April 9, 2019
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLVIII No. 3
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR.
SPEAKER (Trimper)
Admit strangers, please.
Order, please!
I'd like
to welcome all the Members back to this House of Assembly, and, as you can see,
we have several guests today that I would like to introduce.
First of
all, in the Speaker's gallery, I'm very pleased to welcome Ms. Judy White. She
is the chair of the Newfoundland and Labrador Human Rights Commissioner, and
with her is the Executive Director, Carey Majid. They are joining us this
afternoon for a Ministerial Statement.
A great
welcome to you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Fresh off a tour in this
House of Assembly, and I understand a great lunch of pizza, we are very pleased
to have joining us today in the public gallery, Ms. Nadine Ryan's grade seven
social studies class from St. Paul's Junior High.
Welcome
to all of you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
I'd also like to thank and
express my appreciation to all the Members who are wearing blue ribbons today.
This is in recognition of the fight against lamellar ichthyosis, the Blue Ribbon
Campaign.
Thank
you for your co-operation.
Statements by
Members
MR. SPEAKER:
For Members' statements
today, we will hear from the hon. Members for the Districts of Mount Pearl
North, St. John's East - Quidi Vidi, Harbour Main, Cape St. Francis and Harbour
Grace - Port de Grave.
The hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl North.
MR. LESTER:
Mr. Speaker, I rise in this
hon. House today to recognize a former resident of Mount Pearl North for her
impressive accomplishments.
I
remember Dr. Cheryl Laite as a young girl who would come to the farm every day
to brush my grandfather's horses. To say Dr. Laite is now a practicing
veterinarian in Ottawa is an accomplishment in itself, but she manages to juggle
this role with her position as an active firefighter in the City of Ottawa as
well.
Now, if
you're considering the time management involved with these two roles, Dr. Laite
also spends six to eight weeks a year working at a not-for-profit wildlife
conservancy in Kenya. A recent news article highlighted Dr. Laite's care of
Sudan, the last male northern white rhino in the world. Last year, she helped
him keep comfortable in his old age. Unfortunately, Sudan died on March 19,
2018, a month after Dr. Laite had returned to Canada. However, later that year,
she returned to the conservancy to continue her service and care for the animals
there.
Mr.
Speaker, shamefully enough, the rhino is still hunted for its horns throughout
the world, something that has always troubled Dr. Laite.
I ask
all Members present to join me in recognizing and thanking Dr. Cheryl Laite on
her outstanding accomplishments and selfless dedication to preserving species at
risk.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I'm
delighted to congratulate Joseph Butler on being inducted into the Order of
Newfoundland and Labrador for his contributions to this province as a radio
pioneer and a philanthropist.
Joseph
Butler became involved with VOCM after the death of his father, Joseph L.
Butler, who worked with the radio station's founder, Walter B. Williams. Joseph
followed in his father's footsteps and expanded the radio station into rural
areas of the province, offering crucial information to those who previously did
not have access to the news.
In
addition to his broadcasting achievements, Joseph contributed greatly to various
charities across the province through the VOCM Cares Foundation, which has been
giving back to communities for 40 years.
In 1991,
Joseph was awarded honorary life membership in the Atlantic Association of
Broadcasters. In 1992, he was named a Paul Harris Fellow and inducted into the
Canadian Association of Broadcasters Hall of Fame.
I ask
the hon. Members of this House to join with me in congratulating Joseph Butler
on receiving the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Harbour Main.
MS. PARSLEY:
Mr. Speaker, on March 16,
2019, I had the honour of attending the St. Patrick's Day celebrations at the
Star of the Sea in Holyrood. I would like to take this opportunity to recognize
and thank the volunteer executive.
On
February 2, the Star marked its 117th anniversary, and has for many years been
the hub of community-based activities in the Town of Holyrood. The Star of the
Sea has always supported the good work and concerns of seniors and local
churches. It also serves as a beacon for a town that embraces such a wonderful
mixture of development with rural attraction and interests.
A very
special mention and salute to President Bryce Noble, 1st Vice-President Robert
Kieley, 2nd Vice-President Patsy Myette-Noble, Secretary Terry Smith, Treasurer
John Byrne, Public Relations Bert Murphy and Grand Marshall Ann Marie Marrie.
This
being volunteer week gives me a great opportunity to thank all the volunteers
and members who have devoted their lives to the improvement of others while
keeping our towns vibrant.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for the District of Cape St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I rise
in this hon. House today to thank the Torbay Lions Club for another successful
year. The Torbay Lions Club is just five years old and has 14 members. They have
been very active in the community and the surrounding area.
I had
the opportunity to attend their charter meeting on February 25 and was amazed
with all the community activities the group is involved in. Some of those
activities include: the Holy Trinity Elementary breakfast program; the Holy
Trinity High scholarship awards program, which they donated $1,000 to, as well
as a $1,500 donation to the Juniper Ridge Intermediate library. They took part
in the Santa Claus parade, volunteered at The Gathering Place, contributed
donations to the food drive, provided financial help to individuals in need of
assistance with medical and sporting needs and much more.
The
Torbay Lions Club presented a donation of over 200 hats and headbands to the
Janeway hospital, made by some wonderful volunteers.
I ask
this hon. House and all its Members to join with me in thanking the Torbay Lions
Club for another hard year of work and dedication.
This
being National Volunteer Week, I would like to thank all the great volunteers in
this province.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Grace - Port de Grave.
MS. P. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Today, I
would like recognize Peter Hiscock of Spaniard's Bay. To many people, Peter was
a hero. He was born in 1986 with an extremely rare genetic skin condition called
lamellar ichthyosis that would last his entire life. His skin would grow 14
times faster than average and would shed every three days. As a result of the
disease, he did not have sweat glands, which also created discomfort.
In spite
of this challenge, Peter was happy, determined and curious, like most children.
As he grew older, he made it his mission to promote awareness and education and
provide support for other people living with the rare condition.
Peter
created a Facebook page, Ichthyosis Awareness NL, where he posted documents and
videos. He also had a tremendous love for cars. He frequently attended car
shows, where he also promoted awareness. One day, Mr. Speaker, at a show, he met
a little boy who is living with the exact same condition. Peter became a strong
support for that child and his family.
Through
his social media page he also connected with people in Bermuda, the United
States and the United Kingdom who are also living with the disease.
Peter
Hiscock recently passed away at age of 33, surrounded by his family and loved
ones, but his work of creating awareness and support will live on.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Statements by Ministers.
Statements by
Ministers
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand here today to congratulate Ms. Judy White,
QC, on her recent appointment as Chair of the Newfoundland and Labrador Human
Rights Commission.
Established in 1971, the Human Rights Commission is
responsible for investigating written complaints of alleged violations of the
Human Rights Act, promoting the act, conducting education and research designed
to eliminate discriminatory conduct and advising and helping individuals,
groups, organizations and governments on matters related to human rights.
Ms. White is the first Indigenous woman appointed to the
role of Chair of the Human Rights Commission. Currently residing in Conne River,
Ms. White is a Mi'kmaq grandmother and member of the Flat Bay Band. I would
note, Mr. Speaker, in order to be here today, she left Conne River just after
4:30 this morning. She has a Bachelor of Laws degree from Dalhousie Law School
and specializes in Aboriginal
Law.
Ms.
White has vast board and governance experience and has served many agencies in
various capacities, including the National Centre for First Nations Governance,
the First Nations Statistical Institute, Aboriginal Peoples Television Network
and the Board of Regents of Memorial University.
Mr.
Speaker, the Human Rights Commission ensures that each and every resident of
Newfoundland and Labrador is afforded fair and equitable treatment in all
aspects of their lives. Given Ms. White's knowledge and experience, I am
confident she will contribute significantly to the commission and our great
province.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'd like
to thank the hon. minister for the advance copy. All Members of this side of the
House join the hon. minister on congratulating Judy White, QC, on her
appointment as chair.
The
Human Rights Commission plays a critical role in our society in investigating
complaints, providing advocacy to groups and individuals on various matters
pertaining to the Human Rights Act. As the minister noted, Ms. White, QC, is the
first Indigenous woman appointed to the role of chair of the Human Rights
Commission.
Ms.
White, QC, is a Mi'kmaq member of the Flat Bay Band, with extensive experience
in Aboriginal Law. Her impressive CV includes having served as the chief
executive officer of the Assembly of First Nations, and she is currently the
assistant deputy minister of Intergovernmental and Indigenous Affairs
secretariat with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.
All
Members on this side of the House join with me in wishing Judy White, QC, every
success in this important work.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the minister. Our Human Rights Commission is one of the most vital tools to
ensure a fair, just and equal society for our people. It is there that our
people can be heard and seek justice. It is one of the foundations of our
society.
Judy
White, QC, an incredible Indigenous woman, who brings a wealth of experience and
knowledge and expertise, who is willing to lead our province in ensuring that
everyone has access to fairness, justice and equality, there is much to
celebrate.
Judy
White, thank you for stepping up. Brava!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Further statements by
ministers?
The hon.
the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Mr. Speaker, I rise in this
hon. House today to recognize April 7 to 13 as National Volunteer Week.
This
year's theme The Volunteer Factor – Lifting Communities, highlights the
exponential impact of volunteers and how they lift their communities. Our
province's volunteers also lift our spirits and contribute to our well-being.
Here in
Newfoundland and Labrador, 46 per cent of our residents volunteer at an average
of 151 hours a year. This incredible statistic clearly shows us the true sense
of selflessness and passion shared by our province's volunteers and community
sector.
Our
communities are vibrant and stronger when volunteers get involved. Their
guidance and caring has made a difference in so many lives. To all of our
volunteers, you should be very proud of your accomplishments. Your kindness and
support continue to have a monumental impact on children, family and seniors in
every aspect of their lives.
It is
especially appropriate during National Volunteer Week that the contributions of
volunteers are both recognized and celebrated. Please accept our heartfelt
thanks to all volunteers for your ongoing efforts, work and dedication.
This
morning, I enjoyed breakfast with the Vera Perlin Society for their annual
volunteer appreciation event and I am looking forward to participating in other
events across the province throughout the week.
Mr.
Speaker, I have often said, volunteers do not get paid, not because they are
worthless, but because they're priceless.
I invite
all Members of this hon. House to please join me in congratulating our
province's volunteers for the invaluable role they play in our society.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Topsail - Paradise.
MR. DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the minister for an advance copy of her statement. All my colleagues on this
side of the House certainly echo the minister's comments. We certainly want to
acknowledge the volunteers and the work that they do throughout our province.
Volunteers are an integral part of our communities and this is an excellent week
to show our appreciation for that.
I'd like
to comment on they're priceless – there's no doubt about it; they're priceless.
Actually, the stats that were presented are a little surprising because I know
and I guess everyone here in this House knows of some people that put in far
more hours than the average. This is what lifts our communities up.
It's
great to rise here today and show appreciation for our volunteers, what they do,
unselfish, charitable work that they do to keep our communities running and I
want to thank them for their generosity and for their enthusiasm in all that
they do.
Thank
you so much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for the District of St. John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the minister. Volunteers indeed are priceless. Bravo to the legions of unsung
heroes who make our communities better in countless ways. Especially in these
uncertain and tough economic times, volunteers are stepping up in their
communities, making them more resilient, creating environments for sustainable
jobs, tourism and more. Volunteers are making life more bearable for the many
people struggling, for seniors, young working families, children, instilling
hope.
To all
our volunteers, thank you for your vision, your passion and compassion. Bravo!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Further
statements by ministers?
Oral
Questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I think
we'll have to keep the dramatic content of Question Period high today if we're
to encourage the young observers in the galleries to come back for more.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. CROSBIE:
The Code of Conduct requires
Members of the House of Assembly to respect the law – and I'm quoting – and the
institution of the Legislature and acknowledge our need to maintain the public
trust by performing our duties with accountability.
In the
face of this ethical duty, the Premier has hinted that there will be no
discussion and no questions on the budget.
How can
the Premier square this with his ethical obligation to promote accountability?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well,
first of all, I will guarantee you that my Code of Conduct and the transparency
to this House of Assembly will be intact. What I do, however, say is that I will
not put this House of Assembly or the people of this province in a situation
where they would go into an election without having an accountable record of the
financial affairs of this province.
Mr.
Speaker, we faced that in 2015. It was the previous Tory administration that on
September 26, when I wrote them a letter, failed to answer that letter giving us
an update or giving the people an update. Subsequent to that, I look forward to
having a discussion when I get more time with the next question.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
Mr. Speaker, the Premier's
answer might be reassuring, except that he hasn't said that he intends to give
the House the normal 75 hours of debate and questioning.
The
Premier last week shut down the House for a week in order to shield his bogus
Accord deal from accountability in this House.
How can
the Premier deliver an $8 billion budget while shutting down Question Period,
Estimates scrutiny and legislative debate and still comply with his ethical
obligation to respect the institution of the Legislature and promote
accountability?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker, once again, I'm
not going to get down into the dirt and the mudslinging that I'm seeing from the
Leader of the Opposition today.
Mr.
Speaker, just look at the individual opposite right now, as I look at him and we
look through you, and just to see the smile on his face. Well, I will tell you,
there is a concern for me for the last 3½ years from people in this province who
are still reeling from the financial situation that the Tory administration left
this province in.
I don't
find this at all funny, Mr. Speaker. This is not funny. We have taken this work
very seriously. We've put in place a plan to put this province back on track.
