDC, the opposite effect of what was envisioned in the plan to have a flow from
one organization to support the next for the client's success. So the intention
of being able to set up the separate entity and for it to flow into the
department was meant to happen. But the collaboration just didn't exist to the
level that it was envisioned.
So, Mr.
Speaker, small- and medium-sized enterprises are critical to the growth of the
provincial economy, and these businesses are located throughout the province,
not just in St. John's. The new act demonstrates our commitment to SMEs in
Newfoundland and Labrador; in particular it reinforces our priority to support
opportunity in SMEs to increase productivity and improve competitiveness.
TCII's
regional office structure, including the recent co-location of staff to the
College of the North Atlantic campuses is an effective way to bring R & D
supports to firms in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. The act also outlines a
continued mix of financial mechanisms to support business development, including
both loans and grants. The act shows that we continue to take actions to partner
with those that want to develop and grow business, including investing in
people, their ideas, creativity and plans for promoting economic wealth.
The
legislation also supports our efforts to collaboratively work with industry,
academia, community, federal and provincial partners in the innovation and
entrepreneurial ecosystem to encourage a more connected, innovative and
entrepreneurial culture throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. The next step
forward from the July 2017 launch of InnovateNL was to ensure that the
department had relevant and modern legislation to operate effectively and
efficiently.
The new
legislation supports The Way Forward
commitment on reducing the number of entities in the Government of Newfoundland
and Labrador. Since I was already responsible for another Crown corporation, the
Business Investment Corporation, it was determined that better streamlining was
possible to eliminate duplication. It just makes good business sense. Therefore,
the new act will replace two previous pieces of legislation, which will be
repealed: the Business Investment
Corporation Act and the former
Research and Development Council Act. Consequently, the number of boards and
corporations will be reduced from two to one, allowing for a more cohesive and
coherent approach in decision making on strategic investments in innovation and
business growth.
The new
corporation is responsible for making funding decisions on projects for
commercial and non-commercial clients, for innovation and business development
and growth-related projects to advance economic development in accordance with
the priorities of the government of the province.
This
includes but is not limited to projects for research and development, skills
development, market development, technology development or technology
improvements, working capital, et cetera. The corporation will remain within the
Department of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation and be guided by one
board, with members working to ensure public investments are made strategically
and effectively.
A
transition board will be put in place consisting of existing members of the
Newfoundland and Labrador Innovation Council and some board members of the
Business Investment Corporation. A new board will be selected through the
Independent Appointments Commission process.
Mr.
Speaker, this legislation also allows for increased transparency. One area where
government will ensure transparency is through the selection of a new board of
directors. The act indicates that the board members will be selected through the
Independent Appointments Commission process. Unlike the former RDC Act, the new
corporation will not have any special exemptions under the
Public Procurement Act. Again, in the
spirit of being transparent, the new corporation will follow tendering rules
outlined in the Public Procurement Act.
While
the act does have an exemption under the ATIPPA to hold commercially sensitive
information from ATIPP applicants, the type of records that can be withheld only
reflects the essential information that could bring harm to a client of the
corporation if released.
This is
very different from the former Research
and Development Council Act where it gave the Research & Development
Corporation the ability to withhold far greater amounts of information. Under
the RDC Act, the definition of commercially sensitive information included 12
examples of the type of information considered commercially sensitive. This
protection for RDC was maintained when the
Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act was passed here by all
Members of the House of Assembly in 2015.
Under
the proposed bill, commercially sensitive information has been defined and
reduced to four types of records. For example, under the RDC Act, strategic
business planning information was included as an example of commercially
sensitive information; whereas it would not be considered as such under the
definition in the proposed bill.
Both the
chair and the vice-chair have stressed the importance of maintaining protection
for commercially sensitive information. What we have done is to try to strike a
balance to ensure protections provided are not lost while ensuring that we
increase transparency.
Mr.
Speaker, in conclusion, this legislation will result in a single Crown
corporation guided by public policy goals, while being flexible enough to enable
government to maximize positive impacts for the provincial economy through both
innovation and business investment. The introduction of this legislation is a
culmination of work that has been ongoing by our government to create a focus on
innovation and investment in the province with the launch of InnovateNL.
This
will result in continued improvements to client service delivery as it
eliminates the need for clients to go through two corporations to receive
decisions on government funding. This approach reinforces government's
commitment to innovation as a driving force to economic development, and
demonstrates the value government places on having the private sector play a
leadership role through board membership.
Government is committed to fostering innovation and investment in the province,
including providing investment support at each stage of business development,
from start-up to scale up. This new legislation addresses the issues of gaps in
the business funding continuum and helps provide streamlined, consistent and
improved client services.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The
Opposition House Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
pleased to rise this evening on Bill 26, An Act to Establish the Innovation and
Business Investment Corporation. What the minister has suggested in terms of his
discussion on Bill 26, there are a lot of entities now that are combined and
focuses under the one entity. He talked about consolidating the
Business Investment Corporation Act
and the RDC Act as well.
From our
time, and certainly from my time in government, we focused on business
development and removing regulation and difficultly in terms of business to
operate to grow and to succeed. As well, to look at the research and development
component of business, certainly, through our post-secondary institutions – the
Marine Institute, Memorial – and some of the great things they're doing in
regard to innovation and growing and commercializing ideas, which is so
important.
The
focus on that, at that particular time, was through the RDC and also using the
levers that are available for additional funding and to partner with the private
sector, in particular, under things like the Atlantic Accord and accessing
dollars that are required to be used by operators here in the offshore towards
education and towards R & D. RDC was the instrument to access that, leverage it
and work with industry and companies to enhance technology and innovation in
areas that are applied research. Which would see changes or enhancements or
innovation in the oil and gas sector, in the mining sector, in other sectors,
too, that are priority. To enhance skills and ability, to enhance returns for
the companies in question, but also to enhance the returns to the people of the
province through such things as royalties and taxations.
I
remember, in particular, dealing with the oil and gas sector, a couple of the
operators and partnering with them through the RDC, particularly relating to
accessing greater oil in an oil field. We established a chair at Memorial – I
think it's still there – in regard to that and the technology and how, through
that, they were able to take more oil from an actual oil field based on the
technologies that were developed.
What
that meant was that we commercialized or were able to develop new technologies.
That allowed greater execution in that oil pool for extraction. It wasn't left
there. It could be taken out. That meant greater production, greater return to
the province in terms of the barrels of oil that are produced. It means the
company, from an operational point of view, continued the lifespan of that
particular oil field through employment. More importantly, from the province's
perspective it meant an increase in royalties. Traditionally that would stay
because they'd get to a certain level of pumping it out of that particular find,
but this technology allowed more to be taken out which meant greater royalties
and greater return to the province.
That
develops that ecosystem, too, of support mechanism that we want to develop with
the oil and gas sector. It allows those companies to flourish where they have
intellectual knowledge that may be distinct to here, but can be transported
anywhere around the world and can build that secondary industry that's so
important, business support and business supply right here in the province with
our companies or around the world that can be exported out, continue economic
growth, development and employment.
That was
one aspect of the RDC and the work they were doing in leveraging of dollars, and
also leveraging of dollars with federal programs as well. But the important part
of that was that when it started out there was a lot of money that was public
money. When you look at this bill here in terms of what this is going to do –
and I hope will continue to be able to do it. A lot of times it is public funds
that drive R & D, but with this initiative and the way the RDC worked in the
past we were leveraging private sector money which is so important. It was
applied research that was giving returns back to the province.
The
other aspect of the bill, as I mentioned, is consolidating the
Business Investment Corporation Act which looks at commercial and
non-commercial activity. People may not realize but the non-commercial or
non-profit sector does very well in this province and gives great contributions
to the economy and to various regions of the province for the work they've done.
The work is done through co-operatives and non-profit groups, especially in the
tourism sector and other areas as well. They do very well in regard to driving
economic activity, developing expertise and developing knowledge. Those
entrepreneurs that are involved with the non-profit sector do very well in
regard to those activities and what they do as well.
On the
innovation side, it's very important that we continue to pursue – and,
hopefully, through this process it will continue – innovative activities and
support of that, whether it's through the engineering school at MUN, whether
it's through some of the activities at Grenfell on the West Coast. I know there
was work done there in regard to environmental science and activities there, but
bringing people together with new ideas, commercializing and to provide the
supports right along the way to the incubation period, to development, to
commercialization, to the point of getting that company started.
I know
we developed two streams of venture capital. We hear very little about that
today. We had the made-in-Newfoundland fund and, as well, part of the Atlantic
Canada venture capital fund which was used, was made available and was very much
needed as we heard from stakeholders. Especially, oftentimes, in the IT sector,
where you get a start-up that's done well, doesn't have a lot of equity, needs
capital investments. It's high risk, a lot of times the commercial banks won't
look at it.
With
venture capital, you have that fund available that can help with that initial
start-up. Often, with a few years of experience, expertise and success that
company needs an influx of cash. Venture capital is a way to do that. It's been
quite successful in many jurisdictions – and here as well – in terms of helping
to drive extra activity and extra growth in small business. As I said, certainly
in the IT sector it's been successful here, and helps to drive the extra
activity that's needed.
The
particulars of the bill, reading through it as I said, talks about consolidation
of a couple of acts that now exist. The minister did talk about an innovation
window, reducing some red tape, leveraging investment, all great terms and
references and speaking points, but really at the end of the day, we need to see
that there are actual returns or there are actual initiatives that are driving
that activity that shows results. While we hear
The Way Forward and other references
to other programs, we haven't heard a lot in terms of indicators of new economic
activity, returns to the province, new investments and those types of things,
and that's important.
The
minister can laugh if he wants, but we'd certainly like to hear him get up and
address it when he can. I don't think it's very funny.
I know,
in particular, up my way, if he wants to laugh about that, we've got areas up
there that need investments, need people to step up, but we're unable to get
this government and individuals to do that related to economic opportunity. As I
said, that's both on the commercial side and the non-commercial side.
So, as I
said, the terms are great, it's great to do press conferences, all that good
stuff, put out wonderful documents, but at some point you have to meet the call
and step up and do what needs to be done.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Hear, hear!
MR. HUTCHINGS:
This bill in particular, as I said, talks about consolidation of a couple of
acts.
In July
2017, the RDC was replaced with the Innovation Council, which supposedly is
guiding innovation in Newfoundland and Labrador, and the intent was to – and I
hope it does – it was supposed to be a single window for delivery of provincial
innovation programs and services. That's always good, if that's what it
eventually becomes.
One
thing business wants is quick access. You have to get rid of the regulations. My
belief is that for the business community, the best government can do is create
an environment where investment can flourish, where investment is encouraged and
where investment is accepted. The less regulation, the more ability to invest
and get things moving.
So RDC
programs, my understanding, were integrated into TCII. There was about 40 staff
there at the time. I think some of those were transferred over to the actual
line department. There was consultations done, my understanding, in regard to
this change and, as the minister has indicated, some of the feedback was talking
about better linkages to various sources of capital, a one-stop shopping and
advice, and integrated service delivery across the government.
Again,
all well-founded initiatives; makes sense if you talk to anybody in the business
community, business associations, you name it. That's one thing that's generic
across the board and is fundamental to driving opportunity.
Transitional programs, traditionally good at funding research and development
and business and operation, but some of the feedback, my understanding, was
related to commercialization. That needs a concentration, and I hope through
this, what we're talking about here, does continue to get a concentration
because you get the idea, you get incubation in regard to that, you get some
support, you get some mentoring from folks that have good experience in regard
to business and economic activity and often through things like I mention
venture capital.
I was
telling those folks that are involved and that do have that mentoring, do have
that knowledge, do have that expertise that they can bring that along with
groups or individuals that are trying to commercialize an idea, bring a product
or service to the market and is able, successfully, to do that.
The
corporation is supposed to make strategic funding investments in areas of
innovation and business growth opportunities. Obviously, you want to make sure
of economic development in the province and fund both commercial and
non-commercial clients.
We talk
about the continuum with regard to business development. That's important, right
along the whole continuum of business development, you want to make sure that
funding support and all those requirements are there for the smallest company or
just to individuals who are trying to grow a company, to a company that has
existed for a while, has got to the point in time where they need an investment
of capital or other supports to get them to the next stage. That's very
important. Certainly, this act will look at – we hope – providing some of those
elements.
The new
corporation, my understanding, we were told will have the same amount of funding
available to it as the RDC and the Business Investment Corporation. I think it's
somewhere in the range of $13 million to $14 million for innovation and I think
somewhere around $14 million as well in the lending portfolio. So that will help
support the activities as I described.
Again,
if this government has done their consultations, what they've heard back is this
is where it needs to go, but fundamentally, at the end of the day, it's
certainly about deregulating, making sure the supports are available and that we
do the incubation piece, the commercialization piece, but we also have a strong
focus on research and development. We're able to access and leverage those
dollars that exist, certainly from federal agencies and other research and
development agencies, but also from the private sector.
As is
said, we've done this before through RDC, through initiatives like the Atlantic
Accord, the oil and gas being one example of that, and working collaboratively
too with the post-secondary institutions. The success with the engineering
school at MUN, with the Marine Institute. The class facilities that are at the
Marine Institute certainly related to marine activities, even a degree-granting
program there now and some of the expertise and technical skills that are being
developed.
An
example of some success we've had is certainly in Ocean Technology. Some of
those firms that started out, small companies started out from an idea, from
young engineers, young commerce students, and how those ideas were supported,
incubated, and certainly to the point of commercialization. An investment was
found and some of those companies now and those technologies and adaptations for
underwater vehicles and some of the things they're doing are not only being used
here in the offshore but used around the world.
That's
the kind of things that are developed here through the right supports that allow
technology to be used here but supported and exported around the world, but at
the end of the day, that growth and that return is to the province. Plus, we
have people who travel the world who develop this expertise and intellectual
knowledge and is able to export that around the world.
So, I'm
looking forward to further debate on Bill 26. I'll certainly have some questions
when we get in Committee on the actual bill, a bill to establish the Innovation
and Business Investment Corporation. Again, it's the commercial and
non-commercial ability to access funding for those companies out through its
venture capital component, it's the continuum along the line related to those
ideas that we need to try and incubate and move along to provide success for
young entrepreneurs and have that business environment for them to have success
and certainly can grow.
With
that, I'll take my seat. Thank you for the opportunity, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. BROWNE:
Good evening, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
my hon. colleagues for their contributions to this most important debate as we
debate the Innovation and Business Investment Corporation act.
I
certainly listened with great interest, Mr. Speaker, as the Member opposite
brought forward his remarks on behalf of the Official Opposition. I would point
out that we are still very committed, as a government, to the ecosystem that has
been established here in Newfoundland and Labrador, and has continued to
flourish under the leadership of this government.
By
changing the structures through which we make investments, by rolling in the
Research & Development Corporation into core government, into our department, it
has netted a savings of $3 million, Mr. Speaker. That's not one, that's not two,
that's $3 million.
While
that might appear to be pocket change in the days of $110 and $150 barrel of oil
that was predicted to be in perpetuity, today we certainly regard those numbers
as something quite significant, which is why we are delighted to be able to have
those administrative savings to reinvest into innovation. The Research &
Development Corporation was renamed to the Newfoundland and Labrador Innovation
Council and was refocused to guide InnovateNL.
Today we
are debating, as I have mentioned, the
Innovation and Business Investment Corporation Act.
This has resulted, the creation of InnovateNL, in a single window for
program delivery. Today's bill will result in the creation of a single statutory
corporation which will make strategic funding investments in innovation and
business growth opportunities to advance economic development here in
Newfoundland and Labrador.
One of
the criticisms, Mr. Speaker, we would have heard with respect to the Research &
Development Corporation was it's something akin to the stereotype that people on
the Mainland think that Canada ends at North Sydney. Many would have often said
the Research & Development Corporation thought Newfoundland and Labrador ended
at the Overpass and didn't extend beyond it.
It's
very important that the delivery of programs and services and innovation seed
funding and whatnot can be extended to any part of the province that
demonstrates the ability to start from the ground up and earn the funding that
can be achieved through InnovateNL. We are hearing very positive results from
clients, from businesses all across Newfoundland and Labrador, from as far as
the Great Northern Peninsula to the Great Burin Peninsula, I say, Mr. Speaker,
where they are very pleased with this one window of service in our regional
offices and otherwise. This will result in the repeal of the
Business Investment Corporation Act
and the Research and Development Council
Act.
The new
Innovation Council will be comprised of a board of directors with up to nine
members selected through the independent appointment's process. There will be
three members from government, the deputy minister and the two assistant deputy
ministers from the Department of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
There's
been a transitional board of directors put in place until the IAC process is
completed. That is of course chaired by the very laudable, if not esteemed, Mark
Dobbin, who, by the way, fully supports this approach and the process. In fact,
Mr. Dobbin joined the minister and I at the announcement this morning at
Bluedrop Learning, a $5 million investment by this government over the next four
years that's going to result in up to 50 new jobs.
To
contrast the approach formerly, Mr. Speaker, under the Research & Development
Corporation where money just seems to go out the door, we're tying our
investments to jobs and achievable objectives to ensure that the people of the
province understand where their money is going.
The
members from the current Newfoundland and Labrador Innovation Council board of
directors and the BIC board of directors, the corporation will be supported by
our Department of TCII. It will not have its own officers or staff. As I've
mentioned, this is resulting in a $3 million administrative savings. Not $1
million, not $2 million, but $3 million, Mr. Speaker. It's amazing what you can
do when you put your mind to being efficient with the taxpayers' dollar.
This act
is built on transparency of the corporation. There is now a narrower definition
of commercially sensitive information for the ATIPPA exemption than in the
Research and Development Council Act.
We all remember Bill 29 and the overreaches of secrecy, Mr. Speaker, so we're
ensuring the balance is struck. The corporation will abide by the
Public Procurement Act and not require
an exemption as was such under the RDC.
I also
want to make mention, Mr. Speaker, the Member opposite made some comments with
respect to venture capital, implying almost as though this would no longer be
the case or available under InnovateNL. This is not the case, I can assure the
Member opposite – who I'm sure is extremely concerned and seized with this
matter – that it is indeed the case that venture capital is available through
InnovateNL. In fact, the tax credits have been signed off on it and such.
As I
mentioned today, we announced an investment of $5 million over a four-year
period that will spur further economic growth in one of the largest tech
companies in the city, Mr. Speaker, in the province: that's Bluedrop.
Last
July, our government took the next step in our approach to fostering greater
innovation and accelerating business growth with the creation of InnovateNL.
InnovateNL, as I've mentioned, is a single window for the delivery of provincial
innovation programs and services to clients in a more efficient manner. It will
do many things, Mr. Speaker, it will do many, many things.
It will
streamline client access to government supports. It will leverage research and
innovation resources. It will extend innovation programing province wide, Mr.
Speaker. That's a very important point, especially for those of us who represent
rural areas, to ensure that reach of our innovation funding is available
wherever you are in the province.
InnovateNL will provide a full continuum of supports for clients from idea, to
market, to internationalization. That needs to be emphasized, Mr. Speaker, it
needs to be emphasized. This is not just research and development. We see the
move now in legislation across the country is to move this kind of funding away
from research and development in towards innovation where you can take it from
the concept stage to the market stage and then to the internationalization
stage, and that's what we're trying to ensure.
We're
also trying to ensure other non-funding business supports are provided to
clients and available in a timely manner and that there is a focus on research
and technology investments to projects and clients with global reach. Of course,
this is all built on the priorities of The
Way Forward.
All the
funding and services that were available through the Research & Development
Corporation are available through InnovateNL, it's just less administrative
bloat, Mr. Speaker, and more focus on the delivery of those services. To guide
these priorities, as I've mentioned, there's been a board of directors
established as we await the IAC process which is chaired by Mark Dobbin and
representatives from business and industry.
Mr.
Speaker, I also want to make mention of our business innovation agenda but I
thought first I would reference some strategic investments we have made. There
was certainly a lot of talk about Labrador, I say to the Member for Labrador
West, and stay tuned for more.
As I've
said, Mr. Speaker, we invested $3 million into the Force Multiplier project with
PAL. This is a very strategic investment as we move, as it's one of our
companies that we try to scale up with in terms of escalated growth. That's
going to result in 150 jobs, Mr. Speaker.
AN HON. MEMBER:
How many?
MR. BROWNE:
One-hundred-and-fifty jobs.
How many corner stores would you need to get 150 jobs? We're going to support
every line of business, from the small businesses in the communities such as
Long Harbour, Mount Arlington Heights to the large businesses in this province,
just like PAL.
Mr.
Speaker, that's why we strategically invested in the Force Multiplier project.
Not only enhancing the ability of that company but also in terms of our entire
ecosystem and the technology sector to ensure that they can compete on the world
stage and create an additional 150 jobs right here in Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. BROWNE:
Just last week, Mr. Speaker,
I joined the minister and the Premier at Quorum where we announced a $750,000
investment into Quorum. They already have 96 employees which are full-time
employees here in St. John's. This investment will leverage an additional 24
full-time employees, Mr. Speaker, full-time employees; yet we're hearing
allusions from the other side that the change from the Research & Development
Corporation won't have the same impact, won't have the same reach, that there
won't be investments anymore. I can assure Members opposite there are lots of
investments to be made through venture capital and otherwise.
I also
heard mentioned that perhaps there wouldn't be investments outside of St.
John's. Mr. Speaker, I can guarantee Members opposite this is not the case.
We're going to be emphasizing investments in all parts of our province, which
was on display on August 18, 2017, when a $261,000 repayable loan investment was
made into the Edge of the Avalon.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. BROWNE:
This is none other than in
the District of Ferryland, Mr. Speaker.
We're
very happy to be making these investments in all areas of the province, Mr.
Speaker. In fact, there's been $650,000 invested into the District of Ferryland
from St. Shott's to Ferryland since December 2015. That does not include Bay
Bulls, Witless Bay, Cape Broyle and all the other communities within that
district – $650,000 since December 2015, including a $261,000 repayable loan
into the Edge of the Avalon.