That plan is working, Mr. Speaker.
We will
be bringing forward a budget next Tuesday that we will put to the people of this
province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
Mr. Speaker, this House has
reached a sorry state when the government can reproach a questioner for raising
an ethical issue and calling it: down in the mud.
The
Premier told Open Line Monday that
three of the issues arising from the scientific consultative process around
methylmercury contamination are resolved. One of these issues is the
compensation fund.
What is
the amount of the compensation fund and where will the money come from?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker, once again, I
want to remind the people of this province, when we talk about the Independent
Experts Advisory Committee, the reason why, number one, that committee was
formed in the first place, this came out of concerns of methylmercury in the
Lake Melville reservoir, which is as a result of flooding at the Muskrat Falls
project.
Let's
not forget, that prior to 2010 or 2011, there was a report from the Joint Review
Panel that talked about this very issue. The work wasn't done in pre-planning
like we were told it was, Mr. Speaker, by the Tory administration who sanctioned
this project.
This,
once again, was another issue that we were left to fix. We put in place the IEAC
and those recommendations which I'll get a chance to speak to in a few minutes.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
Just as a factual issue, Mr. Speaker, it was the federal government that was
supposed to do the preparatory work on the methylmercury preparation, not the
provincial.
I
haven't heard an answer about the compensation fund amount or where the money is
coming from. Will the amount of the compensation fund cause the estimated cost
of the Muskrat Falls project to exceed the budgeted amount of $12.7 billion? If
not, why not?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker, right now based
on the work that has been done by the CEO Stan Marshall, we've been able to put
this budget on track since June of 2017. If you remember, we saw escalating
numbers and numbers that weren't shared through the former PC administration.
They weren't shared with the public.
Once
again, I go back to September 26, two things that I asked for was a financial
update on the affairs of this province. This is back in 2015. The other thing
that I asked for, prior to the election, was an update on the Muskrat Falls
project. None of that information was provided by the PC administration at the
time. Not only did they not provide it to me, Mr. Speaker, but they didn't
provide it to the people of this province.
We,
indeed, put in place an Independent Expert Advisory Committee. They did some
work and they came back with four recommendations; three of which we have had
consensus and one of which we will be discussing with our Indigenous groups in
the next few days.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
Again, no answer to the
question.
Mr.
Speaker, what the people of the province want is ownership of problems, not
history lessons. Will the amount of the settlement with Indigenous people –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. CROSBIE:
– and Lake Melville residents
around methylmercury cause the Muskrat Falls project to exceed budget? That's
the question.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
No, Mr. Speaker, there's no
reason to believe it would exceed budget. But the Leader of the Opposition and
the current Leader of the PC Party just said something which I think is a little
profound, which means talking responsibility. Added to that, you should take
responsibility for the actions of your party.
I'm
asking right now, since he's made the statement to take responsibility, does the
PC Party, the Leader of the Opposition, take responsibility for the failed
Muskrat Falls project which leads to, by the way, even though your Members may
disagree with the fact that it's a fallacy that rates would not double, everyone
in this province knows as a result of this project, left unmitigated, those
rates would double – so I ask the Leader of the Opposition: Based on your first
comment, do you take responsibility for the Muskrat Falls project?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
We all know that I get to ask
the questions and the Premier is meant to give the answers, which seldom
happens.
However,
I'll say this, we have taken responsibility. We have taken ownership with our
plan to mitigate Muskrat rates and we haven't seen yours.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. CROSBIE:
Will the Premier explain to
the House why his government will not dedicate the $160 million yearly from his
agreement with the federal government to Muskrat Falls rate mitigation?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, it
seems to me that we have the Leader of the PC Party now that's looking for some
of that Accord money which he thought last week was fake. So here we go, Mr.
Speaker, here we go, there's a PC Leader, then, who wants to spend all the money
they can just like they did prior to 2015, making decisions which may not be
sustainable.
This is
an accountable crowd over here. We have put this province back on track, but
still he didn't answer the question about responsibility for Muskrat Falls,
which I thought was a little interesting.
I want
to remind the people of this province that the plan to mitigate rates in this
province is 17 cents. Why won't you be transparent, fix your plan, you've
double-billed $150 million.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
Order,
please!
MR. CROSBIE:
Mr. Speaker, the $160-million
yearly that we're told we're getting is money, but compared to the $22 billion,
which has resulted from the Premier Peckford Atlantic Accord, it is cucumbers.
The
Premier is scheduled to present –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. CROSBIE:
– to the Muskrat Falls
inquiry on July 4 and 5, which we now know will be after the election. He said
yesterday that he's eager to explain his role. I understand there are a number
of dates during the last week of April and May where no public hearing is
scheduled.
Has the
Premier asked to move his date up so he can testify to the people of the
province?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
happy to stand up and answer this question, as the inquiry, and most inquiries,
do fall under the mandate of the Department of Justice and Public Safety.
What I
would say is that we were extremely lucky to have someone of the calibre and
capability of Justice Richard LeBlanc handle the inquiry, and he has also quite
capable staff there, as we can see by the recent elevation of one of those
individuals.
What I
will say is that it's my understanding that all planning for the inquiry,
including witness testimony, is done by the commissioner and his staff, and
would be at their request.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
I thank the Minister of
Justice for that lesson in how inquiries conduct their business, but I'm sure a
request from the Premier would be treated with due deference.
The
Minister of Natural Resources is scheduled to present to Muskrat Falls inquiry
on June 13, which will likely be after the election.
Has the
minister asked to move up that date so that people can hear from her?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I will stand and
answer this question as the minister responsible for inquiries, as I just said
approximately one minute and 30 seconds ago, inquiries are led by the
commissioner, and the commissioner would set the timelines for witness
testimony. Again, all people that would be requested to stand in front of that
inquiry will do so at the timeline that is requested by the commissioner and
staff.
What I
would say is this, and this is just my personal opinion, I can guarantee you
that everybody on this side would love to get up and stand and talk about that
inquiry, but I'm not sure about the Members on the other side.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, the Autism Society has had its funding frozen for many years by this
government. Now, facing significant financial crisis, the society is considering
laying off staff and cutting services.
Given
Newfoundland and Labrador has one of the highest rates of autism spectrum
disorder in this country, why is the minister sitting by and allowing this
uncertainty for staff and clients?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Mr. Speaker, what I can say
to this hon. House is we certainly value the work of the Autism Society in this
province, in Newfoundland and Labrador. As a government, Mr. Speaker, we provide
about $500,000 in funding. We have no intention of cutting that funding. We
continue to maintain our commitment.
Just
recently, Mr. Speaker, my department provided an extra, around $30,000 for
various smaller programs to the Autism Society.
Mr.
Speaker, we are one of several government departments that comprise an Autism
Action Council across departments and we will continue to work with them to move
forward, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, the Autism Society provides services to some 300 clients every week.
These services range from developing better social skills, finishing school, to
finding a job.
Why is
the minister not supporting them in the endeavours that they put forward?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker, for the opportunity to answer this question.
Part of
my mandate letter and part of our undertaking when I took on this portfolio was
in conjunction with my colleagues across a variety of departments to develop an
Autism Action Plan. We have been actively engaged with the Autism Society of
Newfoundland and Labrador, the Coalition of Persons with Disabilities and a wide
range of stakeholders.
That
plan has significant fiscal challenges and, as a result of that, requests have
been submitted through the budgetary process. The budget will be delivered by my
colleague next Tuesday and I think the populous will be pleased with the results
of our hard work over the last four years.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, my colleagues and I on this side of the House continue to hear example
after example about individuals living with autism and an IQ of more than 70
being denied services.
When
will the minister do the right thing and ensure that these individuals are not
falling through the cracks?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
The
issue of constraints around the access to services for people on the autism
spectrum was part of the work of the Autism Action Council. That will be
referenced in any plans that we bring forward, and, as I say, that will be part
and parcel of the budget process and that's being delivered next Tuesday.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is
not only families with autistic children that are impacted by the lack of
services arising from the IQ 70 policy, but also families with adult children.
These moms and dads are getting older and very concerned about what will happen
to their sons and daughters when they are no longer able to care for them.
What is
the minister going to do to help these families?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
As part
of broader approach to the delivery of home supports and home care, we are
moving very much towards a functional approach and an individualized approach.
So it will not matter what your diagnosis is, it will not matter what your
specific IQ may or may not be, you will get the services you need provided, if
possible at all, in your home, certainly in your own community, to match your
needs with the resources that you need. That is part and parcel of not just the
Autism Action Plan, but also the entire thrust of home support, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, both the minister's mandate letter and
The Way Forward referenced developing a provincial autism strategy
and supporting persons with autism.
Mr.
Speaker, on the eve of an election, will the minister commit to ensuring that
the services are provided for people who need to avail of these services?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Mr. Speaker, it is our aim to
always provide at every opportunity the best quality and the right care from the
right person in the right place at the right time.
The
Member opposite is just as keen as a lot of other people to hear about our
Autism Action Plan. It's coming. The budget is Tuesday.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Unfortunately, there's been a lot of families and a lot of individuals fall
through the cracks for the last four years with no strategy put in play.
While no
changes to the eligibility criteria for admission to personal care homes have
been made, the guidelines for regional health authority staff have changed.
These guidelines were distributed to assessors for personal care homes in August
and September of 2018. Since then, assessors are telling us that many seniors
who would've previously qualified for admission to personal care homes are no
longer eligible.
Once and
for all, can the minister explain this assessment process?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
The
issue of eligibility for a personal care home is based on criteria that were
established by the former PC administration and dates back at least to 2011.
Those have not been changed. The RHAs have been asked to ensure that these
standards, these criteria are used uniformly in the same way. So it doesn't
matter whether you're in St. Anthony or Burgeo or Ferryland, you get the same
assessment.
If the
Member opposite is aware of some individuals who he feels have fallen through
the cracks or not been assessed appropriately, it is his job to let me know, Mr.
Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Well, I can reassure the
minister that in the previous administration there were a number of other
seniors who did qualify for personal care home sponsorship.
Mr.
Speaker, we are hearing that more seniors were denied in 2018 than in 2017;
fewer than nine seniors in 2017 and more than 40 seniors in 2018.
Would a
senior presented with loneliness, anxiety, fear of living alone be eligible
today for admission to a personal care home?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
I think it's important, Mr.
Speaker, to correct some of the flow of misinformation that comes from the
benches opposite. There have been no changes to the criteria. People are still
going into personal care homes with government-provided subsidy at a similar
rate – in actual fact, a slightly higher rate than they have in previous years.
There
has been no change in the criteria. Subsidies are available and, really, it's
serving no one's interest for the Members opposite to generate fear and panic
when they come up with these nebular stories about people who have fallen
through the cracks.
If
they've got people who they know or they feel have not been served well by the
system, it is their job as elected representatives to bring those to me.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We're
not putting fear out there; these are real people who are facing real
experiences, with family who are facing trauma around this.
Mr.
Speaker, this is not what we're hearing from families and personal care home
operators. How can the minister and this government justify the Newfoundland and
Labrador seniors who are experiencing anxiety, stress, depression and loneliness
that their needs are not great enough to warrant admission to a personal care
home?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Mr. Speaker, my department is
aware of three people who we have had names and IDs and consent supplied who
their Members felt that they were assessed inappropriately. Every one of those
three has been dealt with and has been reassessed and is where they wish to be
with government support, if that's what they wanted in the first place.
So the
Member opposite if he has knowledge of individuals and he is keeping it from me
for his own ends, he's not serving the interests of his constituents.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
guarantee you if we had knowledge of a senior who needs to –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. BRAZIL:
– avail of a service, we will
guarantee it that we'll reach out to every department necessary for them to get
that service.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. BRAZIL:
But I'm glad the minister
brought it up, because, Mr. Speaker, in that vein, recently a 103-year-old
senior in this province was denied access, not once, but twice to a personal
care home. The reason, no physical care need, until the MHA applied some
political pressure with the senior now looking to be put into a home, who was
previously being taken care of by an 86-year-old family member. This is
disgraceful.
Why does
it take political pressure to ensure a 103-year-old senior is getting the care
they need and deserve?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Mr. Speaker, obviously it's
not possible to speak to individual circumstances in this House. The tradition
has been on both sides of the House that we do not make reference to individual
circumstances.
What I
can say, however, is that those individuals who have a case that they have been
inaccurately assessed, those who have come to our department, we have looked
into those circumstances and they have been managed to their satisfaction, Mr.
Speaker.
Mental
health and physical health in our department are equally important, and they're
actually recognized in the old criteria as well as work we are doing in
consultation with the personal care homes about what we might do better in the
future.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Our
point here is that we shouldn't have to have politicians get politically
involved in these cases. Policy should reflect the proper access to proper
health care, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. BRAZIL:
In that vein, a 90-year-old
couple who have both survived cancer, with one of them also surviving a stroke,
were also denied admission. Reason again, no physical care need. And again, with
political pressure these seniors were approved.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. BRAZIL:
We have many more similar
examples.
Mr.
Speaker, when will this government demonstrate a caring, responsible attitude to
our seniors and reverse the guidelines that are denying many of our vulnerable
seniors access to personal care homes?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Mr. Speaker, these
guidelines, these criteria were put in place in 2011. I would draw that to the
Member opposite's attention. That was four years prior to this government taking
over the role of governing and looking after health and community services.