I will
commend the entrepreneurs who I've met who were awarded with awards at the
recent HNL conference in St. John's, Mr. Speaker. I can certainly assure the
Member for Ferryland and all of the Members opposite that we are keenly
interested in making investments in all parts of our province.
Before I
sit down, I do want to touch on the Business Innovation Agenda which complements
the creation of InnovateNL. It certainly is something that's going to focus on
product development and commercialization, productivity, growth and
internationalization and workforce skills and talent. All of these things, Mr.
Speaker, work in tandem. That is why we're very pleased to be introducing this
bill.
I
commend the Minister and the staff of our department. I certainly commend
everyone for their work on this, ensuring that the people of the province, the
entrepreneurs, those in the sector can easily take their ideas from idea and
concept to market and to internationalization through InnovateNL. As I've said,
we've certainly made strategic investments including to the Edge of Avalon and
many other businesses across the province.
InnovateNL will continue to do this, Mr. Speaker. I look forward to hearing all
viewpoints from all Members of the House, no matter the sector that InnovateNL
can contribute to, whether it's mining or aquaculture. If Members are supportive
of aquaculture, that would be important as well.
We're
certainly looking forward to the debate. We're looking forward to those Members
opposite supporting the concept of InnovateNL. I believe it's a good day for our
business community, Mr. Speaker. We're hearing people say they are having
positive results with this across the province. I look forward to hearing
Members opposite as this debate unfolds.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Member for Mount Pearl
North.
MR. LESTER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I really
appreciate the enthusiasm exhibited by the Member for
Placentia West - Bellevue. He recited his notes that were prepared for him very
well. Being a business person, I really would like to commend the initiative
that the government is taking to continue to highlight the importance of
innovation, to highlight the importance of diversifying our economy and helping
entrepreneurs take that risk in some situations that could really make a
positive change to our economy, the development of our resources and the future
of the province.
I'm fairly familiar with both sectors of innovation,
RDC as it stood alone and the previous bureaucracies that have been set up for
business. As a business person, government has never been able to travel as fast
as business needs it to happen. One thing I hear from the business community
and, again, from my own personal experience, is RDC was able to operate outside
of government control with their own specific mandate. Often, it was RDC that
first came to the table and gave their support. That, more or less, brought
every other government department and funding agency in line.
That's kind of what I'm concerned about. When you start
tying one funding agency in with a whole lot of other beneficial programs, you
often get this kind of who's going to dip their toes in the water first? Who's
going to get wet first? That's a concern that I, as a business owner, have and
also other business owners have expressed the same to me.
If this –
AN
HON. MEMBER:
Oh,
oh!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR.
LESTER:
If
this act does facilitate what it proposes
to do, I am 100 per cent for it. But as a cautionary measure, my
experience with government has been that the more you put government's fingers
in, the slower things go. I'm sure the Members opposite would agree with me that
we don't need that to happen. We need things to speed up.
The
amendment to the access to information portion of the act is also important.
That's always a concern as well when it comes to any entrepreneur with
proprietary material or ideas or innovative concepts, which this act indeed
hopes to foster. As an entrepreneur you want to seek out help to establish your
business and develop your concept, but you also want to maintain your
competitiveness which is largely based on your creativity. Yes, I do realize the
necessary requirement of transparency and oversight, but I also recognize that
it is important to protect people's business concepts, ideas and intellectual
property.
The
combining of RDC into the current government department, I'm really concerned
that we're losing the ability for this entity to operate outside of government,
but still be funded by government. Yes, the province did save $3 million by
doing that in administration and overhead, but if this slows down the investment
of these funds by even a very small percentage, $3 million is not going to be a
whole heck of a lot when it comes to discouraging business or preventing
businesses from getting on their feet quicker.
As a
government and as a Legislature one of my biggest beliefs is that we are not
responsible for creating jobs, we are responsible for creating a job-creating
environment. Government in history, be it this administration, the past
administration or since time immortal, has not been good or sustainable in
creating jobs. Every time government gets involved in creating jobs directly,
sooner or later – now, of course, there's exception to every rule – it's a job
that has to be funded by the taxpayers' dollar.
Business
people create jobs. Business people are good at what they do and putting
supports in place for them and removing barriers to expand their business and
expand their creativity, that's always important.
If this
bill does, I guess, be executed as it's written, yes, that's going to happen,
but we've got to mix in a whole dynamic of operating within a large department
and multiple facets of that department. Again, I'm a firm believer that RDC had
an advantage where they could operate on their own. I know one entrepreneur in
particular, actually, they were having issues with government agencies, be it
ACOA, I guess, industry, trade and a couple of the other conventional lenders,
nobody would step up.
The head
of RDC happened to be in the neighbourhood and they came in and had a chat with
the entrepreneur and within a month they had an approval, in concept, of the
funding agreement and within two weeks everybody else stepped up to the plate,
but until RDC stepped in on their own agenda – I can remember a quote that the
entrepreneur gave to me, he said that the individual from RDC came in and said
we want to try this, that's our mandate. We want to try it. It's not important
if you succeed, it's important that if you don't, it's not all going to be on
you and compromise your existing business.
That's
where government can play a big factor in industry and innovation and economy
development, cushioning the blow of something that may not work out as planned.
By investing and having those funds dedicated for that, entrepreneurs will
expand their businesses. They will try stuff. They will look at innovative
products. They will try to develop new technology and that's how we're going to
get from where we are today to where we need to be and that's a business-driven
economy, not a government-driven economy. We need to have businesses driving our
economy, supporting individuals and families through employment, through
conducting business within the community. That includes all parts of our
province right from the Labrador peninsula, all of Labrador, to all corners of
the insular province.
It has
to, ultimately, make sense. We can't keep throwing money at an industry or an
enterprise that only exists because we're throwing money at it. It has to have a
glimmer of sustainability. If we continue to throw money at businesses, and if
that's what they become reliant on, our economy will always be a drain on our
citizens. We need to continue to invest in opportunities that are yet
undeveloped and opportunities that may hold potential that we haven't even
thought of yet.
I do see
the purpose of this in connecting different departments within government to the
one approval figure. That does make a lot of sense, but if that one entity is
responsible for making sure that all these other departments and facets of
government are in approval before they do that, that is going to slow things
down. We need to go and provide individual approval so that, not only will the
time delay from one end of government getting to this entity be eliminated, but
the entrepreneur and the enterprise can address issues as soon as they come up
and not have to go through chains of government. So that's a bit of a concern
that I do have with centralizing the approval.
Again,
the thing is that everybody around the table has to be in agreement because
often if you have one part of this entity that will not be in approval, the
entrepreneur or the enterprise can seek out another partner outside government
that could fill that void. That often happens, but if we're all waiting for all
of the ducks to line up in a row within the same flock, well, that may be a bit
of a problem. If we know one duck is missing, well, we can grab a duck from
another flock.
Generally, I'm in support of this. I do see the purpose of it, but I was
disappointed when we did take the autonomy of the RDC out of the picture. My
experience with RDC and other entrepreneurs which I have talked to, only talked
favourably of RDC.
I would
like to know – I was under the impression that not a whole lot of the employees
did transfer over to the new corporation and that kind of does concern me. I
read there that 40 of them, their positions were terminated. Whether any or some
of them were able to find employment within the new entity, I don't know, but my
conversations in the community were, no, they didn't.
Not
saying that the people who are in there are not just as good or better, but I
think that, as a province, we have invested in RDC. They did have a fair bit of
experience in what they did and I think we probably should've tried to hold on
to some of that experience and some of that knowledge that we invested in.
I'm also
am impressed and glad to see that this was a result of consultations with
industry, business and the associated factors within that, but I'm sure that
there was a comment about the autonomy of RDC and the ability and flexibility
that they did have. That's something that we'll all have to monitor to make sure
that independence and lack of red tape does continue to exist and enables our
business and entrepreneurial spirit to develop to its fullest. That's my big
concern that we don't want to complicate something that was working very well
for the savings of $3 million.
That's
kind of, basically, all I have to say at this point. In closing, I guess, I
would like to say one of my more favourite quotes and that is: It takes decades
to build economies, the pride of the people, but it can only take a couple of
years to destroy it.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I stand
to speak to Bill 26, the innovation and
Business Investment Corporation Act. I would like to thank the good people
at TCII – sometimes I say TCIIII – for the great briefing that they provided us
with. They were very excited, very, very excited about this.
They
were excited about this because they see this as the new approach for
government. They see this as cutting red tape, helping innovation, innovative
companies navigate through all government funding and programs, through all
departments. I believe that is a great service to provide. It's like having one
portal which takes you through and opens up the possibility of maximizing the
resources, maximizing and making easier access to new and existing companies to
potential funding, whether it be grants or loans to innovative companies. That's
a buzzword right now, Mr. Speaker. Innovation is a really big buzzword. It can
mean a number of things.
I was
really excited by the excitement that was shown by the officials from the
department who are so looking forward to being able to roll this out. Who are so
looking forward to being able to work in a different way that will support
innovation in the province, that will support new ideas and that will support
risk taking.
As
someone who comes from a film background, I know how important that is, the
ability to take risks. I've seen that so much as well in the film industry.
Sometimes it's really, really hard to get commercial banks or investors to
invest in your film because sometimes it's an idea, and sometimes you've worked
to a certain stage but really you're asking investors to take the risk on the
expertise you may have and the ideas you may have.
It's
risky, but it's only through looking at issues of risk in innovation and how we
measure what is success and what is failure that we can move forward. Sometimes
it's interesting to see in areas of innovation how you establish what is risk,
how do you establish what is failure, how do you establish what is success?
Because you may go down one road thinking you are going somewhere else and that
opens up something entirely different that you may not have suspected or you may
have thought, oh, this may lead us somewhere; or, what happens is the idea, the
project, the product, the innovation that you have been working on takes on a
life of its own. Particularly when you are then able to be connected with other
potential partners.
This
bill really is about maximizing opportunities and maximizing resources. So in
that, I can certainly support this bill. It's also about leveraging investment
for innovative and for high-risk projects. I think that's what the departmental
officials were really excited about because some of this is leading edge. We
know there are some very interesting projects happening, very quietly, under the
radar here in Newfoundland and Labrador. Some by existing companies, some by new
start-ups, some by very established business owners and innovators and some by
young people, by young innovators, by young entrepreneurs.
This
also will help, for instance, any projects at Memorial University who may be
developing any kind of innovative project that will help companies expand or
help provide resources to companies that are doing interesting work in the
province. That's all really good.
The
other thing this bill does and what this new corporation will do is it will help
the issue of navigation. For instance, if a company comes to the Innovation and
Business Investment Corporation and they may have a project that might be
eligible for funding through this corporation, but in fact it's an agricultural
project which has a technology aspect to it, then they will also be directed to
potential agricultural funding.
It's
looking at, how do you maximize resources? How do you incorporate resources?
It's very difficult. As someone who has done that kind of – seeking that kind of
funding for different projects, sometimes it's a maze. You go somewhere and they
say, no, this is not quite the right place, and then you go somewhere else.
Maybe
part of what you're going to do can be funded by this but sometimes there are no
connections between all these different kinds of funding potentials. So by being
able to work as the navigator to make sure that any potential project that looks
promising has the advantage of knowing exactly what's available, helping to open
doors, helping to increase access and minimize any kinds of blocks and barriers.
One
concern that I do have, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that we know the majority of
members on the board of directors or the council of this new corporation will be
appointed by our IAC, the Independent Appointments Commission. There will be a
new board of two to nine members. Two to nine members will be appointed through
the Independent Appointments Commission process. They haven't said specifically
if there's a minimum number of those, and there will also be three government
members on this board.
As well,
I believe – unless I misunderstood in the briefing – the function of the CEO
will be undertaken by a deputy minister. When we look at the Research &
Development Corporation, they had much more independence and they were at
arm's-length from government. So I'm a little bit concerned about that.
Again,
there is no identified mandatory minimum of members who would be appointed by
the Independent Appointments Commission. It says two to nine, plus three
government members. I don't know if the DM, the deputy minister of the
department, is in addition to that as well or if the deputy minister is
encompassed under the three government members. That is very much government
controlled.
We know
it's very important for government to have control of money, of any programs and
funding. It's certainly a philosophical shift from what we had with the Research
& Development Corporation, which was much more arm's-length from government,
much more independent from government but still accountable to government.
We know
in the briefing staff talked about much more transparency and accountability,
and that's always good; particularly with any kind of agency or corporation that
is dispensing funding. So that's really important. It will be interesting to see
– I'd like to hear from the minister exactly how he sees that increased
transparency and accountability.
Priorities for this corporation is innovation and technical risks; projects that
have technical risks and have innovation. They will loan money at 3 per cent
interest rate. At least that's where it's at right now. Not to supplant or
substitute for banks, but what it is, it's almost like angel investments. It is
loans that will – that perhaps, because these are innovative projects that are
seeking funding – and we know how important innovation is. Sometimes that's the
hardest type of undertaking, one of the most difficult kinds of undertakings, to
actually access loans and money. I'm looking forward to being able to hear from
the minister about some of the issues that we have raised, to hear what he has
to say about them.
The
other thing that we were told at the briefing is that the Business Innovation
Agenda – they had a What We Heard consultation report document. It said what
stakeholders identified a need for – I never use that word, Mr. Speaker. That's
not a word I'm really fond of. I would imagine stakeholders mean companies in
the province. They said there was a need for better linkages to various sources
of capital required. They wanted one-stop shop advice and integrated service
delivery across the provincial government.
I think
that's important. We know how confusing it can be, how important it is to be
able to have easier access to information, easier access to the potential for
interfacing with different programs and departments in government. It's about
having a more coherent approach for businesses. It will be interesting to see
how that works.
It also
talked that really what they are doing is they are addressing gaps in business
funding. We do know these are some of the gaps that are most difficult to fill.
We were also told it allows for more regional diversity. It will be interesting
to hear from the minister, how he thinks that might come about, that we'll have
more regional diversity.
Also,
one of the issues that was brought up in the briefing – and I know that we've
heard this in the social sciences sector, we heard this with community
organizations that seek funding who are doing, kind of, social work within the
communities – is that so often the funding criteria doesn't quite fit what
people are trying to do and the funding that they are seeking. What happens is
the criteria become the tail that wags the dog.
We were
told at this briefing that, in fact, the criteria is much more flexible so that
it is more responsive to the projects that come before this corporation. I
believe that's a good thing. We have seen in several different programs and
funding mechanisms where we see projects or community groups have to sort of
morph themselves to fit the criteria when, in fact, the criteria itself needs to
be morphed and needs to be more responsive to the needs and to the realities of
business here in the province.
It's an
important time in the province. It's an exciting time. We know there are some
very innovative projects that are happening. I'm looking forward to seeing what
this might accomplish. We know this is about helping companies to grow faster so
it's going to be a fine line. That doesn't mean that funding and those decisions
can be reckless. They have to be based on real solid principles, but they also
have to be flexible in order to be able to promote and support innovation in the
province.
They say
they're going to bring together departmental experts, corporate experts and
representation from commercial investment industry. That will be very
interesting. The area that is really somewhat grey but important is how do you
measure failure? How do you measure success? Absolute failure from what you have
originally intended to do doesn't mean that it's an absolute failure. That will
be interesting as well, Mr. Speaker.
This is
going to depend on the chops of the experts who are making decisions. It will
take a lot of discernment because it's not all black and white. What will be
very important are those who will be on the board, the staff in this particular
agency as well, because they will have to use their expertise and discernment in
assessing the reliability and the risk factor in some of the projects that will
come before them for funding.
Those
are some of the questions I have, Mr. Speaker. I look forward to hearing what
the minister has to say. My concern is that the CEO function is being held by a
deputy minister and there is no mandated minimum in terms of the number of folks
outside government who have to be appointed by the Independent Appointments
Commission.
Thank
you very much.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm glad
to have an opportunity to speak to Bill 26, An Act to Establish the
Innovation and Business Investment Corporation. Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to
spend a whole lot of time rehashing everything that's been said. I'll be
supporting the bill.
For me, there are some really positive highlights here that
I want to touch on very quickly. Probably one of the biggest positive highlights
from my perspective is that we're going to save $3.12 million dollars annually.
I think it's about time –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. LANE: – that
we start going down that road in terms of finding savings on that side of the
income statement here for the province, for the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador. I definitely support that aspect of it.
I always felt, to be honest with you, with the research and
development council – I always wondered from day one, when I learned about it if
it was really necessary, to be quite honest. I kind of felt at that time there
was a lot of duplication so I'm glad that duplication is gone. It makes sense to
me as long as they can still deliver the programs and do it more efficiently. If
we're going to cut back on red tape, that's a good thing. That's what business
is always talking about, the reduction of red tape. That is very important as
well.
With that in mind and without getting into all the details
that we've already gotten into, that's really a big thing for me. Actually,
there were also a couple of other things which I was surprised about. I didn't
realize it until I went to the briefing – and I'm glad now that this is being
done as well – the research and development council apparently, as we've been
told, was not subject to ATIPPA.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. LANE: Again,
that ties into the whole concept of secrecy like we've seen at Nalcor. Maybe not
to that degree but, certainly, at the research and development council ATIPPA
did not apply and there was a lot more information not being released. Now, with
the exception of any information that could – commercially sensitive in the
sense it could do harm to a business or a business start-up in terms of not
revealing trade secrets and all this kind of stuff, from a more general point of
view there's going to be a lot more information available. That is a positive
thing, I'd say, Mr. Speaker.
The other thing, which I absolutely didn't know – and I'll
probably ask the minister when I get into Committee. I'm just curious as to why
the RDC was not subject to
public procurement or public tendering or whatever you want to call it – I think
it's the Public Procurement Act now;
it was the public tendering act. I cannot for the life of me understand how they
would have been excluded from that to begin with.
Actually, when I asked the question in the briefing the answer was – almost in,
sort of, how will I say it – almost half laugh and say I could speculate, but I
won't go there. I don't know what that even means. I'm not sure what was being
inferred. I have no idea but I'd love to know how the research and development
council was exempted from the public tendering act. It's ridiculous and I'm glad
that issue is now going to be addressed with the new entity.
With
that said, Mr. Speaker, I will definitely be supporting the bill. The only point
I want to make, which does concern me, I understand the need – I truly do – to
support business. In terms of research and development and innovation, sometimes
there are going to be opportunities where the government is going to want to
step in. Whether that be some prototype that's being developed at Memorial
University or the Marine Institute, something that could benefit like the
project that was mentioned earlier that allowed us to extract additional oil
from our oil fields which benefitted the province. The government at the time
supported that initiative. That was a positive thing.
I
understand that. I truly do. I understand there are start-ups that perhaps
somebody has a great idea. One of the things they talked about here is the gap
that was missing. We were supporting someone with their idea, but once it came
to the point that now I have my idea, I have my product developed, I need to get
it to market so to speak, that stage in helping get that product to market was
missing. That was sort of like a black hole where a lot of entrepreneurs were
being lost. This is going to fix that, so we're told. I think that is a positive
thing.
While
it's important to do these things, there also has to be a balance. That's the
only concern I have. There has to be a balance with this stuff and there has to
be a lot of due diligence. I'm not suggesting that staff are not doing due
diligence now, but I did ask questions about how many loans, for example, have
been given out over the years. Could you tell me how many loans have been given
out and were they paid back? Basically, the response I got was more around:
Well, there's been a lot of bad loans. We've had to write some off; it's getting
better. They said: It's getting better. We're now getting things in place where
we're keeping track of it better than we used to and we're having a better
success rate. That's what they said at the briefing.
The fact
of the matter is that there had been – certainly it was inferred – somewhat of a
history there, if you will, over the years, where loans were not necessarily
getting paid back. Where the taxpayers' dollars were being invested in
businesses that failed.
When I
asked them that question about do you track, I heard the Member from Bellevue
district – that's not the exact name, but anyway.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Placentia West.
MR. LANE:
Placentia West – Bellevue, and he was talking about we invested $5 million there
today in Bluedrop and so on and $1 million here and $3 million there. I've heard
this, not just from this Member, I've heard it from other Members, past
administrations, past ministers.
Heck, I probably said it myself. At one point in time,
if you go back five or six years ago, there was probably a time where I was
talking about all these investments and rhyming off numbers; millions here and
two million here and five million there.
The point I think we all need to be cognizant of and
the balance we have to achieve with this stuff is that while it's fine, success
should not be measured by how many millions of taxpayers' dollars we've put out
the door, it should be measured by the success around those investments because,
at the end of the day, we're not writing personal cheques, this is the people's
money. So when we say we're investing $3million and $5 million and $2 million,
that's taxpayers' money that we're writing cheques for.
I'm not being critical. I'm just saying to the minister
that, right now, based on the questioning and the response I've gotten, it
doesn't seem like we've got a real good handle –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
It's a little noisy.
Thank you.
MR.
LANE:
It
doesn't seem like we have a real good handle on tracking money out and then what
was the return on that investment, and having it in a transparent manner so that
the general public, the taxpayer can see that, yes, we invested X number of
dollars here but here's the tangible return. This is what it returned us.
Without that, then there's always this fear, and
perhaps some people can twist things, even if they're not true, which we see all
the time in this House of Assembly, where it's almost giving an impression we're
just doling out taxpayers' money, corporate welfare and we're getting nothing
out of it. In the meantime, we're cutting dental programs for seniors while
we're giving millions of dollars to corporations and they didn't need the money.
We're not being as diligent as we should be
with the taxpayers' money in
terms of writing cheques to corporations.
So I
understand why we do it. I support what's being done, I support the bill. I
understand why we do it, but the only point I want to make is that we need to
have a good tracking system in place so that the general public knows how much
money is going out and what the return is.
If we're
investing in companies, if we're giving out loans – a report card. Did we get
the money back? Are we getting this money back? How many people defaulted on
loans? How much money went out versus the benefit that came in and so on? These
are the types of things, in terms of actually measuring these things, that it
would seem –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. LANE:
– like we're not necessarily
doing that.