Again,
Mr. Speaker, we have had three cases with ID and consent that have been brought
before the department. They have been resolved to the satisfaction of the
individuals concerned and their family members.
It is
all well and good to bring up these mythical cases if there is no ID. I would
suggest the Member opposite –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. HAGGIE:
– is simply fear mongering
and bringing this out at a time when he thinks he can gain some electoral
advantage.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
MR. DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As part
of the Immigration Action Plan under The
Way Forward government contracted Goss Gilroy Inc. to contact and survey
expatriates. This was completed over a year ago in the spring of 2018, yet the
results have not been released.
Mr.
Speaker, will the minister explain to the House why he has not released the
report?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.
MR. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'd like
to take the opportunity to say congratulations to the students from St. Paul's
who are here today visiting with us.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. DAVIS:
The hon. Member is correct;
we have received a report from Goss Gilroy on the expat survey that we announced
last year. We're still working on that in the department. It will be coming very
soon.
The
province, as we know, has met much anecdotal information that was kicking around
this sphere. We wanted to make sure we had evidence-based reporting. The
opportunity has come that we contracted a supplier to do that and we came
forward with that information. It will be released in due course.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
MR. DINN:
Mr. Speaker, Goss Gilroy has
been paid tens of thousands of taxpayers' dollars to complete this survey, yet
government refuses to release the findings. There have been studies done in the
past on this. The common reason expats leave and don't come back is that cost of
living, high taxes and the lack of long-term, permanent employment. Perhaps
government is being told loud and clear that these remain the reasons.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask the minister: What is he trying to hide by continuing to hold
this report?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.
MR. DAVIS:
Thank you very much for the
question.
I'd love
to stand and talk about immigration in this House, considering the fact that the
previous administration cut the guts out of the department when they were in
government.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. DAVIS:
We've stacked that department
up now. We've got first-class individuals providing services to the people of
this province and newcomers. The numbers don't lie here, Mr. Speaker. The facts
lay within the numbers. We have 1,525 individuals that are calling this province
home today; 25 per cent more than the previous year; 25 per cent more than the
year before that as well; 25 per cent year over year.
Growth
is important. We are doing things right. We are continuing to move forward on
this. We've released three additional years to the action plan (inaudible) –
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Mr. Speaker, in 2014,
government environment officials recommended to reject Eagleridge's bid to
explore for gold in the Avalon Wilderness area. Yet, the then PC government
overrode that decision. Then the Liberal government made such a hash of it, a
Supreme Court judge ruled that the mining company could go ahead, despite the
fact that there was no rigorous environmental assessment.
Eagleridge will destroy one of the last pristine wilderness areas on the Avalon
Peninsula and there will be no getting it back.
I ask
the Premier: Is his government going to stand idly by and pretend they can do
nothing while this mining company has its way?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. LETTO:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I can
tell the hon. Member that the environmental process was followed in this
project, and it was found to be released.
We do
have people out there, and I understand some of them were in the House there
just last week, who don't agree with our decision. Our decision is based on what
we've heard from the courts. We have followed due process and the right process
and this project is proceeding in an environmentally friendly manner.
If we
get to the point where further development is required, in the mine or
otherwise, a full environmental assessment will be done.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Mr. Speaker, it is not being
done in an environmentally friendly way, and their own government environmental
officials said there was a problem.
While
the 11-kilometre exploration road for the Eagleridge gold mining project is bad
enough, it pales in comparison to government permitting Eagleridge to do four
years of devastating exploration drilling in and around two pristine watersheds
near the Salmonier Nature Park and the Hawke Hill Ecological Reserve.
I ask
the Premier: How can he allow this irreversible, destructive process with no
environmental review?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. LETTO:
Mr. Speaker, we have
officials within the Environment Department who are monitoring this project on a
continuous basis. We have found no deficiencies in what was approved for this
project. The project did include a road and some exploration work.
Again, I
will say, Mr. Speaker, they are following the guidelines that were released.
This project was released under several conditions, of which we are monitoring,
and we can confirm that they're being followed.
Again,
if further development is required in Eagleridge, then a full environmental
assessment will be done.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Mr. Speaker, it's too late
for the devastation that's happening right now as we speak. To date, no analysis
has been done of the economic and social benefits of the Avalon wilderness area
and watershed over the long term.
I ask
the Minister of Environment: Why does government assume the short-term
environmentally devastating and limited returns of a gold mine makes better
sense than long-term benefits of this rare, pristine wilderness area and the
Salmonier Nature Park, which is loved by all?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. LETTO:
Mr. Speaker, again, I will
say that nothing is happening in this project that is outside of what was
approved during the process – nothing. They are following – and it's being
monitored on a continuous basis. We see no deficiencies in the project. The road
has been completed. The drilling, as approved through permits, will continue.
Again, I
will say, if any further development is required on this project – and that is
clearly stated in the conditions, and they have several conditions to follow
regarding the nature park – they have to stay within certain distance and that's
being adhered to.
Mr.
Speaker, again, if we need to get into further development and if a gold mine
happened to result from this exploration work, a full environmental assessment
(inaudible) –
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The
minister's time is expired.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Time for Oral Questions is
over.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Tabling
of Documents.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Notices
of Motion.
Answers
to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Answers to
Questions for which Notice has been Given
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Yesterday, I was asked a question about the contingency fund. Mr. Speaker,
there's been less than $20 million of the fund utilized. It was utilized for
three purposes: emergency housing through Newfoundland and Labrador Housing,
children in care and judges' salary and benefits.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Further
answers to questions for which notice has been given?
Petitions.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
MR. DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
WHEREAS
legislation was amended in 2012 allowing the regional service boards to charge
cabin owners for a garbage collection service; and
WHEREAS
it has been the view of a number of cabin owners that the service wasn't
required; and
WHEREAS
the Eastern Regional Service Board has implemented a cabin garbage collection
service on the Avalon that is viewed as an intimidating tax/fee collection
policy while other boards were very much more accommodating.
THEREFORE we petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows: we, the
undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador to re-examine the Newfoundland and Labrador Waste
Management Strategy with particular emphasis on the legislation and an
implementation plan that considers all stakeholders and takes into consideration
regional disparities.
Mr.
Speaker, this petition itself, I think we all agree in this House of Assembly
that the health and well-being of the ecosystems and the environment is
important. That's a given. We also understand that the Newfoundland and Labrador
Waste Management Strategy is necessary.
I've had
a number of discussions with cabin owners in my district, along with my
colleague from CBS, and it is evident that there is a void and some confusion
being created. Much of the confusion has been created by correspondence and
directives from the minister responsible, which basically brought a halt to some
of the collection and created uncertainty.
Cabin
owners have many questions: When will they get their refunds? What's the
definition of unserviced roads? What about those who have incurred legal fees?
What about cabin owners who want the service? How will other places be affected?
I had
the opportunity to attend the Eastern Regional Service Board's meeting this past
weekend, they have questions. How do they continue to provide the same level of
service? How do they deal with subcontracts that are in place? How do they carry
out the strategy's mandate? The decrease revenue creates concerns, and I don't
want to offend the minister opposite, this is their words not mine, they use the
term a knee-jerk reaction by the minister.
The
bottom line, everyone values our environment and we see the need for a strategy,
but we need clarity and a definitive direction on that information, and, most of
all, they want to be included in the process. All parties have a stake in this
and would like to have their opinions considered.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal Affairs and Environment, for a response please.
MR. LETTO:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
What an
opportunity. I met with the chair, the vice-chair and an employee of Eastern
Regional Service Board yesterday, following their meeting on Saturday of which
the Member says he attended. We have a plan in place that we are working
together.
We met
yesterday, as I said, and we decided on a plan going forward .These issues were
raised, they were raised with me yesterday. Whether it was a knee-jerk reaction
or not, I'm not going to get into that foolishness, but, anyway, going forward,
I'm not looking back I'm looking forward.
The
chair is in place, Mr. Mullowney, and the vice-chair who is Mayor Breen, Mayor
Mullowney and Mayor Breen, as I said, we have agreed that the best way forward
on this is to work together to put a plan in place. They have until June 30 to
come back to us with a plan of action, how to implement (inaudible) –
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
If I
could have the Members attention. It has come to my attention that there is an
issue in the West Block. There is a leak and they will be closing the West Block
shortly. I would ask all Members just to confer with your staff, if there's
anything that you need from that building, you may want to obtain it now.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. SPEAKER:
No, we're going to be fine.
We'll continue.
Further
petitions?
The hon.
the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.
MR. JOYCE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, I
stand on the petition for the hospital in Corner Brook.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. JOYCE:
WHEREAS the successful
proponents for the new hospital in Corner Brook are scheduled to be announced
this spring with construction anticipated to begin in the fall, and as this is
estimated to be a four-year construction period, and as there are experienced
local tradespeople and labourers in the area;
THEREFORE we, the undersigned, petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows:
To urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to encourage companies that
are awarded the contracts for the new hospital to hire local tradespeople and
labourers, at no extra cost to the taxpayers, so that they can work in their own
area, support the local economy and be able to return home to their families
every evening.
Again,
Mr. Speaker, I have names here from all over: Holyrood, there's a Glovertown
here, St. John's, Colliers, Spaniard's Bay. So this is all across the Province
of Newfoundland and Labrador.
I heard
the minister stand up yesterday and talk about the infrastructure program for
seniors, for the long-term care facility in Corner Brook and others that are
going to be – and that's great news. I'd just like for the minister, if
possible, to take it to the next step, to encourage and make sure local people
are hired on this major project in Corner Brook.
We look
forward to the project in Corner Brook. It was 2007 when it was first announced,
12 years ago. To have the construction to start and to have it announced is
going to be a great endeavour by this government that started this back in 2015
and made a commitment to have it done. And I'm proud of that, Mr. Speaker, and
I'm proud to be part of that back in Opposition and in government.
What I'd
like is to do what we can to get local people hired. This is for all western
Newfoundland, not just the Humber - Bay of Islands area. As I said before when I
spoke to several of the union halls, there are people even out as far as Baie
Verte, the Northern Peninsula, out Port au Port area, Port aux Basques area, a
lot of local people, tradespeople and labourers, would love to be able to work
in the area so they can go home to their families, so that they can spend time
at their home, and they are well-qualified, well-trained tradespeople and
labourers that can do the job.
So once
again, Mr. Speaker, I ask all ministers who have any role in this here with the
companies that are in the running for the – there are two left. I encourage them
all to ask them to hire local people, because I know last year it was supposed
to be done and it wasn't done. I just want to make sure that government is well
aware of it this year. I'd love to see it done before the election, so that they
can have great news – and I don't care if it's election bait, I don't care, as
long as we can keep those people home for fours' years, I'd be a happy man, and
I would applaud the government if that's done before the election.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
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, we always do what we can to
ensure that Newfoundland workers and Newfoundland companies are winning the
contracts and getting the jobs on our construction sites. We've had a very
successful infrastructure plan as a government. We continue it.
Just
this morning the Premier was at the Heavy Civil Association and announced some,
I think it was $120 million in municipal capital works this year, Mr. Speaker.
I was
very happy today actually, Mr. Speaker, because we have big-scale projects, but
I was extremely happy today to see the Winterton fire department receiving a new
fire hall. This being Volunteer Week, it's very important that we give our
volunteers and our volunteer firefighters in this case good equipment and good
buildings to work with, Mr. Speaker. So, I was very proud this morning that
under this year's municipal capital works program, the community of Winterton is
going to receive a new fire hall.
That
benefits the economy as a whole, because you have local workers, you have local
businesses supplying the materials.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Further
petitions?
The hon.
the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
These
are the reasons for this petition: Newfoundland and Labrador is the only
province to still require an assessment and referral from the Centre for
Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) and gender identity clinic in Toronto; the
wait time for an assessment at CAMH is approximately two or more years; in
recent years, other provinces have improved their in-province assessment and
referral processes, in addition to increasing coverage and funding for
gender-affirming surgeries; without adequate MCP coverage these surgeries can
cost thousands of dollars; the Department of Health and Community Services is
already engaged in investigating an in-province assessment and referral process;
long wait times for gender-affirmation surgeries often contribute to prolonged
gender dysphoria and worsened mental health; among transgender youth age 14 to
25 in Canada, 65.2 per cent considered suicide and 36.1 per cent made at least
one suicide attempt in the last year according to a 2014 trans youth health
survey.
THEREFORE we, the undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to develop an in-province assessment
process for gender-affirming surgeries that would eliminate the need for an
assessment by CAMH as the sole referral option, increase funding and coverage
for gender-affirming surgeries throughout MCP and expand the types of surgeries
covered to better reflect national standards.
Now, Mr.
Speaker, I spoke to this petition yesterday and I asked the Minister of Health
to respond to it. I do know that the wait times for an assessment at CAMH, in
fact, have reduced somewhat. However, again we are the only province in the
country that still requires CAMH as the sole source for assessment. Ontario
doesn't even do that.
Mr.
Speaker, it's been too long and I ask the minister to stand and respond, to let
us know precisely what it happening. How long will the trans communities and
their families and their partners have to wait before the assessments can be
done in province? We know that there are experienced health care providers with
the expertise who are qualified to do these assessments and the legislation that
allows them to do so has not come to the House, although we have been asking for
it for years.
Once
again, I ask the minister to stand and to respond to this, to tell the people of
the province exactly what he's doing and what is the time frame. Will we see
this happen before the next election? Simple question, Mr. Speaker, and it is my
hope that the Minister of Health will respond.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Further
petitions?
The hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
There have been
numerous concerns raised by family members of seniors in long-term care
throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, particularly those suffering with
dementia, Alzheimer's disease and other cognitive debilitating conditions,
whereby loved ones have experienced injuries, have not been bathed regularly,
not received proper nutrition and/or have been left lying in their own waste for
extended periods of time. We believe this is directly related to government's
failure to ensure adequate staffing at all those facilities.
THEREFORE we
petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows: To urge the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador to instate legislation which includes the mandatory
establishment of an adequate ratio of one staff to three residents in long-term
care and all other applicable regional health facilities housing persons with
dementia, Alzheimer's disease and other cognitive debilitating conditions in
order to ensure appropriate safety, protection from injuries, proper hygiene
care and all other required care. This law would include the creation of a
specific job position in these facilities for monitoring and intervention as
required to ensure the safety of patients.
Now, Mr. Speaker, today's
petitions – every one of them actually are residents of Centerville. We're
getting these petitions from all throughout the Island. When I presented this
petition yesterday and the minister responded, as he has on other occasions,
yesterday, basically, his response was that people in long-term care homes,
staff and so on, are offended by the fact that these petitions are being
presented. That somehow it's saying they they're not doing their job.
I want to clarify, once again,
this is not about that. This is about saying that there is not necessarily
adequate staffing on these Alzheimer and dementia units at all times. That's
what the petition is saying. It's not saying the people there are not doing job,
it's saying there are not enough of them;
there are not always enough of them there for various reasons.
It's
also important to note, this is not my petition. This petition was developed and
circulated by advocates for senior citizens' rights. The first time it was
presented, there was over 6,500 signatures, the first batch. Since then, we've
continually been presenting them. The Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi
has numerous petitions as well from them that they want presented.
So, when
we present petitions here in the House of Assembly, it's not about us presenting
petitions. If you're saying that this is fear mongering, if you're saying it's
untrue, if you're saying it's insulting, then you're saying it to the people who
created the petitions and the people who signed these petitions.
You're
not hurting me by saying it. I don't care what you say about me, couldn't care
less, but, at the end of the day, it's the people that are bringing these
forward, who are asking Members of the Opposition to bring these forward, who
you, Sir, are insulting by saying that.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Reason
for the petition: The government now requires Regional Health Authorities to
strictly enforce a policy that requires all applicants being assessed to have a
physical care need to qualify for admission to a personal care home. Seniors
with issues such as anxiety, depression, fear of falling and loneliness are no
longer eligible. Many seniors who would have qualified just months ago are now
being denied access.
We, the
undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador to revise the policy on personal care home access.
Mr.
Speaker, we've had the discussion a number of times in the House of Assembly
around policies that are relevant to taking care of our seniors and putting them
in an environment that's conducive to their needs, that addresses their
particular physical needs, but also their mental health needs around anxiety,
depression and fear, to ensure that families have less turmoil and can feel less
stress when it comes to their loved ones being taken care of.
There's
been a lot of debate around the particular policy, and we're not arguing that a
policy, if fully enforced and if taken by the pure letter of its interpretation,
may indeed force people out of that. What we're saying is the practice – and
practice has been there – and policy for a period of time around ensuring that
it wasn't only your physical restrictions that would dictate your access to a
personal care home, and the provided services that these professionals provide
in a loving, caring, inclusive, engaging, social environment, while at the same
time, protecting our seniors because of the programs and services and the
structure of these facilities.
What
we're saying here is, that for a number of years, the process worked. There was
no reason to change it. There was no reason to fix something that wasn't broken.
There was very minimal complaints when it came to access. The process was being
accessed and determined by financial assistance officers, by the assessors, by
social workers in a number of cases, to ensure that these people would have
access to a service that would be conducive to a better quality of life and a
dignity within their life.
Mr.
Speaker, we have to take into account, nobody goes and says: I want to leave my
home. We all agree with home first but anybody who makes the decision that they
want to leave and go into a personal care home does it based on a reasonable
understanding that they can get a better quality of care based on their aliment.
Their aliment, in some cases, are physical, but in a number of cases where
they're being denied, it's now based on mental health, it's based on anxiety,
depression. It's based on fear.
So, to
do justice here, and to really take care of the vulnerable sector, we need to be
able to go back to a policy that was working, Mr. Speaker. It was working and we
fixed something that didn't need to be fixed.
Mr.
Speaker, we will be speaking to this again and I appreciate your attention on
this.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Minister of Health and Community Services for a response, please.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I think
it's important just to lay out here again in the relative calm of petitions,
there has been no change to the criteria that are currently employed. These are
the ones that have been in force since 2011. They do include provision for
consideration of mental as well as physical care needs.
We are,
as is asked for in the petition, reviewing the guidelines and the policies.
Indeed, I had a meeting this morning with the Quality Living Alliance personal
care home group that represent personal care home operators. These are at draft
stages, a lot of to and fro and very active discussions.
Just for
reference, subsidies are still being provided for those who have care needs and
are eligible. There is currently no wait time for any subsidy outside Central
Health where the wait time is currently 2.5 months, same as last year.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, I call Orders of the
Day, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Orders of the Day, Sir.
Orders of the Day
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Minister of Natural Resources, for leave to introduce a bill entitled, An
Act To Amend the Automobile Insurance Act, Bill 3, and I further move that the
said bill be now read a first time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It has been moved and
seconded that the hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety shall have
leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Automobile Insurance
Act, Bill 3, and that the bill be now read a first 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?
The
motion is carried.
Motion,
the hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety to introduce a bill entitled, “An Act To Amend The
Automobile Insurance Act,”
carried. (Bill 3)
CLERK (Barnes):
A bill, An Act To Amend The Automobile Insurance Act. (Bill 3)
MR. SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a first time.
When shall the said bill be read a second
time?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On motion, Bill 3 read a first time,
ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the
Minister of Natural Resources, for leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To
Amend The Insurance Companies Act, Bill 6, and I further move that the said bill
be now read a first time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It
has been moved and seconded
that the hon. the Minister of Service NL shall have leave to introduce a bill
entitled, An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Act, Bill 6, and that the said
bill be now read a first 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?
The
motion is carried.
Motion,
the hon. the Minister of
Service NL to introduce a bill entitled, “An Act To Amend The Insurance
Companies Act,”
carried. (Bill 6)
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Act. (Bill 6)
MR. SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a first time.
When shall the said bill be read a second
time?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On motion, Bill 6 read a first time,
ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I call from the Order Paper,
Order 2, second reading of Bill 1.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs
and Environment.
MR. LETTO:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move, seconded by the Member for Fogo
Island - Cape Freels, that Bill 1 be now read a second time.
Motion, second reading of a bill, “An Act
To Amend The Environmental Protection Act.” (Bill 1)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs
and Environment.
MR. LETTO:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's my absolute pleasure to stand in this
hon. House today to speak to Bill 1. I've been waiting a long time for this day,
since I assumed the Municipal Affairs and Environment portfolio. With this bill,
we are proposing to amend the
Environmental Protection Act so that we can begin drafting regulations to
ban the distribution of retail plastic bags.
Today, we are taking the first step in
banning the bag. We believe that a ban on these bags will protect the
environment and improve the waste management system. Every day we see another
media article about the problem of plastic waste in our oceans, in our ponds,
turning up in seabirds, in sea life and littering the landscape. Plastic bags
are very lightweight, very thin, and we've all seen them blowing like a flag,
and wrapped around a tree in the middle of what is otherwise a green, natural
setting.
Mr. Speaker, I have to pause here and give
you a personal story. I have a tree in my front yard with two bags sitting in
it; one that's been there for six or seven years, and you still see the threads.
It's still not fully gone, parts of it are still there. I have one there that
blew in there last year and it's like brand new. If I got up and took it down, I could take it
back to Sobeys and put the groceries in it. So, Mr. Speaker, what we're saying
and what we're seeing is actually real.
A
roadside litter audit by the MMSB in 2016 showed that plastic bags constituted
less than 6 per cent of the waste stream. So we have to keep that in mind. It's
less than 6 per cent of the actual waste stream. But for us, the bags are a very
visible reminder that we have a problem, and we are not alone. Plastic waste is
an issue that is affecting every corner of the world.
The
Department of Municipal Affairs and Environment has continued to work on the
issue of plastic waste, including bags, with the other provinces and territories
and the federal government. I sit as the representative for this province on the
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment and, together, the council has
approved, in principle, a nation-wide zero plastic strategy, as committed in the
Ocean Plastics Charter. I can assure you that Newfoundland and Labrador will be
thoroughly involved in the development of the supporting action plan and will
continue to work with the council to decrease the amount of plastic waste in our
environment.
To
address the broader category of packaging, we are working with the
Multi-Materials Stewardship Board toward establishing an extended producer
responsibility, otherwise known as EPR program, for the management of printed
paper and packaging as a long-term strategy. We are working toward recycling
efforts and making waste disposal easier and more efficient for people.
Just a
few months ago, we called a full review of the provincial Waste Management
Strategy to look at how we are disposing of waste across the province. Ms. Ann
Marie Hann, former clerk of the Executive Council, is currently engaged in that
review, and we anticipate it will clue up in December 2019.
Mr.
Speaker, we have all heard the calls to ban the bag from municipalities,
Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador and, in fact, seven municipalities
within Newfoundland and Labrador have gone ahead and put in their own municipal
ban. We've also heard from the average resident. I have personally been in
favour of a ban for some time. Though we saw the social media campaigns and met
with stakeholder organizations, a public engagement process had never been
undertaken on the issue of the bag until we launched consultations from March
5-27.
Mr.
Speaker, we received the most feedback on the engageNL site that's ever been
received on the platform. Over 3,000 public submissions, including 160 written
submissions, show that 87 per cent of the respondents supported a ban of retail
plastic bags.
It is
important to recognize that the amendment of this act does not constitute an
immediate ban of the retail bag. Amending the legislation is the first step and
it allows us to facilitate a ban through the regulations. People need not worry
about being immediately impacted; it can take a few months to get used to
bringing their reusable bags when they go to the store. I might add, Mr.
Speaker, that through those consultations we have seen that many people are way
ahead of us and many people are using reusable bags as their means of grocery
shopping.
So while
it may take six to 12 months to fully implement the ban, that should not stop
anyone from beginning to reducing their use of these bags right away. Businesses
can begin looking at offering alternatives and many of them have, and residents
can start getting used to bringing useable bags along to the stores.
We have
always felt that a provincial ban of the bag was not something to be taken
lightly. Multiple departments and entities have been working on this issue for
many months. Coming to the decision to ban the bag has not been a quick process,
but we wanted to ensure due diligence was done before we move to ban any bag.
As we
have said, we are sensitive to the effects that this ban might have on
businesses and industry. We have met MNL, waste management organizations,
business stakeholders and producer representatives and we will continue to do
that as the regulations take effect. This amendment will allow us to draft
regulations that take into account what we heard in consultations about how to
do it so people and businesses will be least impacted.
In
drafting the regulations, officials will take into account how long businesses
and industry will need to adjust to the change, what types of alternatives
people will have available instead of the plastic retail bags, whether to
require a fee on alternatives to limit their overconsumption and required
exemptions.
Mr.
Speaker, this bill is relatively straightforward. The consultations we just
conducted demonstrate the strength of conviction from Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians. They do not want plastic bags to be distributed at retail
locations. The amendment seeks to make that legislatively possible. It will
ultimately decrease plastic waste in the environment and ensure this province
remains the beautiful and unique place that it is.
I'd like
to have a few minutes to highlight some of the issues that came forward in the
consultation process. I know when we implemented this consultation, there was a
lot of kickback from many people that consultations weren't required, go ahead
and ban the bag, we're wasting time, we're wasting money, we're wasting
resources to do a consultation; but, Mr. Speaker, I can guarantee you we heard a
lot of information through the consultation process. I can guarantee you that
the information that we've gathered through the consultation will inform us in
developing the regulations going forward that will allow this ban to be
implemented.
As
everybody knows, we did the consultation from March 5 to 27 and we held public
consultations on whether a distribution ban is the best approach to reduce waste
plastic bags and the factors to consider if a ban were to be implemented.
A total
of 2,845 questionnaires where completed through the engageNL forum.
Additionally, the department received over 120 written submissions directly
through mail or email. We want to thank those people who took the time to fill
out the questionnaire, to do the survey or to send in a written submission. I
can guarantee you that the information that was provided will be used, it was
very useful and it will go a long way to help us develop those regulations in
the very near future.
Some of
the things that we received, of the 2,845 individuals who responded, for
instance, 95 per cent of them identified themselves as being a member of the
public, some were representatives of businesses or a member of an environmental
organization, community organization, industry association or business interest
group, municipal government, less than 1 per cent provincial government or
regional service board.
The
majority of the written submissions were from individuals, but submissions were
also received from Municipalities NL; the Professional Municipal Administrators;
Restaurants Canada; Restaurant Association of NL; the Council of Canadians, St.
John's chapter; the Newfoundland and Labrador Environmental Industry
Association; the Retail Council of Canada; the Canadian Federation of
Independent Business; World Wildlife Fund; Stewardship Association of
Municipalities; Clean St. John's, individual municipalities and individual
businesses.
Mr.