In
answer to the Member opposite about do I support Grieg: If we invest in things
like Grieg, we need to go through the process, and if the proper environmental
assessments are done and it's shown that it's given a green light to go, I
support it 1,000 per cent. I do not support taking shortcuts on things and not
following processes and potentially doing harm. That was sort of a bit of a
tangent because someone bawled out to me: Do you support Grieg?
Mr.
Speaker, with that said, I will be supporting the bill. There are a lot of good
things here, as I said. It makes a lot of sense. It's saving us some money. It's
reducing red tape. All that is positive. It's making it more open and
accessible. These are all good things, but, again, we must remember that while
it may seem great at the time, when we're handing out money to corporations and
it's a nice photo op and all that stuff, it is the people's money and we need to
track that and make sure that we're getting a proper return on the investment
that we're making.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
If the hon. the Minister of
Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation speaks now he will close debate.
The hon.
the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I will
say that innovation is certainly not a buzzword, it's a necessity.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Hear, hear!
MR. MITCHELMORE:
I want to thank all Members
who contributed to the debate in second reading: the Member for Ferryland; my
parliamentary secretary, the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue; the Member
for Mount Pearl North; the Leader of the Third Party and the Member for Mount
Pearl - Southlands. All made some very good points, had some questions, some had
some concerns, but I will say that the act itself, and being able to streamline
and provide a more efficient one-window service delivery, makes incredible sense
when it comes to collapsing two corporation's investment arms and bringing them
into the full continuum of care from early stage start-up, to take somebody to
the market, to internationalization.
I will
thank the Member for St. John's Centre for complimenting our staff who worked
very hard and gave a briefing, complimenting their skills and delivery and
highlighting their excitement because this is really exciting. This is
transformational and the staff worked very hard on, not only the legislation but
this entire process of being able to take and the direction of where we need to
go for full alignment.
This
really started with measurers like the Cabinet Committee on Jobs, focusing on
where our opportunities would be, led by the Premier as to how we look at
creating the greatest alignment moving forward. So you have InnovateNL and then
you move forward now with the business innovation and growth act.
Venture
capital is part of the continuum through our Investment Attraction Fund and TCII
works with our fund managers to support these investments. One of the first
things that I did as minister – one of the early announcements – was investment
in three firms in venture capital in partnership with Pelorus, our venture fund
manager. These were great companies like HeyOrca, for example, and Clockwork
Fox. They did some really good work here in the province and they're growing and
hiring companies. So we'll continue to support the same clients and new clients,
as the former RDC did, but we'll do so more effectively.
I liked
how the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands had talked about annual savings of
over $3 million; $3.19 million is an annual savings every single year to
government. It makes a lot of sense to bring in the corporation. There were
about 40 employees. We brought in 14, two served on temporary contracts through
the transition period. So there are 12 employees within our existing complement
of TCII, which helped save a significant amount.
I'm a
little surprised because in the new structure there is no CEO because the
corporation exists within the department. I'm surprised by the Member, the
Leader of the Third Party, advocating for a CEO position and more management
structure that was unnecessary.
What we
did is we brought in the employees that were the business case managers that
dealt with the clients to focus because we already have that structure within
government.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Client focused.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
This is a client-focused
approach. This is providing greater savings by not having to have a significant
amount of funding. The position of CEO, when you look at that, would have ranged
upwards of $160,000 to $200,000, annually. When we look at the fact that nine of
the 12 board members would be from outside of the government officials and the
board would consider the risk versus the reward, so they're certainly not risk
averse.
TCII is
working to assist their clients through major projects. We have a major project
unit and that was talked about, how we could not only look at the funding within
this organization but also the funding across the whole of government and
support the alignment, whether it be in agriculture, or an aquaculture project,
or a fisheries project, or a natural resources project. We also want to point
out that we certainly look for good projects, not necessarily ones that fit a
particular mould.
The
board is continuing to look to leverage, and decisions are made based on the
business case. When it comes to public procurement, and the Member has said he
would ask this in Committee, it's my understanding the exemption exists so that
the former Research & Development Corporation could hire experts they needed in
a very quick and efficient manner without necessarily going through the public
tendering process.
We don't
necessarily agree with that. We feel the experts exist either within government
or we can go through a public tendering process. They have hired consultant
after consultant in the Research & Development Corporation without going through
the public tendering process and we don't think that is the way to go when it
comes to doing business within this new corporation, therefore it will follow
the PPA.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER: Is the
House ready for the question?
The
motion is that Bill 26 be now read a second 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.'
Motion
carried.
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Establish The Innovation And Business Investment Corporation.
(Bill 26)
MR. SPEAKER:
Bill 26 has now been read a
second time.
When
shall the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?
MR. HAGGIE:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Now.
On
motion, a bill, “An Act To Establish The Innovation And Business Investment
Corporation,” read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole
House presently, by leave. (Bill 26)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Mr. Speaker, thank you.
I move,
seconded by the Member for Burin - Grand Bank, that this House resolve itself
into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 26.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
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.
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Motion
carried.
Committee of the
Whole
CHAIR (Warr):
Order, please!
We are
now considering Bill 26, An Act To Establish The Innovation And Business
Investment Corporation.
A bill,
“An Act To Establish The Innovation And Business Investment Corporation.” (Bill
26)
CLERK:
Clause 1.
CHAIR:
Shall Clause 1 carry?
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I thank
the minister for answering my question about RDC and their exemption from the
Public Tender Act. I guess my only
comment to the minister is that under the
Public Tender Act consultants, which my understanding were considered
professional services, were always exempted from the
Public Tender Act in any case. So I'm
not sure if that's the reason why they weren't – that might have been one
reason, but I suspect there was something else.
Anyway,
I just say that as a point of information. It boggles my mind that they would
have been exempted. I'm glad that at least that part is fixed up.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
I thank the Member opposite
for making his point around the public procurement piece that existed in the
former RDC act itself. I'm very much committed to having us comply with the
Public Tender Act. I know there were
contracts let, there were various professionals hired to do performance reviews,
do economic analysis, like Dr. Wade Locke with RDC that would not exist.
The
Member opposite also asked previously, and I want to answer some of the
questions around our Business Investment Corporation. Only 3 per cent of loans
were actually written off since 2005-2006. So they have been performing
extremely well when it comes to the risk that government is taking and managing
a revolving fund.
This is
a revolving portfolio. So there's no new money that's being added to the
Business Investment Corporation loan fund. They give out the loans and then they
have to get them come back in terms of the investment paid for through interest
to be able to continue the revolving fund; therefore, they have to make some
fairly good decisions when it comes to investment.
When it
comes to collecting, our staff at Portfolio Management in our Marystown office
has done a phenomenal job in collecting loans. They've actually collected $1
million more than was projected in last year's budget. These are audited by the
Auditor General; there's financial statements that go in.
So there
are significant accountability measures when it comes to the loan aspect of the
Portfolio Management. There's a whole mix of instruments which government
provides, such as a grant portion that would be provided, or the R&D component.
There's a whole mix of equity and other aspects of which government may provide
in terms of lending or partner and leverage funding, as Members opposite have
talked about. We'll continue to do a significant amount of leveraging on
particular projects.
So thank
you.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Mr. Chair, I thank the
minister for his commentary.
Minister, in fairness, the comment they made about the loans was that the
history wasn't great but things have improved significantly. In fairness, that's
what they said. So perhaps they were talking about back before the time frame
that you referenced. I'm glad to hear that, and I thank you for the response.
The only
other piece, Minister, that I mentioned when I spoke there, that I have a bit of
a concern about, and I don't know if you can comment or give us a sense of where
the department may or may not be going in this regard. That's when it comes to
actually measuring the success of the grants and loans and so on that are going
out the door. I've heard language before – not by you – but I've heard it in the
past where even in the department where they talk about success, it seemed like
it was being measured by the number of dollars gone out the door. The number of
millions invested.
To my
mind, that is not – that may be a measure of success in the sense that we're
actually processing applications and getting them out, successful in that
regard. To my mind, the measurement of success should be here's the money that
was invested, and here was the people's return on that investment.
Again,
from the commentary I received from staff, it seemed to me there was no system
in place, if I can call it a system, or a tangible measurement or something that
one could ask for and look at to be able to say here's how much money has gone
out in the last year or the last two years, five years; here's what was invested
here and here, and this is the return. It's produced X number of jobs, it's
produced X amount of money in estimated spin-off in the economy and so on. So
people could tangibly see that this money that was invested actually yielded a
return to the people.
MR. CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
I thank the Member opposite
for his question.
Certainly, there are many, many examples that can be provided. There's also a
process that can be provided in terms of explaining.
When
you're investing in a company – whether it's financial supports, non-financial
supports, they could be at a different continuum in the process – the impact can
be X jobs or it could be X return to the economy. Some things are very difficult
to measure in a very specific and finite, tangible way when you're looking at
something that's in a pre-commercial state.
There
are ways of which you can look at what the outcomes are. That's why there are
accountability measures that are built into contracts, performance measures that
are put in place, milestones that are put in place so that when it comes to
disbursements, this is not government writing blank cheques to companies. There
may be a target that's put in place before they get a secondary disbursement,
before they get the next disbursement of funds to carry them through with what
their business plan and what their milestones are.
They may
have to revise as they go forward. The department is there to provide that
advice and that support throughout the continuum. This would be the same as what
RDC would have done with its particular clients as well. Some funding would be
carried out over multiple years. Those are things that would be looked at.
When we
launched our Business Innovation Agenda after broad consultation looking at the
ecosystem, one of the things that we highlighted that was necessary – in
consultation, in particular, with NATI – is that we needed baseline research. We
needed a good baseline of the number of companies that are operating in the
technology sector. What are their sector profiles in terms of companies that are
either in telecom, companies that are sensor-technology related or ocean
cluster, the number of employees and their opportunities to scale up?
We're
taking a multi-targeted approach when it comes to strategic investments. That's
why we're making this decision to align pre-commercial, commercial and R & D
innovative approaches to market to international, bringing in the whole mix of
government supports. We have our Cabinet Committee on Jobs and our various
sector work plans that we're working on, and we have our outcomes there to
create tangible results that are completely measurable.
We do
have a system within government when we look at our loans, our tracking of
loans, when we look at our investments, our payments and we also have milestones
as the parliamentary secretary talked about PAL, for example. They had
highlighted that they were to create 150 jobs with the investment of the Force
Multiplier project and they have met and exceeded those targets.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This is
my last point. Minister, I appreciate the answer you've given. It does make
sense. I get that. I guess where I'm coming from is you just talked about PAL, I
think you said, and they met their milestones and so on. If I'm a member of the
general public, I see the announcement where we are giving PAL $5 million or $2
million or whatever it is for this great project, but as a member of the general
public I don't see that in two years down the road or three years down the road
they met their milestones, that they created these jobs, that they did whatever.
You're
telling me because I'm asking you and you're giving examples in the House. But
from a public point of view, I can't go to a chart, I can't go to a website and
say we invested X amount of money into company X and this is what they said they
were going to do. And it is two years later and here's what they've done and you
can see that there was a return, as opposed to I'm just taking it for granted
and hoping there was a return. In most cases maybe there is a return. I'm sure
there are cases where there's not a return.
All I'm
saying is there does not appear to be a tracking system per se, that someone
could actually look at and get an idea as to when we write a cheque, are we
actually getting the return that we thought we were going to get? What was
successful, what failed and where are we along that continuum.
I guess
that's my only point, Minister. You don't even need to answer. I'm just making
that point that if we're not doing something like that, I would certainly think
it's something the department, at least, should be doing. It should be something
that the public, if there was an interest, could go in and find out this
information.
Thank
you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
I thank the Member opposite
for his points.
Any
ability through our client-management system – as we go through the Estimates
process and people ask for a list of information, any way in which we can
proactively disclose information is certainly an important approach. We've done
this through The Way Forward with
updates, with the report cards of the initiatives. There's a website now with
live information. Certainly, any idea that's put forward by the Member opposite,
these are things that we'll review within our department, our capabilities and
see what we can undertake.
I thank
the Member opposite for his points.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Minister, I wonder if you
could just comment on the Fisheries Loan Guarantee Program. Is that now part of
the new act and would fall under that new structure?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The
Fisheries Loan Guarantee Program would fall under the Portfolio Management
aspect in the Business Analysis Division within our department as it has
previously.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. LESTER:
Has there been any
consideration given to reinstating some form of Newfoundland farm loan board or
loan board guarantee?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
When it
comes to the agricultural sector in Newfoundland and Labrador, the Department of
Fisheries and Land Resources would be leading aspects in that area. I will say
that our Premier and the Minister of FLR has been taking significant initiatives
to advance agriculture in our province by making 64,000 hectares of farmland
available.
Having a
sector work plan, meeting with the stakeholders, the farmers and those that are
involved in the agriculture sector asking them what they want and their
initiatives: everything is outlined in the plan, from the consultation, as to
what industry wanted. That's in agriculture and government and working together.
Those synergies exist and that's why we've moved forward in that way.
What is
in the work plan will be things that will be acted upon. Some will be led by the
Department of Fisheries and Land Resources. Other instruments will be the
responsibility of TCII or Advanced Education, Skills and Labour or other
departments and some will be industry led.
I thank
the Member opposite for his question.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. LESTER:
(Inaudible) in consultation
with industry they had expressed an interest in the re-establishment of the farm
loan board. It is fantastic the government has highlighted the industry and the
potential for the industry, but the reality is we have not increased any funds
to the industry to enable them to capitalize on those opportunities.
The farm
loan board did exist several decades ago. It was a really good tool for the
non-conventional expansion of agriculture. It did fall under the innovation and
rural development sector at that time versus the agrifoods. Can you explain if
there will be any consideration given? If your department is not going to do it,
can you suggest Fisheries and Land Resources step out of their box and get
involved in financial management?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
As a
former minister of forestry and agrifoods for the Province of Newfoundland and
Labrador I certainly consulted with industry. One of the initiatives that was in
place at that time that farmers availed of – and we never want to see it happen,
but if there are bad years or if something happens to the crop, there are the
farm Canada crop insurance programs. There are supports that exist for farmers
in the Canadian context and within the Department of Fisheries and Land
Resources to support farmers should they have a bad year.
I
believe the guarantee that the Member opposite is talking about, though, is
within the Department of Finance when it came to farming. But it would lead to
be something that right now is not something that government offers when it
comes to a loan guarantee to farmers.
It seems
to me there are outside lending agencies that will provide financing to farms
and there are federal entities as well – such as the Business Development Bank
of Canada, or if a farm is getting into export, Export Development Canada – that
would be able to provide loan guarantees and financing. There is a mix of
instruments that would exist out there through federal Crown corporations that
can support farmers.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.
MR. LESTER:
Will the minister and his department consider creating a mirror program to that
of the Fisheries Loan Act and
administering it for agriculture?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Any particular matter that would deal with such an initiative would be led
through the Department of Fisheries and Land Resources.
Our
department could certainly lend our hand where possible through our Business
Analysis Division to look at a mix if this was something that government was to
pursue. Right now, I can clearly state there are avenues that are out there
through federal Crown corporations such as the Business Development Bank of
Canada and Export Development Canada, that could provide loan guarantees to
farmers and provide the support.
The
province, through the Department of Fisheries and Land Resources as well, does
work and provide funding supports through Farm Credit Canada to provide crop
insurance to support those, whether they're involved in root crops or if they're
spur farming or if there are other initiatives. If they have a bad year they get
compensated for not being able to provide the adequate – taking away the risk, I
guess, because we never know if there's bad weather or something that could
happen in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Farming
certainly does have its risks. The Member opposite would have experience in
farming and understand the risks associated with farming in Newfoundland and
Labrador.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.
MR. LESTER:
I'd like to apologize for putting the minister in a bit of a position to speak
out of his area of expertise. A lot of the organizations and functions which he
did just speak of are not accurate, but I do understand that we don't all have
to be experts on everything.
I think
it is important to remove the financial end of it out of the resource
development part. The Fisheries Act is
a very beneficial program for our fishing industry. The fishing industry, of
course, also has access to a variety of federal government-sponsored programs. I
don't think it would be fair to preclude agriculture from such beneficial
programing, similar to that of the
Fisheries Loan Act.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
I thank the Member opposite.
When it
comes to the farm loan guarantee program – something that was far before my time
here in government – it's my understanding that the Business Investment
Corporation has written off many particular guarantees, loans that would have
been issued through that particular program in the past.
When
government looks at initiatives that are being proposed, they have to have the
right program or parameters around it to be able to grow and support an
industry. We're certainly supporting the agriculture industry in Newfoundland
and Labrador. We've seen recent investments and announcements where there are
new farmers here in the province and other initiatives that are taking place.
What I
will say is that through the federal entities that exist, there is ability for
the federal Crown entities – Export Development Canada and BDC – to provide loan
guarantees and loan financing and de-risk any type of investment and support
farmers at that level rather than put further risk, given the past experience,
on our portfolio and our province. With that being said, the Cabinet Committee
on Jobs, InnovateNL and this whole board would look at – through our major
projects unit, we would support initiatives based on the business case that
would come forward, and do an appropriate analysis and review on the particular
matter. We don't have any particular program when it comes to reinstituting a
farm loan guarantee at this particular time.
CHAIR:
Shall the motion carry?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Those against?
Carried.
On
motion, clause 1 carried.
CLERK:
Clauses 2 through 30
inclusive.
CHAIR:
Clauses 2 through 30
inclusive.
The hon.
the Opposition House Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I wonder
if the minister could reference section 12: “The board, with the approval of the
minister, may make by-laws … (h) respecting conflicts of interest ….” This seems
to indicate the board would make its own conflict of interest rules.
I'm just
wondering why this would be appropriate and why it wouldn't be governed under
the Conflict of Interest Act, which would take away any perception or ability
for any conflict to exist as the board of directors would be creating their own
conflict of interest guidelines.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Given
that the entity falls within the department, the staff fall within the
department, they would be delivering the departmental programming. The bylaws of
the corporation would ultimately be approved by the board of directors. That's
something that would be put forward to the board of directors.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Section
12 starts off with: “The board,” – I assume that's the board of directors –
“with the approval of the minister, may make by-laws ….” Under (h) it says
representing conflicts of interest, so I'm not sure or clear on the minister's
answer.
Is that
the same board you're saying that's going to make the conflict of interest rules
and they're going to abide by their own rules?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Yes, that's the board.
The
Legislative Counsel had advised on this particular matter and they will abide by
the act.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Just to be clear, they'll abide by the act. Which act, the Conflict of Interest
Act or this act where they make their own rules in conflict of interest?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
There
will be bylaws that the board will have to approve in Newfoundland and Labrador
to comply with the specific policies and programs, and how they will operate and
function from a bylaw perspective.
When it
comes to conflict of interest, they will follow the act, the Conflict of
Interest Act. They will follow that.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Okay, I thank the minister for that.
What
he's saying is they will follow the Conflict of Interest Act. I'm just
wondering, if that's the case – and maybe I've missed it – why wouldn't that be
referenced in the actual bill in terms of conflict of interest and they would be
bound to follow the conflict of interest.
It seems
in that case there would be no need to develop a policy or a regulation in
regard to how the board members will be governed in regard to conflict. The
direct reference that the board members would be obligated to follow the
Conflict of Interest Act would seem to be definitive and quite clear if it was
stated in the act.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
The bylaws that would be approved by the board itself would give some extra
clarity. It's certainly something that would not necessarily be required.
The
minister, being responsible for the department and responsible for the oversight
of the corporation, they would provide guidance. This is really standard when it
comes to what's actually put forward when it comes to conflict of interest and
serving on any particular board and capacity, especially when you're talking
about the nature of the financial instruments and innovative approaches and the
particular clients that one would be dealing with, that there are protocols in
place to appropriately deal with when an individual or a board member would be
in a particular conflict.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Just to clarify with the
minister, the minister has indicated they would be governed by the Conflict of
Interest Act when I asked about what act. So recognizing that, what's the
identification or reference in this bill that refers the activities of the board
of directors of this board to be governed by the Conflict of Interest Act –
where's the connection? How does that connection occur? Because it's not written
in the bill.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Mr. Chair, this is a standard
provision that is not necessarily required, but it's a provision for the board
in the bill. It was advised by Legislative Counsel. It doesn't mean that
conflict of interest doesn't apply, but it is a standard by law.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
It's not mentioned in the
bill, but the minister is telling me that based on some fact that it is bound by
the Conflict of Interest Act, even though there's no reference in the bill. I'm
just looking for an explanation. Is it a could be, should be or maybe it's going
under the Conflict of Interest Act, or is it mandatory by some other means
that's not written in this act that it has to go under the Conflict of Interest
Act?
You said
the board of directors will be governed by the Conflict of Interest Act. So
I'm still looking for that connection and how that connection is visible or how
it occurs.
CHAIR: The hon.
the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Mr. Chair, there will be a set of bylaws that will be approved by the board of
directors. This is something that when you look at business and making private
decisions, there would be a set of bylaws that would include conflict of
interest. They will comply with conflict of interest policies.
When you're dealing with the information of the Business
Investment Corporation, with the former Research & Development Corporation or
the Innovation Council, the work that is being done and under the new particular
act, these are individuals that in the private sector, in the community, in
academia that are held at the highest standard and held at high regard for the
information that they would have and the decisions that they would be making on
behalf of Newfoundland and
Labrador taxpayers, with the resources that they have, and certainly would have
to abide by a conflict of interest and understand when there is a conflict of
interest.
These
are professional people. There will be a set of bylaws that will be approved by
the board that will govern the corporation.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
This isn't about the
abilities or education of the individual; it's nothing to do with that. It's
about standard conflict of interest, and it's definitive and clear. So what I
heard the minister say now is that there will be bylaws established and it seems
to be that they're not covered by the Conflict of Interest Act but those bylaws
would replicate much of the principles that are in the Conflict of Interest Act
that now exist, and that would suffice in giving direction to the board in
regard to a conflict in what they can and cannot be involved with.