Speaker, I think it would be fair to say that we received a lot of feedback from
a lot of organizations and individuals, and many organizations that are
certainly directly impacted by such a ban. I can honestly say that these
organizations are much in favour of a ban, but they want time to make sure that
it's implemented properly. We'll certainly take that into consideration when
we're developing our regulations.
The
majority of the respondents, 71 per cent, identify themselves as residing within
the Avalon region of the province and 63 per cent were between the ages of 19
and 50 years old, so we have all kinds of information. If you go on the engageNL
website, where the document exists, you will see where the different
representation came from.
I think
the survey showed as well that a lot of people are already engaged in this
initiative. As we know, a lot of people are concerned about the environment and
what plastic does to the environment. There were some who felt that probably we
didn't go far enough with the plastic bags, we should go to other forms of
plastic, or other plastic material, or other plastic –
AN HON. MEMBER:
Straws.
MR. LETTO:
Yes, that's it.
Right
now, Mr. Speaker, we're restricting this legislation to plastic bags. We think
that's a good first start and the reason being, I guess, because we toyed with
the idea of including other plastic issues as well, but we decided that we would
stick with this because the questionnaire and the survey was geared around the
banning of plastic bags. So, we felt that if we need to move ahead and move
further with this, that further consultations should be and would be necessary.
As I
said, we asked: What was the preferred approach to plastic retail bag use
reduction. As I said, 87 per cent agreed that we should have a provincial ban on
the distribution of plastic retail bags. So, just not to confuse people, the ban
that we're proposing is a ban on the retail use of plastic bags. That's the one
that you get if you go to pick up your groceries or other material, other
outlets that may use these.
There
was a lot of concern as well from some of the respondents that, well, the
reusable bags, they had concern there was no plastic for wrapping meats or fish,
but there will be other plastic material available at the checkouts to ensure
that there is no contamination from one product to another. So that's not part
of the ban.
Again,
one of the other issues that came up and was a big concern for us was the fees,
what we would do, if we would do fees at all. While respondents were highly
supportive of a provincial ban on plastic retail bags, fewer, 66 per cent agreed
that there should be mandated fees to purchase the alternatives and limit their
overconsumption. That's the point, if we were to implement fees, that would be
the point of implementing fees would be to – it's not much point of banning one
product if we're not going to try to restrict the use of another one. We want to
make sure that one doesn't cause another problem. I think most people understood
that.
If fees
were to be implemented – and we gave the respondents, we gave the people we
surveyed some options on what they thought was a reasonable fee. The average
suggested an effective fee to pay for a paper bag to reduce the overconsumption
was 38 cents a bag and the average suggested an effective fee to pay for
reusable bag to reduce their overconsumption was $1.68.
Now, we
know that in PEI, for instance, they're bringing in the ban on July 1, and for
the first year their charge will be 25 cents per bag and I think it's a $1 for a
reusable bag. After the first year, into the second year, that goes up to 50
cents and $2, respectively. So, whether we'll follow that, these are things that
we will decide in consultation with the retail outlets and the other
organizations that I just previously mentioned.
One
thing was interesting, respondents were not in agreement on who should keep the
revenue if we were to implement a ban; 42 per cent of respondents thought that
it should be the retailers because they are the ones that have to provide the
alternatives. Actually, 32 per cent thought that it should go to government and
the remaining 26 per cent of the responses were varied. There were different
ideas, including the use of fees for developing recycling programs, initiatives
to reduce waste, initiatives to mitigate climate change and environmental
damages, to give to environmental or community charities or organizations, to
give to waste management regulators or service providers, or that the revenue
should be split between the provincial government and the retailers.
These
are all things that we have to decide as we develop these regulations. We have
started work already on developing regulations, knowing that the support is out
there to bring in a ban. One of the things we asked as well in the survey was
what would be their suggested implementation date. We have second reading here
today. Hopefully, we'll get to Committee, then to third reading and then the
bill has to be finalized, and then we'll have to develop the regulations. That's
going to take some time but not a lot of time.
Anyway,
we think that – and the respondents agreed – a period of six to 12 months would
be reasonable to have the ban in effect, that would be the drop-dead date, sort
of, of being able to purchase plastic bags at retail outlets. That will give
time for people to adjust, it would give time for the retail outlets to get rid
of their present stock and it would be time to allow them to have alternatives
in place. We looked at other jurisdictions that have implemented a ban already,
most of them go with the year. We think that may be reasonable, but it's
something that we'll certainly discuss with all the stakeholders.
Mr.
Speaker, that's where we are today. As I said, this is the first step toward the
implementation of a ban on plastic bags. I look forward to the debate that's
going to follow this. I look forward to hearing from the Opposition as well. I'm
sure they'll have questions that we can, hopefully, answer in Committee. I look
forward to being able to implement this ban as quickly as we can because the
people of the province have clearly spoken that it's something that they need.
As I said, many municipalities, and especially those on the North Coast of
Labrador, my colleague for Torngat Mountains, many of them have been doing it
for years, so this is not new.
There's
only one other province that has implemented a provincial ban. We would be the
second province to do that. I think it's very proactive and something that we
should be doing, not only because it's the right thing to do, but it's the right
thing to do for the environment.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's a
pleasure to get up and speak on Bill 1, An Act to Amend the Environmental
Protection Act and the banning of the plastic bag, which is something that our
leader called for and I know my colleague from Mount Pearl North proposed doing
some petitions to caucus on this issue as well last year, I guess, so he took a
great interest in this bag issue.
It's one
of those issues that, for the most part, we had 80 per cent of the population in
favour of banning plastic bags, reusable bags, yet everyone was talking about
it, everyone was making the conversation, they were showing pictures; you'd see
these pictures down by Robin Hood Bay and out around in the woods; you'd hear
stories of birds choking on plastic bags; hooked in trees. It was unsightly. It
needed to be banned. Why don't we ban them? Why don't we use more creative – why
don't we stop? There were a lot of conversations and I think, for the most part,
everyone agreed with it. Like I said, when the word was out there, this was an
issue that we had 80 per cent of the population in favour.
So, we
did some news releases. Like I said, my colleague from Mount Pearl North was a
strong advocate for it and we spoke out on it. So then about a month back, I
guess, we asked questions here in this House. I asked them as critic and the
media also asked questions of the minister at the time and we were told we
needed more consultations, which is fine. I just struggle with why we needed
more consultations when the verdict was in – from what we could gather – that
people wanted action on this initiative and get the wheels in motion to bring in
this ban.
We had
the consultations for a really short period of time; it was probably a
three-week period. As the minister stated, we had 2,845 individuals respond to
engageNL. There was overwhelming response. We knew that before this consultation
would have been asked for that people wanted the bags banned.
I guess
the question then arose: Why are we having more consultations when we know what
the people want? So now we're here today and we're bringing in a piece of
legislation, we encouraged this, we're on record, we wanted this plastic bag ban
and we felt it was time for it. Our wild ocean, our fishery, a lot of things are
being affected by these unsightly – and they're unsightly, there's no doubt, but
there are a lot of other things in our environment. That's one of many things,
the reusable plastic bag, a lot of plastics are bad for our environment. This is
a step in the right direction.
We're
bringing in a piece of legislation that all we know is we're going to ban the
bag. We're going to open up the
Environmental Protection Act and we're going to insert these two clauses
with a piece of legislation that's pretty, as you can tell – it's not a lot of
detail. There's not a lot to it. But there's no regulation, there's no
information, there's no – other than the fact we're going to ban the bag; that's
all we have.
We don't
have any implementation date. It's going to take six to 12 months. Exemptions
and prohibitions of the sale and distribution of plastic retail bags, we don't
know what's exempt. I mean, I read the PEI legislation, which was copied
basically from Victoria, so I guess basically everyone is keeping consistent
with the other. Listed off some exemptions are for loose items, food safety,
medications, dry cleaning, some bulk items, to protect prepared foods, these
sorts of things. They are brought in by Cabinet after the fact.
Again,
it's fine to say you have a ban, but there are no details with this. We support
a ban. I want to make that crystal clear, because anyone who gets up on the
opposite side and will question what the Opposition supports, we support a ban
and we've called for a ban. But we also like to get details. The general public
wants details on these sorts of things. What's involved, what's exempt, what's
not exempt, who can use it, what are the rules? Some of these will be explained,
and some of them already have been explained. And we went, actually, yesterday
morning and the minister's officials provided a good briefing, and I thank them
for that. They did a very good job and we asked lots of questions and we got
some good information. Yet, we're left with a lot of unanswered questions, but
they'll all show up in the regulations.
What
will be the fines? Now, it is clearly written fines in our environmental – if
you violate the act. They're clearly written for your first offence, if you're a
corporation, second offence. First offence if you're a non-corporation,
individual. But I have some concerns with that, of course, is that when we're
talking about these reusable plastic bags, the concept is fine to ban the bag,
but what about the small retailer, the mom-and-pop shop? So are these fines
going to be applied to this mom-and-pop shop if they're caught using a plastic
bag?
Now, I
know the rules when it comes in place, they're supposed to abide by them. I hope
everyone does, and I think most people will. But you're bringing in a piece of
legislation and you're going to have right now until so – are there going to be
different fines? Now, we will get to Committee and there'll be a lot of
questions we can ask, and I will ask those questions. But there are lot of
things, how deeply it was thought out, who consulted with them. I represent CBS,
obviously, which is a farming community. I have a lot of farming kiosks on the
side of the road, farmers markets, and that's part of CBS. Anyone that's from
around this area drove through CBS when the vegetable season is alive and well,
there are a lot of people backed in, that's the vegetable markets.
They use
plastic bags. So, again, I'm not talking about phasing them out. I am in favour
of a ban, but were they consulted? So they're going to reuse these bags. So we
got a ban at the purchase, we got a ban in the stores, suppliers and retailers
are not going to be able to use these bags, but what about in our Robin Hood
Bay, in our landfill? There's no ban there, because these bags could still be in
circulation for many, many years to come.
What
about food banks? Food banks struggle to survive, because we know the recent
fire, the public outcry and public support, obviously, from our community to
bring them back. But there are a lot of smaller groups; they're not Loblaws or
they're not Sobeys, they're not these chains. They're the small operations,
they're community groups, they're flea markets and the list goes on. These bags
are very commonly used. Were they consulted with in their consultations; did
they have an input? And part two of this is going to be the fact we're going to
be charging a fee at the checkout.
So,
right now, you go into Walmart – I'll use Walmart as an example – you can go
into Dollarama, I know there's a few places around, they're charging you for the
plastic bag. It's a deterrent and I get it, and I got my own personal opinion on
that because I believe that it's either one way or the other; you don't have the
bag or you have the bag, free of charge, or you don't have the bag. This
charging a fee for a bag – anyway, that's my personal opinion; I don't get it.
But
right now, for eons and generations in Newfoundland, we went to every retailer
and we never had a fee. You went and you purchased something with no fees. They
give you a bag, paper, plastic, whatever you chose, they give you a bag with no
fee associated. Now you're going to implement a fee of – it's 30-something cents
for a paper bag, I think a dollar or something minimum charge for a reusable –
and I use reusable bags. We use plastic bags at home for various reasons, you
recycle them that way, but we use recyclable bags most times. But you're going
to bring that concept in that people are going to be charged a fee.
So the
revenue's going to go to the retailer. But right now, today, most retailers
don't get to charge for that bag. That's a part of doing business. It's
absorbed, they are charging for it, it's in what we buy off the counter, off the
shelves, it's all marked up and it's blended in to your cost of your purchase.
But now we're going to have it showing up on the cash register receipt as a fee.
Like, I
have concerns with that and I think a lot of people would have some concerns
with that concept because we are banning the bags, which again is good, but
we're going to replace it with a fee, a fee for paper bags. I don't really know
how that's going to fly in the general public, but I guess that will remain to
be seen.
I want
to go back, I think there are a couple of points in this legislation because
there's not a whole lot in the bill, other than we're opening up the
Environmental Protection Act,
but the issues that are concerning to me are: What exemptions are we going
to have? What will be the exemptions?
When I
looked at PEI, they have some clearly wrote out. What is the implementation
date? When are we starting this? What are you going to constitute as a bag? What
is going to be exempt? What is going to be not exempt? What sizes? All sorts of
questions.
What's
going to be the cost to store owners? What are you going to do in place of it?
What about these famers markets? Everyone has to be creative, I get it, but
there are a lot of unanswered questions.
One of
the things that I suppose occurs to me is, I can't help but feel, even though we
supported this ban, I can't help but feel this is a rush to get something done,
check the box.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER (Warr):
Order, please!
MR. PETTEN:
I guess that answers my
question, Mr. Speaker, I guess I just hit the nail on the head. That's exactly
why it's being done.
Three
weeks ago in this House I stood in my place and I asked the Minister of
Environment about the plastic bag ban and he weaved and he dodged and he weaved
and he dodged. He never gave a clear answer, other than consultations. He went
out and he faced the media and he told them: I love consultations, I believe in
consultations. Much to the chagrin of a lot of the media people because they're
like: Why? What are you consulting for again? Now, I just asked the question
about checking the box and through their laughter and the heckling I guess I got
my answer. That's exactly what it is, Mr. Speaker.
You can
say when you go to the polls next week or the week after, whenever we're going
to do this, we know it's close: We brought in the plastic bag ban. Okay, so what
are your details? Show us some details. We don't have any of that done. We got
the ban in, we'll figure that out later. We got the ban done. When is it going
to be implemented? We don't know, we got the ban done.
That's
what you're faced with. What's exempt? No idea. What's the date? No idea. What
about the fees? No idea. Who did you consult with? We don't care, we already
done that. We got the ban in. There's no meat on the bones, Mr. Speaker.
Regulations are fine. This is regulated. Even the implementation date is
regulated.
Now,
I've seen legislation come through this House in the last four years, and we get
the guts of the legislation and some regulation will come at a later date. We'll
ask questions in Committee and, for the most part, we'll have our questions and
concerns, but we'll get to the point of, okay, we'll find a happy medium. There
are some details that will be worked out later. We'll ask enough questions.
We're satisfied most times, probably not all, but most times.
This is
one of those ones, as much as we support this ban, we have a lot of questions. I
think it's our role as an Opposition in this House, and we all stand in our
place, even though we support a ban, we're not doing our job to get up and
applaud the government. This is wonderful. We think this ban is great. Sit down
again and vote in favour of it.
It's our
job in this House, especially on this side of the House, to bring out the
concerns because the concerns I'm raising are probably no different than what
the general public would be asking if they sat down, went through the same
briefings and read the same material as I read, that we've read. These are just
common sense questions, Mr. Speaker. These are concerns everyone has.
There
are a lot of what-abouts, what-ifs, when, how, why, where and how much? We don't
know anything. All we know is it's going to be implemented, it's going to be put
into subsection 111(1) of the
Environmental Protection Act, it's going to be amended and it's going to be
adding: “prohibiting the sale and distribution of plastic retail bags” – this is
the bill now – “and respecting exceptions to the prohibition of the sale and
distribution of plastic retails bags.”
Those
are the exemptions, that's one part of it that we don't have a clue what's being
exempt other than you can read, I guess, there maybe some tips here. I know in
our briefing yesterday officials referenced some of these exemptions that's
already in the PEI legislation. Will there be more? Will there be less? Will
there be any? Cabinet will decide. The public will be told after the fact.
Are we
doing any more consultations? Highly unlikely because they've done all that, but
did they consult, did they reach out to some of these other groups, some of
those communities groups to offer some alternatives?
My point
of the fees is people are going to tie it back to the community groups. Right
now, when you go to the supermarket and you get your plastic bag, you bring home
your groceries, you throw them in the cupboard, whatever you're doing with these
bags. You can bring them down to the farmer. I've given them to farmers because
I have farmers all around me. I live on a road where it's all agriculture where
I live. I give them to farmers. You can give them to the local flea markets or
community groups, you can give them to the food bank.
Now,
when they're going to be recycled and taken out of supply, eventually, we're
going to be replaced with these paper bags that we're going to have to pay for.
So, is that going to be an added cost to those people, especially if you look at
a food bank and small community groups because no longer are you going to be
recycling and giving them away, because most of these paper bags it would
probably be hard to reuse them anyway.
So, I'm
a bit at a loss, and most of them are biodegradable, they'll be probably burnt
in fires for the most part, unlike plastic, and they're less hazardous to our
landfills.
When I
say about the fee, what about those groups? That may seem small to some and it
may seem a minor issue to a lot, but if you live in my district, I'm sure many
other districts, and probably your own, Mr. Speaker, that means something to a
lot of those groups. That's when I come back sometimes, that's the little
issues, that's what matters.
When I
go out, when you walk around probably in the near future, we'll all be out
beating on doors and talking to individuals, those are the types of questions
you get. It's very seldom you ever get the high-level conversations. They're few
and far between.
I always
say it, and my colleagues can agree with this one, my favourite words amongst my
crowd are: the bread and butter issues. It's what matters to people. These are
the sorts of things that matter. You don't have to be an environmentalist. You
could probably be the worst environmentalist ever, but you can't deny that
plastic bags are bad for the environment. I totally get that, and I've always
been against – I've always supported a ban, but the public deserves better, the
general public deserves to know a lot more answers than what they're getting in
this piece of legislation. It's a pretty vague piece of legislation and to say
that it's a check-in-the-box exercise, that's an understatement. That's exactly
what it was.
Now,
things changed in a three-week period, from I need consultations, to I love
consultations, to there's your legislation. I think everyone was like, really,
where's this coming from? But when I got the legislation, I realized what was
going on. I realized we have an election in the near future and it must be
already in the red book that we ban the bags because that's the only reason I
could see.
Forget
me, forget the Opposition –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. PETTEN:
You can forget me and forget
the Opposition piece of this, Mr. Speaker, the general public deserves – the
general public are the ones here, they're the ones who put all of these people
in this House. They deserve answers.
I rose
to ask the questions, to debate legislation, debate these bills, to highlight
the flaws or the weakness or the shortcomings. That's all we're doing. We
support a ban. I hear some heckling and all that. We were calling out for this
ban before the government opposite were willing to do anything about it. They
consulted and they consulted and they consulted. We were the ones asking for
that.
The
minister loves consulting. They like developing plans and they like getting
studies done. That's what a lot of these Members opposite do.
A few
weeks down the road there's going to be another consultation, it's going to be
called a general election and everyone is going to get to consult then, Mr.
Speaker. That will be the true consultation. That's the true consultation.
That's when people get out and show their real feelings.
We'll
wait and the jury will decide. The jury's out on this one, Mr. Speaker. I just
want to caution the government that it's fine to bring in legislation – it's
fine to bring in any piece of legislation you please. This is not a bad piece of
legislation, technically, when you look at banning of plastic bags. But when you
have nothing more than two lines and one little explanatory note, and all the
while all these groups have been out there and you had over 3,000 submissions,
people wanted this bag ban – and we know there is more to it. This is PEI's
legislation. We know there is a lot more to this bill than what we're seeing
here. None of this is here. All this here is regulations. We're going to get
them by and by, down the road.
Again,
we don't know the date. No one knows the date. Think about that. You're bringing
in a ban, but you don't know when you're going to do it.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
And no details.
MR. PETTEN:
And no details, exactly. They
come in the regulations, but we don't know when that's coming because we don't
know when it's going to be implemented. We don't know what it's going to cost to
consumers. We don't know what it's going to cost store owners. We don't know
what impact it's going to have. We don't know how it's going to affect the
landfills. We don't know. But do you know what? We're banning the bag because
it's in the red book; it's called check the box – exactly what's going on.
They can
laugh, they can do whatever on the other side, Mr. Speaker, but that's the
statement that I'll stand by because that's exactly what this is. We're up here
debating a piece of legislation that, technically, other than I saw the
opportunity to get up and do some exploratory conversation on the flaws, one
minute you can get up and talk about this piece of legislation because there's
nothing to it.
Yeah,
we're banning the bag. That's it.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
When?
MR. PETTEN:
We don't know. The retailers
are saying: How much is this going to cost us? We don't know. What's going to be
acceptable and what's not in the size of the bag? We don't know. What exemption?
No idea. Will this be exempt? We don't know, but we're banning the bag. Well,
that's good to know.
You can
go on with this forever, Mr. Speaker, but I'm going wrap up and I'm just going
remind the government that before they get – I can go a long while yet,
Minister. Lots of time on the clock, Minister. I can go for a long time. Trust
me, I can go for another 40 minutes, no problem, but I have other colleagues of
mine who have been supporting this legislation who want to speak on it.
I have
lots of questions for Committee too, but be fair to the people of this province
and tell them, you're bringing in this legislation, be more respectful. Because
do you know what? People are not blind, people understand. We have a very smart
population in Newfoundland and Labrador and they see through this foolishness.
Yes, they'd like a ban, but they'd also, like me and everyone over here, we'd
like details.
Thanks
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Fogo
Island - Cape Freels.
MR. BRAGG:
Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure
to stand today and speak on Bill 1. Although I just listened to the Member for
CBS and I'm not so sure if he's in favour of banning the bag or beat the bag to
death. I'm not so sure –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. BRAGG:
– where he's going to go with the bag.
I could
picture him as the Littlest Hobo with the stick on his back and the little bag,
going picking up bags.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. BRAGG:
Mr. Speaker, that was all
over the globe. Pardon the pun, but that was certainly all over the globe. He
must have been up all night practising that speech. And he's right, it is not a
lot in the bill because we have to start somewhere. We need legislation and the
legislation says “prohibiting the sale and distribution of plastic retail bags.”
Now,
from that the Member opposite went to nan-and-pop stores, to the farmers'
markets, went all up and down the coast. Mr. Speaker, I don't know if you ever
drove through Central Newfoundland, you'll go up on a place Joey's Lookout, and
in Joey's Lookout there's a farmer there every year in season. I'm yet to see a
reusable bag. I'm yet to see one with a major distributor wrote on the side of
it, whether it be a grocery retailer or anybody else. He uses bags that are of
the quality to put the vegetables in, every time I've been there.
And yes,
Mr. Speaker, everybody who knows me, when this was introduced over in our
department I was probably the one who went wait, I am the bayman of baymen. I
got a use for each one of those bags. I've never thrown a bag in the garbage
until there's nothing left to the bag. And that's no kidding, Mr. Speaker. But
also, I live on an island and I walk around the shoreline every single year.
Around the shoreline it is littered with plastic bags. Now, not only plastic
bags but there are plastic bags everywhere. And I'll put it to anybody who's
ever been out in the ocean as a fisherman or a recreational boat user and got
one of those plastic bags wrapped around the tail of their motor, you just lost
yourself $10,000 for what was – as one of the stores sells it – a 5-cent plastic
bag.
So, the
marine species we worry about. I joked and said on our coast we don't see a lot
of whales come ashore filled with plastic bags. We have 500,000 people, Mr.
Speaker. There're all not going out to the shoreline and tossing a bag
overboard. But in parts of the world the bags are everywhere. If we do our part,
if we are the first ones – and if you can convince someone like me that banning
the bags is great thing – you won't convince everybody, Mr. Speaker; it's not
possible.
AN HON. MEMBER:
You are a believer.
MR. BRAGG:
I've gone to the other side
on the plastic bags. I actually now, if I go into the nan-and-pop store, if I
have an item that doesn't need a bag, I don't ask for a bag. I don't need
another bag generated to go into the landfill, because ultimately that's where
most go. And to be fair, if we look at our roadsides now, it's not all plastic
bags, but the plastic bags are the most obvious one. The minister had one in his
tree for five or six years. My wife would've killed me if it was in the tree for
five or six years. But the minister got a good wife.
So the
bags, the Member opposite can complicate it to death, he can throw all the
scenarios at it. Everybody that I talk to, everybody – because I ask, as the
minister would know, I'll go to the grocery store and I'll do my own mental
survey of how many people use the reusable bag. I'll do it in the corner store
at home; I'll do it at the gas station and just see how many people. More often
than not now you'll see people with reusable bags. I'm a bit of a germophobe. My
concern with the reusable bags is getting people to wash out their reusable bag,
because after a while it's going to get grubby like anything else. So yes, it's
something we have to educate ourselves to.
Only a
couple of nights ago my aunt was up to my place – she's in her early 70s – and
she said, I'm not going to buy bags yet, I'm going to make my own out of jeans
and I'm going to make them nice and strong. People will make the initiative to
do a lot of things. Initially when we take care of the plastic bag – and no, you
can't do it today and take them out tomorrow. We all know that that can't be
done. It's going to take a transition time, because people have to adapt.
Everybody that you talk to – and as the Member opposite called it, his
bread-and-butter issue. That's not a big bread-and-butter issue, because most
households that you'll go to will find a way. They'll do something else. You'll
get away from using that bag. You'll use other things; you'll reuse it. I joked
and said I would use a milk carton, just because I could store it in the trunk
of the car a lot easier. But there will be people come up with some pretty
ingenious other ideas, whether it be a basket or whatever the case might be, Mr.
Speaker.
But the will is there. And the consultations were done. The
Member opposite said what did we ask people for, why are we rushing it, and then
why do it so fast. So he was on opposite ends of the spectrum of where he wanted
us to be. But when 2,845 people actually do a questionnaire – there were, I
think, a couple of hundred more, Minister, that did emails and phone-ins?
You have 70 per cent of the people, almost 80 per cent of the people, support
it. That's a great majority. You're never going to do anything to get 100 per
cent of the people to support it, but 100 per cent of the people realize by
throwing plastic bags out through, I don't know, if you're out in his boat or in
the wilderness or wherever, anywhere besides in a wastebasket is wrong,
everybody knows that.
Mr.
Speaker, you can't convince everybody. I drive four hours every week home and
four hours back to here. Each one of those trips, I don't see as many plastic
bags on the road, but I see coffee cups on the road, I see wrappers from other
things on the road. We just need to educate the people; you're stopping for gas,
take your things out of your cupholder, put them in a trash bin. You don't need
to throw things out the window.
So, the
plastic bag, to me, is a great way to start. It's the most visible thing. It's
everywhere. There are other things, I'm sure, as time goes, and you may say the
devil's in the detail, but if you just look at it this way: If you can take
those plastic bags out of the waste stream, out of the ocean, off the sides of
the road, anywhere in our environment, you're not doing a bad thing. You're
certainly doing something for this province.
Here we
are, we're at the eastern most tip, PEI has already implemented it and bringing
it in. If we could be, us and PEI, the ones to sweep right across the country
with a plastic bag ban, for the retail plastic bag ban, what a great thing, what
a great way to go down in history, to say we were a part of taking care of the
plastic bags.