Would
that be a fair assessment? From what you've said, that's what I understand
you're saying.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Mr. Chair, this is about two
principles of disclosure and non-disclosure. All board members at the beginning
of any particular meeting that are participating would have to declare if there
would be a conflict of interest at the beginning of any particular meeting. So
this is extra clarity for the board. This is standard when it comes to conflict
of interest and what would be applied here and in the bylaws and in a specific
clause.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Okay, so now the minister
says it's a declaration that the board of directors would make before a meeting.
I guess it's voluntary that there would be some bylaws created, and in those
bylaws it would indicate to a board of directors that if you are involved with
approval of funds for a particular company, that you would be obligated through
these bylaws, then it would be a voluntary obligation to identify before that
meeting that you had to excuse yourself.
Would
that describe what it is you're trying to tell us in regard to conflict of
interest?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Mr. Chair, the conflict act
still applies; the bylaw will also clarify, but will be based on the Conflict of
Interest Act itself. So if we never had any particular bylaw, the act overarches
the standard of the law and this is providing another layer of protection, given
by the Conflict of Interest Act. So this is meant to have bylaws in place that
also include conflict of interest, but the Conflict of Interest Act would
supersede, should there have not been a bylaw.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Okay, I thank the minister.
It's taken a few minutes, but we've gotten there, so that answers my question.
Thank
you very much.
CHAIR:
Shall the motion carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, clauses 2 through 30 carried.
CLERK: Be it
enacted by the Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session
convened, as follows.
CHAIR: Shall the
enacting clause carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME
HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR: All those
against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, enacting clause carried.
CLERK:
An Act To Establish The Innovation And Business Investment Corporation.
CHAIR: Shall the
title carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME
HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR: All those
against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, title carried.
CHAIR: Shall I
report the bill without amendment?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME
HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR: All those
against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion,
that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.
CHAIR:
The hon. the assistant to
the Government House Leader.
MR. HAGGIE:
I move, seconded by the Minister of Justice and Public Safety, that the
Committee rise and report Bill 26.
CHAIR:
The motion is that the Committee rise and report Bill 26.
Shall
the motion carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME
HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR: All those
against, 'nay.'
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 Baie Verte - Green Bay, Chair of
the Committee of the Whole.
MR. WARR:
Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole has considered the matters to them
referred and have directed me to report Bill 26 without amendment.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Chair of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have
considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report Bill 26
without amendment.
When
shall the report be received?
MR. HAGGIE:
Now.
MR.
SPEAKER: Now.
Thank
you, Sir.
When
shall the said bill be read a third time?
MR. HAGGIE:
Tomorrow.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
Thank
you.
On
motion, report received and adopted. Bill ordered read a third time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the acting
Government House Leader.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I call
from the Order Paper, Order 7, second reading of Bill 22.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The
hon. the leader of the Official Opposition to continue his remarks on the
debate.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's
indeed an opportunity to get up again and continue where I left off last night
when we closed debate, after what we had was a very open and healthy over 3½
hours of debate –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. BRAZIL:
– last night on Bill 22, the
Smoke-Free Environment Act, 2005.
I'm
just going to outline and I'm not going to philosophically talk about all the
discussions last night and how we went back generations to talk about how we've
progressed forward.
I'm
just going to more concentrate on the bill because, as we move into Committee,
that's where I'm going to ask a few questions for clarification so people will understand exactly what the
Smoke-free Environment Act is but,
particularly, the changes that are being made to enhance the legislation and
obviously to protect people in society as we bring in the new cannabis laws.
This
Bill would amend the Smoke-free Environment Act to include smoking cannabis. The
bill prohibits the smoking or vapouring of cannabis in indoor public places and
workplaces. It also authorizes the establishment of designed smoking rooms in
certain facilities as currently provided, except remote worksites.
Mr.
Speaker, there are a few things there later on when we get to Committee I'll
have a discussion on, but I'm just going to take people quickly through the bill
itself and what it contains. It's not an overly encompassing bill. There are
seven different components to it, sections to it, but it outlines particularly
what people should be aware of; the minor changes, in some cases, and the major
change being the addition of cannabis and putting it in the same realm when it
comes to the act itself as tobacco and e-cigarettes.
It's An
Act to Amend the Smoke-free Environment Act. Section 2 of the
Smoke-Free Environment Act, 2005 is amended by renumbering paragraph
(a.1) as paragraph (a.2) –
MR. SPEAKER:
I remind the Member to deal
with the principles of the bill in second reading.
MR. BRAZIL:
Oh sorry. That's what I want
to get into. What it talks about here is at –
MR. SPEAKER:
Try to avoid the terms
“clauses” and –
MR. BRAZIL:
Sorry.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
MR. BRAZIL:
To add cannabis, meaning
cannabis is defined as the Cannabis
Control Act.
What
we're talking about here is going through the particular changes that are taking
place around the principle here. The principle is to ensure under particular
headings, ones that deal with having particular rooms, now those same rooms
would be used in the same vein as you would with cigarettes or e-cigarettes,
particularly around the use of cannabis. It also restricts the legalities – that
cannabis is in a different category than they would be for e-cigarettes or
tobacco – as part of that process.
What it
does here is outlines exactly which sections have to change. It also outlines
the roles and responsibilities of the legislation to improve on what's already
there from a safety mechanism but, particularly, around when you look at
designated areas. There are some issues here around long-term facilities,
psychiatric facilities, designated rooms in people's boarding houses, designated
rooms in hotels and designated areas in workplaces.
It
outlines here exactly what would be considered a safe environment, what would be
considered an acceptable environment there from the perspective of an employer,
their own definition of it, but there also has to be those that are defined by
law. In this case, it's the regulatory law here.
A
designated room can't be a present room now that's been designated for employees
who would have access at any given time. It would have to be clearly noted, and
notice given to employees that this is a designated smoking room. It also would
have to have proper signage to ensure that people are exactly aware that room is
solely for the use particularly – and if anybody obviously goes into that room,
they would be taking on the risk of second-hand smoke from cigarettes, from
vapours or in this case, from cannabis, as we talk about some of the particular
issues around that.
It would
also talk about some of the safe workplace environments and what's acceptable
for cannabis use. We know cannabis use in the workplace is frowned upon from a
legal point of view because of the safety factors that are related to it and the
potential for impairment. We know there are impairments with cannabis use; it's
just the levels of impairment and what impact that may have on your motor
skills, your ability to perform your duties and, more importantly, any issues
around safety that may be relevant to the use of cannabis in the workplace.
The bill
itself talks about that and the changes talk about what's happening here. The
intent is to shore up the regulatory process, the definition of where cannabis
can be smoked or inhaled or used; what is also considered a safe environment;
and what are the regulatory restrictions by employers, and those who run
particular facilities, to ensure that people have a safe environment that is
smoke free of their choice. While at the same time it does respect that those
who will be using cannabis, or any other type of e-cigarettes or tobacco
products, do have certain rights and privileges. But they have to be segregated,
restricted and noted away from those, the other parts of our society or other
parts of an employer's set-up, or the general public, who would want to ensure
the environment they're in is smoke free and safe.
That
would happen, as noted here, around things relevant to proper signage. That
would ensure that people are aware of it. There's a responsibility by the
employers to do that. No doubt, I suspect there are regulations that would
outline what that type of signage would look like; if it's the size it has to
be, what type of printing it has to be, where it would have to be from a
sightline point of view so people would be aware of it, rather than you get
inside a room and then realize the signage was right next to the knob you
opened, as you walked in. There would have to be some preconceived notion of the
distances for proper advertising. That, in itself, would be a good motive, due
diligence and preventative safety, obviously, for anybody who's presenting this
forward.
As we
talked about last night in debate, again it became a whole cultural process to
get to where we are and the impact that this is going to have on the other bills
that we've already had debate on. We've taken some to Committee and to third
reading. We have another fairly significant one that we'll spend time with over
the next number of days going through, debating and getting clarification on
exactly the impact that has for the use of cannabis as it becomes a legal entity
in our province and in this country.
I just
wanted to note, particularly as follow-up from last night, that this was about
clarifying exactly the amendments to the Smoke-free Environment Act and ensuring
that the employers, the general public and those who provide services in our
province would know what is designated, what constitutes a smoke-free
environment and what their responsibilities would be around that.
While
it's similar in the same vein as smoking and e-cigarettes, there are some other
additional challenges that they'd have to be aware of: what it is that they
designate as smoke-free rooms and what they designate as rooms that can be used
for those who will partake in either one of the three recreational uses of
tobacco, e-cigarettes or cannabis itself.
I just
wanted to note that I'll have a few questions here for clarification when we get
to Committee, but, again, I just wanted to note that we've had some round-table
discussions here. We've had a very intensive discussion and we've had a very
historic discussion about where we are with this. For a small bill itself, it's
very significant because it will have an impact on every sector of our society
and how they address this.
No
doubt, to me, it's going to be a living entity here. We're going to run into
some challenges down the road of people's interpretation of what's a smoke-free
room, or what distance it is from an area where people are allowed to smoke, or
is it visible where people are allowed to smoke. Is the visibility versus the
odours or the vapours or the smoke that can be inhaled by other people a
hindrance and what distances are a part of that?
It does
take an act that we've been using for the last decade and adds the word
“cannabis” which I think, as we go through over the next period of time, once
cannabis becomes legal and we understand that there may have to be some other
changes and other definitions added to this, we'll get a better understanding of
exactly how we make legislative changes.
I just
wanted to note that. When we do get to Committee I have a few questions here for
clarification to ensure the people who are out there watching, and as our
legislation gets promoted publicly –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. BRAZIL:
– people will know exactly what they're entitled to as we move forward.
Mr.
Speaker, on that note I'll take my seat. I look forward to the hon. Member for
Bonavista getting up. We'll have a good, healthy debate on this piece of
legislation.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
If the hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development speaks now she will close debate.
The hon.
the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Given
the hour of the night, I'll be very, very short on closing debate on Bill 22
that we started yesterday, Mr. Speaker, a bill that would amend the Smoke-free
Environment Act.
Basically, Mr. Speaker, it's just a tiny piece of legislation here that we're
amending given the Cannabis Control Act
that's being brought into the House. There were a number of pieces of
legislation that needed to be amended, for the benefit of the people watching
tonight: the Liquor Control Act and
the Smoke-free Environment.
Mr.
Speaker, we'll move right along now and move this into Committee. I want to
thank the Members of the Opposition, the Third Party and independent who weighed
in on the bill, both yesterday and last night. I look forward to answering any
questions they might have.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Is the
House ready for the question?
The
motion is that Bill 22 be now read a second 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?
This
motion is carried.
CLERK (Murphy):
An Act To Amend The
Smoke-free Environment Act, 2005.
MR. SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
second time.
When
shall the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?
MR. HAGGIE:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Now.
On
motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Smoke-free Environment Act, 2005,” read a
second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by
leave. (Bill 22)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the acting
Government House Leader.
MR. HAGGIE:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development, that the House
resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 22.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded by
the acting House Leader that I shall 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 22, An Act To Amend The Smoke-free Environment Act, 2005.
A bill,
“An Act To Amend The Smoke-free Environment Act, 2005.” (Bill 22)
CLERK (Barnes):
Clause 1.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 1 carry?