Again,
when it came back, some of the many uses was for your boots, to put in your
boot. Now, that sounds to most people: What? Who would put a plastic bag in
their boot?
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. BRAGG:
Exactly. Anybody who has ever
put their foot in a puddle of water, needed a plastic bag thereafter.
Mr.
Speaker, let me tell you a little story. When we used to go out at the seal
fishery, my brother and I would always put plastic bags in our boots. We didn't
do it because we thought our feet were going to get wet because we were in the
boat, but if we ever fell overboard the plastic bag helped them big green boots
slip off nice and easy. So it was a safety feature for us many years ago, Mr.
Speaker.
So,
don't tell me about the many uses of plastic bags because I could tell you some
now that you would really go: Wow. Whether that means now I'm going to have to
use bread bags or not, I'm not sure, but the plastic bag use will certainly – in
a years time, there will be people who'll have plastic bags in their garage and
in their shed. There won't be many under the kitchen sink like most people now.
Under the kitchen sink, you open up the door, you don't know where the soap suds
is, Mr. Speaker, because the bags are coming out at you. Right?
There
are people with four-inch sewer pipes with little holes poked in them, Mr.
Speaker, made all the little craft and artsy little things out of them. Granted,
that won't be there anymore, but just think about it, Mr. Speaker, that bag will
be out of us.
Everything takes generations to grow out of. If you go back two years ago – and
I'll go back to throwing things out the window. Years ago you were afraid to
drive down the highway, you were dodging back and forth because you didn't know
what was coming out the window at you.
Although
you see it now, if you look at the volume of traffic, Mr. Speaker, you probably
got less than 1 per cent of the population now that actually would roll down
their window and throw out something.
AN HON. MEMBER:
You only have to look in the
back seat of my car.
MR. BRAGG:
The minister opposite is
telling me about the back seat of his car, and I can vouch for that, Mr.
Speaker, because I was in it today. I had to go to the dry cleaners afterwards.
That man throws away nothing; absolutely.
I've
often heard it said a clean car is a sign of a sick mind. He's got a great mind,
Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, back to the bags. The banning of the bags is a great thing. I'll say as
I did in the beginning, if you can convince me, the banning of the bags with the
multiple uses that I've had for these bags over the years is a great thing, you
won't get 100 per cent, but if you don't do 90 per cent I'll be so surprised.
Yes,
you're going to have a few people that are going to be naysayers but you're
going to get that regardless. I think our move to bring in this legislation to
ban the bags, the retail plastic bags, the shopping ones, the little ones that
sometimes you get your groceries in, sometimes you don't, when they're gone,
when you get them out of your house or out of your sheds and wherever else you
might have them and you move on to your reusable bags, I think, Mr. Speaker,
we'll have a much safer, cleaner environment for the birds and for the fish.
Again,
like I said, anybody who's had an outboard motor and wrapped a bag around it,
they know the cost of that bag for that time and a danger to somebody's life.
So, if we can clean up our oceans, our environment, our ponds, lakes and streams
by banning this bag, Mr. Speaker, I don't mind going on the record by saying I
support banning this bag 100 per cent and bar none. I know I'll take some heat
for that because I know there are lots of people like me, but I think it's the
best for this environment and the best for this province. Mr. Speaker, I would
hope that we would get unanimous support for this Bill 1.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I'm very
happy, as well, to stand and to speak to Bill 1, the first bill in this new
session, this sitting, An Act to Amend the Environmental Protection Act. As my
colleagues on this side of the House have said, there are some details that we
do not know, when this will be in effect. We don't know about fees and how much.
However, Mr. Speaker, in principle, I fully support this bill.
I think
it's really interesting to note that we've already seen in our province the
banning of plastic bags, of retail bags in Nain, Rigolet, Hopedale, Makkovik,
Twillingate and Fogo Island. How fabulous is that, they have been leaders. They
have led us in this initiative.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MS. ROGERS:
What's that?
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MS. ROGERS:
Small Point-Adam's Cove and
Broad Cove all just banned plastic bags as well, and this is at the point of
sales, so retail bags.
Mr.
Speaker, my partner and I – I just want to disclose this – own two stores
downtown on Water Street, called The Travel Bug and the other one called The
Bee's Knees. The Bee's Knees is a store that we did out of social activism
because it's a store that retails ethical products, recyclables, recycled,
upcycled. We do not use plastic bags, we use paper bags when necessary, but also
use the Boomerang Bags. I don't know if people have heard about Boomerang Bags
but Boomerang Bags is a project that was started by a few people here in St.
John's. It comes from Australia. People get together, they get recycled fabric
and they make bags, they sew bags together.
They
distribute them to stores all over downtown. So when you buy something at a
store and they have a Boomerang Bag, they give you the bag, you put your stuff
in that bag and then the hope is that you will either return that bag to the
store where you bought things or you'll return to another store who also is part
of the Boomerang Bag movement.
It's
recycling material, it's a community initiative. Kids are involved in helping to
make the bags. There's also a little label on it that says: Boomerang Bags. It's
a great thing. It becomes an educational piece and it's also a feel good thing
to do around the environment.
Some
people have said, well, plastic bags, retail bags are not really a large part of
our plastic problem, but there is evidence to the contrary to that. In June
2018, a dead whale was found in Thailand with more than 80 plastic bags in its
stomach and those bags prevented that whale from digesting food.
We've
all heard stories about this, within the ocean, the fish, the mammals in the
ocean who are consuming plastic bags. The reason they are is because when those
plastic bags float around in the water, they look like prey. They look like
editable things that live in the ocean that they would eat, and it actually
kills them.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Seafood.
MS. ROGERS:
That's right, seafood.
Now, our
own biologist here in the province, Holly Hogan, who's an incredible biologists,
she wrote in May 2018: Soft plastic mimics the shape and movement of prey as
they undulate in the water column, and this is likely the reason that so many
whales are dying from plastic bag consumption.
Mr.
Speaker, I live right downtown. My living room, kitchen and dining room is on
the fourth floor of the house and the back windows overlook the harbour, but it
also overlooks a back alley where there are a number of trees. For instance, my
partner tapped the maple trees that were in part of this little back alley
behind our house and made maple syrup, but there is a plastic bag that is stuck
in the tree.
I've
lived in this same place for eight years, that plastic bag as been there for
seven. Every morning I look out, it's a really high tree, and I see that plastic
bag caught in the branches of that tree. It's a reminder. Then for those folks
who've had the pleasure of going to the Robin Hood dump before it was renovated,
before it was modernized, there was a plastic bag forest. We could see all the
trees in that whole area were filled with plastic bags.
Now,
it's interesting how in North America we see ourselves as really modern. We see
ourselves as incredibly modern and progressive and way ahead, particularly, of
countries in parts of Africa or Central or South America or Asia.
Mr.
Speaker, I have right here a global account of what counties have already banned
plastic bags. They are: Afghanistan banned their bags in 2018; Albania in 2018;
Andorra in 2017; Antigua and Barbuda, all over – Benin in Africa banned their
plastic bags in 2017; Botswana have banned plastic bags; Burkina Faso;
Bangladesh in Asia, their ban came into effect in 2002 – 2002, that's 17 years
ago, Mr. Speaker. So it's about time that we did this. It truly is about time.
There are countries all over the world that have done this because they know the
effects.
So for
us, banning plastic bags that are bags at the point of retail, it's a beginning.
In my store, for instance, in The Bee's Knees – and again this is not to promote
my store, but it's to talk about what's possible. Plastic toothbrushes, same
thing, they're washing up on shores. We have bamboo toothbrushes. We have dental
floss that's in a glass vial, and you can just buy replacements and use the same
little glass vial. There are razors that don't have plastic handles but are
locally made by woodturners here in the province. There are paper straws, metal
straws, all sizes of straws.
So some
of it, when you think, what about replacing a plastic straw? It's such a small
thing. What does it mean? Well, it is a small thing, but the plastic straws are
a huge problem. But what happens when we do this step-by-step process, we know
that it's educational as well, and that people start to have their eyes opened
about the responsibility that we must all take.
For
instance, one of the things that my partner does, she sells biodegradable
laundry detergent, but it came in plastic cartons, in plastic bagging. She said
to them: I'm sorry I can't sell your product because the people in St. John's
are now saying they don't want their products coming in plastic. So you know
what that company did? They put it in a paper envelope, and it works. She's
encouraged a number of manufacturers to just simplify their packaging to get rid
of the plastic packaging.
For
instance, an environmental towel that came in a box with plastic on it now comes
with just a little paper wrapper around it with all the information that's
needed. So there's so much that can be done, but what is really interesting, Mr.
Speaker, is to look at what countries all over the world have done because they
know that it's a life–and-death issue. It's not just about nice, it's not just
about litter; it really is about life-and-death issues and not just for fish or
for birds, but for all of us.
Many of
us have seen documentaries about the oceans of plastic, huge collections of
plastics, like plastic islands that are floating around out there on the sea. We
know how important it is to stop that, to prevent that from growing. We have a
lot of work to do to do remediation and cleanup. It's going to cost a lot of
money to do that, but the other thing that we see is that the plastics have
entered in to our food chain, thereby affecting all of us.
The
other thing that I would like to bring to the attention to the House here as
well is what the European Union has done through their parliament. They are
banning all single-use plastic. They are not banning all plastic; they're
banning single-use plastic. Single-use plastic, for instance, are like
disposable razors that have plastic handles. We don't need that.
But, for
instance, food containers when you go to a restaurant or to a grocery store and
you buy lettuce and it's wrapped in a plastic container, or you buy green beans
and they're in a plastic container and it's single-use, the plastic is labelled
as single use because if you wash it and reuse it, it starts to leach toxins. So
they're saying no more of that. We do not need that anymore. So, all of the
European countries are involved in curbing single-use plastics.
There'll
be heavy fines. They're giving them time. They're giving manufacturers time to
replace that kind of plastic. There are all kinds of very interesting ways to
replace that plastic. For instance, someone has developed a water single-use
water bottle that's made out of corn products and it's biodegradable.
We heard
on the news either yesterday or today that there is a graduate student here at
Memorial University who is developing plastic wraps that can be used in
industrial settings out of fish. I don't know if it's out of fish guts, but it's
out of something of a fish. How exciting is that? That is being developed right
here at Memorial University. So the wonderful thing is that there are solutions.
Sometimes it costs a little bit more, but the savings in the long run in terms
of the environmental degradation are really, really important.
So, Mr.
Speaker, of course we are going to support this. PEI is the only province right
now that has changed legislation to ban plastic bags. The US, Hawaii and
California are the only states that have banned plastic bags, and it looks like
New York is on the way to banning plastic bags. So we may be a little bit ahead
in Canada, but really when you look at North America we are so far behind, and
there's a lot that we can learn from Europe. There's a lot that we can learn
from some of the more progressive countries in the continent of Africa, in Asia
who've done really good work. And a lot of these countries really struggle with
the issues of poverty. There's not a lot of money to spare, yet they've managed
to do this.
But how
wonderful again when you see school children and adults getting together sewing
those Boomerang Bags out of recycled material or children carrying their own
straws. Whenever I go somewhere, I say, no plastic straw, please. Again, it's
about getting that message out, and it's also about realizing that we can all be
part of the solution. That's what this is about, being part of the solution.
I'm not
going to say much more than that, except that this is really important. I look
forward to Committee where we can ask the minister some very specific questions
about fees. I'm sure that we will need fees and we will need fines. I know
myself, there was a time when, for instance, Dominion were not offering bags at
the retail counter, you had to pay for them, and that reminds you to bring your
own bags if you don't want to spend more for your plastic bags.
It is my
hope that what's going to happen, there are all kinds of projects that can be
done to reuse these plastic bags. They can be molded into mats. There's a
crab harvester here in Newfoundland and Labrador that makes doormats
and makes swings out of recycled fishing rope. So, he goes around and finds
recycled fishing rope that may have washed up on shore or that other harvesters
have put in a pile somewhere, it's no longer safe to use for fishing, he
collects that and he weaves doormats out of it. He also makes swings out of it.
Also, we
have at The Bee's Knees, again, because that means all of that nylon fishing
rope and plastic fishing rope will not end up in the landfill and it will not
end up in the ocean. It's a wonderful thing, again, when we all start to see
ourselves as part of the solution. There are all kinds of creative solutions.
This is
a great initiative. I would like to see the province start to go another step
further and look at banning all single-use plastic because we can do it. Europe
is doing it. It's being done in other parts of the world. We can do it and we
will only benefit by that.
Again,
when you look at what's being done at Memorial University, the inventions that
are being done there, there's a fabulous scientist called Dr. Max Liboiron. She
is doing incredible work looking at the amount of plastic that is in the ocean
near Newfoundland and Labrador. She has taught a lot of students how to do very
low-tech scanning of the oceans, very low-tech – what they do is they scan the
ocean and they also survey the ocean to see what kinds of plastic are coming
near the shores here. It's very low-tech, what she's doing, showing that all of
us can be part of doing that kind of work. And I think it would be really
interesting to do that up in Labrador because we know the effects of plastic,
particularly around some of the northern shores as well.
So, Mr.
Speaker, I will take my seat but, again, we will support this. I'm looking
forward to talking about regulations and the details of this.
Let's
get it done. Let's just do it.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
I
recognize the hon. the Member for St. George's - Humber.
MR. REID:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's
great to rise to participate in this debate. I probably won't take all my time;
I just want to make a few comments in support of this amendment to the
legislation.