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the leader of the Opposition.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just
want to ask the minister under section 5(4) it appears to denote that in a
long-term care facility an operator may have designated enclosed smoking rooms
for residents.
Can the
minister outline how this will work? Will Eastern Health have smoking rooms for
cannabis-only products?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I thank
the Member for the question. In long-term care facilities, basically, it will be
left up to the owner or the operator to designate a smoke-free room. Right now,
with our health authorities, we are 100 per cent smoke free so I don't see that
changing.
CHAIR:
The hon. the leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
That's
good to hear from the minister that our facilities that are now designated smoke
free, regardless of the changes here, will continue that way. Perfect.
Section
4 of the bill replaces 6(2) of the act and reads: “An employer or operator shall
post signs that identify designated smoking rooms and designated e-cigarette use
rooms in a workplace referred to in subsection 5(2) and a facility referred to
in subsection 5(4).”
My
question: Can the minister please clarify the intent of this clause? Does this
give employees the ability to smoke cannabis on their break while at work?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
No.
There will be no smoking of cannabis in the workplace. We know that cannabis is
a mind-altering substance. There will be an exception, I say to the hon. Member,
if an owner or operator wants to designate a room, maybe a psychiatric place or
something like that, but not in a worksite.
CHAIR:
The hon. the leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
As the
minister was speaking I just thought of a point. What would be the difference
for medical marijuana? I know we're more debating now the bigger picture, but
for medical marijuana would these facilities have the ability to designate a
particular room, for long-term care for example.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.
The
Member opposite raises a very interesting question. There is actually a Charter
right effectively – through Carter, Supreme Court of Canada and Bill C-14 at the
federal level – for people to have reasonable access to medicinal marijuana
under the terms of federal legislation.
We have
entered discussions because it may well be that where we could stipulate there
would be no smoking of tobacco, we may not have that right under the
legislation. We're currently working with legal counsel to resolve that.
I don't
think, in practical terms, that is actually going to be an exercise for this
piece of legislation, obviously, unless my colleague feels otherwise. But that
is something we're looking at in Health because of the Charter and legal issues
arising from the Supreme Court decisions of Carter and then Bill C-14.
CHAIR:
The hon. the leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
They are
good points, too, that the minister is bringing up. Would that be part of the
regulations in Bill 20 itself or where would that be contained in the rights,
privileges and responsibilities by the facility and by the patient's access to
medicinal marijuana?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. DEMPSTER:
No, Mr. Chair, not to my
knowledge. It is not included right here right in this amendment, it's just
pretty straightforward. We are amending the
Smoke-free Environment Act
to include the definition of cannabis; otherwise, you'd have no law
to say you can't smoke cannabis in a public place.
This bill clearly stipulates that cannabis cannot be smoked
in any public place and only in a designated room in a long-term care facility
if an employer or an owner so chooses. That's my understanding.
Thank you.
CHAIR: The hon.
the leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. BRAZIL: I
don't really have a question but I do have a comment here because this is a big
part of the commentary as we go through tomorrow. The minister has brought up a
very important component here, that from a legal point of view people do have
rights and privileges. If they are institutionalized for whatever reason – it
could be at a psychiatric institution – while we have rules and regulations that
stipulate that we're smoke free, they may have other legal rights, from a
medical point of view and a freedom point of view that they may have access to
it.
I'm trying to figure it out. I know it's going to be a
legal quandary, and it's going to be a federal jurisdiction and that, but I
think it's something that we need to keep on our radar to see what impact it may
have on people who are using medical marijuana who may find themselves in a
particular facility that is run by government that has a certain set of criteria
and policy. I just want to note that on record.
CHAIR: The hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE: Thank
you, Mr. Chair.
Minister, I want to go back to something I said last night
and maybe you can allay my concerns. Again, this is not so much about the smoke
in terms of people necessarily breathing in the smoke and getting high, or any
damage it would do to your lungs, although it's certainly not the same as
cigarettes in any regard, in
terms of the health effects of marijuana versus tobacco.
I'm just
trying to play out a few scenarios. I'm just thinking about – somebody made
reference to the fact that in a provincial park, you're on a campsite, you can
have a beer now, so you'll be able to have a toke when this becomes legal. Fair
enough.
I'm
wondering about, let's say if at a provincial park there's an overflow area, as
an example. So you're not on your own private sort of half-secluded site. You're
in an overflow area, and there are campers stacked up one next to each other and
so on. I'm just wondering how that would apply?
Granted,
as it's been said, I don't think everyone's going to just start smoking
marijuana, but anyone who smokes the illegal stuff now probably – I'm guessing
now – probably would go for a little waltz down in the woods somewhere to have
their toke and come back. They're not going to be – whereas once it's legalized,
anyone who has that desire to smoke marijuana, I can see a bunch of people all
sat out there and smoking and whatever. Then you have people, families with
children, seniors and so on, that are literally four feet away parked next to
them that have to put up with the odour, more than anything else.
So I'm
just wondering how that type of scenario might play out.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Mr. Chair, the Member raises
an important point.
That is
why the Smoke-free Environment Act was
put in place in the beginning in 1994, because everybody has the right to
breathe fresh air and to be protected from second-hand smoke, but the thing with
cannabis that we need to keep in mind is you will not be able to smoke it in a
public place – and in a park would be a public place. Now a year down the road,
depending what the federal government does, if there are other forums you might
see someone eating a brownie in a public space. That I don't know.
I don't
know if that answers your question.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Well, that does answer my
question, but it does conflict with what – I'm not sure if it was the Minister
of Justice, I don't want to go putting words in his mouth, but another Member,
I'll put it that way. Another minister did give reference yesterday or the day
before, because it's all getting kind of blurry now, this whole discussion – it
was said, someone made the comment: if you can drink beer on a campsite now,
then you can smoke marijuana on a campsite tomorrow when it becomes legalized.
So you
can do it, and it was said you could do it. You're saying now you can't do it. I
guess you can do it in a secluded campsite, but you can't do it in an overflow
situation. Is that what we're saying?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Mr. Chair, what I'm saying is
you will not be able to smoke cannabis in a public place. You will be able to
smoke cannabis in a place of residence. That's why when we reference a long-term
care unit, if there's a designated room there that is considered that person's
place of residence. At a worksite, you definitely will not be able to smoke
cannabis.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Okay. Just so that I'm clear,
and this will be my last question. I just want clarification. What we're saying
then, because – and I'm not just saying this for the sake of raising random
questions, but these are the types of things – I've talked to a few people and
these are some of the concerns that you would hear from the average everyday
folk.
People
have this fear – rightly or wrongly – that all of a sudden if I go out to the
provincial park, as an example I gave, everyone is going to be blowing marijuana
smoke. I'm going to have to smell that and it's going to be all around me. If I
go out in my backyard, on my deck or whatever with my family, my kids are there,
neighbour on this side, neighbour on that side, neighbour over on the end,
they're all blowing marijuana smoke around and stinking the neighbourhood out.
If I go
to Bowring Park – somebody said to me: well, what happens if I go to Bowring
Park, for example, there by the little fountain that they put in there for the
kiddies to go running through the little fountains, and people sit around there
on the benches, and all of a sudden there's somebody here now smoking marijuana
and there are kids running around.
If what
you're saying is they're not allowed to do that, then that's perfect. That
answers the question, and no issue as far as I'm concerned, but people seem to
have that impression that perhaps there would be people going around smoking
marijuana the same as you see people going around smoking cigarettes in some of
these places now.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. DEMPSTER:
I guess a big difference
between the tobacco and the cannabis; tobacco, as you know, can be smoked
outside, on a sidewalk, on a street corner, and the cannabis is going to be
treated very much like the alcohol. Not in a public place, not inside, not
outside.
I do
want to reference that if you are in a campsite, that will be up to the owner of
that campsite if you want to smoke near your camper but in a common place,
shared space, that would be no. Certain things, it will be up to the owner and
the operator of those facilities.
I don't
know if that answers your question.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE:
I thank the minister.
That
does answer my question and it makes sense. I think that allays a lot of the
concerns that I've heard from a bunch of different people in and around my
district that just have some fears about how all this is going to go down. So
thank you for that.
With
that said, I will definitely be supporting the bill.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Mr. Chair, I had a question
last night that I talked about when I was up here speaking. It was about
second-hand smoke. While we talked here tonight about alcohol is no different,
tobacco is no different, you're not allowed it in public – or you can smoke a
cigarette in public and you can drink a bottle of beer in public.
My
question is: What effect does second-hand marijuana have on a person? Can it
make them high also? It's a little bit different than what tobacco does. Tobacco
is probably not good for your health but I don't think it will affect your
mindset, the same thing with alcohol.
Are
there any provisions or anything for people who get second-hand marijuana smoke?
What happens to them? Have you looked at that at all?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Mr. Chair, just as a preamble
to the minister's question, back to what I said to the independent Member
earlier about everybody having the right to breathe fresh air. That is why we
are now strengthening this Smoke-free Environment Act.
There
are a number of research studies that have been shared with me over the last few
days as we've been getting ready to bring in this amendment. Mr. Chair, I think
it's possible that maybe if somebody is smoking and blowing cannabis directly in
your face in a very enclosed space with the doors shut and the windows shut, you
may have a headache, is what I read or things like that. It is very unlikely you
would actually get a contact high, I think, is the local term they use for that.
CHAIR:
Shall the motion carry?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Those against?
Carried.
On
motion, clause 1 carried.
CLERK:
Clauses 2 through 7
inclusive.
CHAIR:
Clauses 2 through 7
inclusive.
Shall
the motion carry?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Those against?
Carried.
On
motion, clauses 2 through 7 carried.
CLERK:
Be it enacted by the
Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as
follows.
CHAIR:
Shall the enacting clause
carry?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Those against?
Carried.
On
motion, enacting clause carried.
CLERK:
An Act To Amend The
Smoke-free Environment Act, 2005.
CHAIR:
Shall the title carry?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Those against?
Carried.
On
motion, title carried.
CHAIR:
Shall I report the bill
without amendment?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Those against?
Carried.
Motion,
that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.
CHAIR:
The hon. the assistant to the
Deputy Government House Leader.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.
I move,
seconded by the Minister of Natural Resources, that the Committee rise and
report Bill 22.
CHAIR:
The motion is that the
Committee rise and report Bill 22.
Shall
the motion carry?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
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
Baie Verte - Green Bay and Chair of the Committee of the Whole.
MR. WARR:
Mr. Speaker, the Committee of
the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to
report Bill 22 without amendment.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Chair of the Committee of
the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them
referred and have directed him to report Bill 22 without amendment.
When
shall the report be received?
MR. HAGGIE:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Now. Thank you,
Sir.
When
shall the said bill be read a third time?
MR. HAGGIE:
Tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
On
motion, report received and adopted. Bill ordered read a third time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the acting Deputy
Government House Leader.
MR. HAGGIE:
In light of the unseemly late
hour, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Government House Leader, that the
House do now adjourn.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
It is
moved and seconded that this House do now adjourn.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against?
Consistent with Standing Order 9(1), this House stands adjourned until tomorrow
at 10 o'clock in the morning.
On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, at 10 a.m.