This
piece of legislation is a necessary first step that we need to take to implement
a single-use plastic bag ban in this province. So, I'm very supportive of that
move. We're in the second reading of this piece of legislation where we debate
the principle, the whole idea of doing it. So, certainly I support the principle
of implementing this change, which will allow the ban on single-use plastic bags
to be brought about.
I just
want to talk about the process. Some people in this debate have said, well, we
didn't need consultations. We didn't need to do the consultations. Initially, I
was of the same mind. I sort of said, well, we already know; we can go on with
it. But I think now, in retrospect, looking at some of the results of the
consultation, I can see why the minister, in his wisdom, wanted to go ahead with
that consultation, why he wanted to do it.
I think
the information that he got from doing those consultations, I don't think
changed the results or changed the direction that we were going, but it gave us
valuable information that we needed to implement this in a proper way, to
implement this in a way that didn't hurt some of the retailers, the way we could
mitigate the hurt for the people who continue to use single-use plastic bags,
how we could implement this and make a smooth transition into a world, an
environment where we don't have single-use plastic bags.
So I
think, in retrospect, that was a very wise move to have that consultation, and I
think the number of people who participated in that consultation is evident as
well in that this was a very valuable thing to do.
I think
it's interesting that we're amongst the first in North America to do this.
California, Hawaii, PEI and the state of New York is sort of embarking on that
process now as well. So we're amongst the first to do this in North America,
other people around the world are already doing it, but I think Newfoundlanders
have always been very close to the land, close to the environment –
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, I'm sorry, have always been close to the land.
Maybe more so the people from Labrador have been close to the land and
understand the need to protect the environment.
As I was
listening to the Member for Fogo Island - Cape Freels, he talked about how
innovative Newfoundlanders are, and how we can find different uses for things
and how we can find ways around things. So I think it's interesting that we, in
this province, are amongst the first in North America to move forward with this.
It shows that we really are innovative, that we are forward thinking, that we
care about our environment and want to do something to protect the environment.
This
past summer, I had an opportunity to participate in an activity by the Nature
Conservancy of Canada. They buy or acquire pieces of land around Canada. They
have some land in Newfoundland; they have some on the West Coast. One of the
properties they own is on Sandy Point. One of the activities they do there is
they do a beach cleanup every summer. I participated in that beach cleanup, as
did about 30 other people from the area.
I had an
opportunity there, first-hand, to see the amount of plastic that was on the
beach around Sandy Point. I don't know if people know; Sandy Point is a
resettled community on the West Coast in Bay St. George. It used to be French
capital of Newfoundland really, western Newfoundland. So, it's interesting to
see that amount of plastic that was on the beach, the amount of plastic that was
picked up there.
It
really is a problem that exists and something has to be done to change that. I
think this step that we're taking today is the first step that is needed to make
a ban of plastic bags so we can eliminate the damage that is being done to our
environment. I think Newfoundlanders are innovative enough to make that happen.
I encourage everyone to support this piece of legislation.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm not
going to take a long time, but I wanted to say a few words about Bill 1, An Act
to Amend the Environmental Protection Act. Traditionally, Mr. Speaker, when you
have a new session of the House of Assembly, Bill 1 is normally the government's
signature piece of legislation; that's traditionally how it's gone. I think the
government has chosen wisely with this particular bill because I think it's
something that's important to us all.
For some
of us growing up over the years, it's like anything, you get used to a certain
thing, you get used to living a certain away, you get used to what is acceptable
and what's not acceptable and things change over time. So, I know for me and I'm
sure a lot of people in the House would acknowledge the same thing, my colleague
certainly from Bonavista North – I know that's not the name of the district; I
forget what it's called but anyway –
MR. BRAGG:
Fogo Island - Cape Freels.
MR. LANE:
There you go, Fogo Island -
Cape Freels. As he said, it was something that he had to be convinced to some
degree that it was a good thing because he had used plastic bags a lifetime,
even to put inside of his logans or his rubbers or whatever. I did the exact
same thing actually. I can remember growing up I used to put plastic bags inside
my logans if I was fishing or berry picking or whatever I was doing, just so
that your feet wouldn't get wet if you stepped in the bog or whatever the case
might be. It didn't always work; it worked to some degree. He is right; it is
good because if you had to get your boots off in a hurry, they slide right out,
especially if you're stuck in the bog.
I know
where he's coming from. When it comes to a number of these things around
recycling and all these things to protect our environment, it wasn't something
for me growing up that would have been top of mind, let's say. But over the
years, we've certainly seen a movement, recognition of the damage that we are
doing to our planet, quite frankly, because it's happening all over the world.
Whether it be on land or whether it be in our oceans in so many ways, finally we
have that recognition.
I think
we're starting to see this movement globally in recognition of all those things.
Whether it be issues with climate change or whether it be issues around
pollution of various kinds, we're finally starting to see that movement to make
change for the benefit, probably not for ourselves. It will be for ourselves too
to some degree, but more likely for our grandchildren and their children. That's
really what this is all about because all this stuff is going to evolve over
time and it will be our children and grandchildren and so on that will benefit,
I think, the most from what we do today.
Now we
all realize that Newfoundland and Labrador has 520,000 people or thereabouts,
small province in Canada. When you compare our population and the contribution
we're making to climate change and so on compared to, say, China or India or
these places where you have literally billions of people, it's small. But, as
others have said in the past, just because we have those issues globally, and we
have huge polluters globally, and so many more people contributing to pollution
and environmental damage globally, doesn't mean that we shouldn't do our part
because, really, it's still our backyard. We have to live here, our children
have to live here and so on, and our grandchildren have to live here, so we all
need to do our part for our own environment.
Before
we're going to be able to be truly critical of those countries and nations
around the world that are, perhaps, causing the bigger damage by sheer volume, I
don't think we have much right, really, to complain or criticize them if we're
not prepared to do something ourselves to clean up our own backyard, and to do
our part for the environment here in Newfoundland and Labrador.
So, I
see this as a very, very positive step forward; I really do. Now, could we go
further? Absolutely, absolutely we can go further. As my colleague here for St.
John's Centre talked about some of the things that are being done in Europe and
being done in PEI, I think someone mentioned now New York is on board and other
places. There are places that are doing more than what we're proposing to do
here, in terms of eliminating single-use plastics in totality, not just
single-use plastic bags, but single-use plastics.
I would
be on board right now if we were to say let's add straws. One thing that comes
to mind I see – I love the outdoors; I love going moose hunting and trouting and
stuff like that. One of the things I see up in the country a lot, up by the side
of the pond, is someone got a six pack of beer cans, and you see the plastic
that they come in, and you see that thrown down on the side of the pond or in
the pond or whatever the case might be. I'd love to see that gone. I'd be on
board right now to get rid of that. I'd be on board right now to get rid of
straws and so on.
But,
Rome wasn't built in a day, I guess, as the old expression goes, you got to
start somewhere, and at least we're making a start. So, from that perspective, I
want to acknowledge what the government is doing here today and congratulate
them on doing it. It's been talked about for quite some time and we finally got
it done, finally some action. Less talk, more action, and we're seeing some
action. So, in that regard, I think it's a great thing.
Now, as
my colleague from Conception Bay South talked about – when he's raising these
points, Mr. Speaker, I have to be honest, I don't view it as negativity at all,
I don't. There's nothing he said that was – I wouldn't call it negative. I would
call it he was asking reasonable questions, because there are things that the
public, there are aspects around this that the public are going to have
questions about. People are going to wonder, when we talk about exemptions,
people are going to say: Well, what are the exemptions going to be?
Now, in
the briefing that we did in the department – and I thank the staff at Municipal
Affairs, they did a great job with the briefing – they talked about, for
example, some of the things they would envision would be a bag that your
prescriptions could come in, could be one. Although, I don't know why that
wouldn't be a paper bag, but anyway. That was one.
They
talked about if you got your tires changed at the garage, you're taking off your
winter tires and putting on your all-seasons, that they put the winter tires in
those bags, so that when you stick it in the back of your car that you don't get
your seats or whatever filthy rotten from the old tires. So that was one they
talked about as an example as well.
They
talked about dry cleaning. If you go and you bring your suit into the dry
cleaner or whatever and it comes out, it's wrapped in plastic. Obviously, it's
got to be wrapped in something, if not, it kind of defeats the purpose. You want
to get it aboard your car or whatever and have it clean or whatever, so it's
wrapped for a reason.
Those
were some of the – some – of the exemptions that they kind of alluded to,
perhaps. I think, as the Member said, in PEI they've actually listed some things
in their regulations that would probably give us a decent idea as to what the
changes would be, are going to be, or what the regulations would say here, in
theory, but we don't know. We don't know for sure.
If we
voted for this bill now and we passed it and someone were to ask me over at
Pearlgate Dominion: Well, what are the exemptions? I couldn't tell them. I could
say: Well, I'm guessing it might be this, it might be that. It would seem
reasonable that it would be this or that or whatever, but I can't say for sure.
Likewise, if people said: Well, we hear there could be some kind of fee
associated with this. How is that going to work? What is the fee going to be?
How much are you going to have to pay now for a bag and for alternatives and
whatever? I wouldn't be able to tell them.
Now, for
me, I know, for example, that if I go to Walmart – I haven't paid for a bag in
Walmart since they started charging for them. One of the things I learned is in
a lot of cases you don't even need the bag, because I just refuse, simply on
principle. It has nothing to do with the 5 cents, but on principle. When I
looked at Walmart, a huge multi-national company making billions of dollars in
profit and so on, and just on sheer principle, I was not prepared to give them 5
cents for a plastic bag. They're getting enough money off me at the register and
just on principle they ain't getting it.
I simply
would not get a bag. I refuse to get a bag. If I have a bag with me, a reusable
one, I'll bring it. If I forget about it, I'll put the stuff in the cart and
when I get out I'll just stash it in the trunk or the backseat or whatever. If
that means I have to make a couple of extra trips to carry the stuff, so be it,
but I am not getting the bags just on principle.
I found
that in a lot of cases you don't need the bags. I know now when I go to a retail
store, if I go to get gas up at the Ultramar, for example, and while you're
there you pick up a confectionary item or something like that, and they go to
put it in a bag, I never take the bag. Not because you have to pay for it
because they don't charge for it. You could get the bag for nothing, but I just
don't want the bag because now I'm kind of getting used to the idea of what do I
want this bag for, what a waste to have a bag to put this in.
If I got
a 2 litre of milk, I just take the 2 litre in my hand and go out through the
door. I don't need it put in plastic bags; a total waste for nothing.
I think
as time evolves and we start becoming more aware and there's more education and
so on, I think you're going to see more of that. I think our kids and our
grandkids, they are going to be looking back in time and saying: My God, I can't
believe that poppy was putting plastic bags in his rubbers, like my colleague
said. I can't believe that they were using bags for this and that and whatever
and destroying the environment with all these bags. I can't believe they had it,
but I'm sure that's what it will be in years out.
I also
hope they look back and they say: Do you know what? We actually did something
here, we recognized it and we did something to benefit them into the future.
I
digress and go back to the point I was making about my colleague from CBS, when
he's asking these questions, whether it be about fees, whether it be about
exemptions and so on, the problem, if I can call it a problem, which is not
unique to this bill, Mr. Speaker. I can remember when we brought in the new
procurement legislation. You think about that, the procurement legislation, that
is dealing with, literally, the expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars
annually by government and we passed that bill and most of the critical details
are in the regulations. So we didn't know what that was either.
You
couldn't really vote against because you're saying, well, yes, do you want a new
modern procurement act? Of course, we do, we're not going to vote against it,
but there were a lot of details that would be in the regulations. It's the same
thing with this, really, is that in principle the concept of banning these bags
is a good thing. I cannot say it enough, it's a good thing. I support it 10,000
per cent, but it does not diminish the point that my colleague from Conception
Bay South was saying in that we support it, but after this is passed, we have no
control over what the implementation will be like in terms of what it will look
like, what the dates will be, what the fees will be, what the exemptions will
be.
So, if
at some point after it's passed, the minister, through his office, implements
the regulations, and there are things in those regulations that the public find
offensive – and I'm not saying there will be. I'm sure there won't be actually
because he has to live here too and he has constituents too. I'm sure he's not
going to intentionally put things in regulations that are going to just like
totally go against what the public is saying. I don't believe it for a second
that he would do that. I really don't.
But I do
make the point that we don't know what it's going to be, and that's the concern
that the Member for Conception Bay South is raising and I raised the same issue
because it is a valid point. We won't know what the regulations are.
Again, I
will conclude by saying good job, Minister, good bill, great signature piece of
legislation. I think we should all be proud of what we're doing here today to do
this. It's a great thing that we're doing, but, as I said, the devil will be in
the details and, as one Member, I will vote for this but I cannot be responsible
for what those regulations look like because I have no control and I don't know.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Torngat Mountains.
MR. EDMUNDS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Certainly it's a pleasure to rise today and speak to Bill 1, An Act to Amend the
Environmental Protection Act. Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to some of the
Members as they talked about the ban of single-use bags. I rise in my place
today to talk about something a little different in terms of approach because
2019 marks 10 years for the community of Nain having banned the single-use
plastic bags.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. EDMUNDS:
Mr. Speaker, the Member for
St. John's Centre talked about some of the other countries that we could learn
from. Well, we need not look any further than Nain, in our own province, and
learn about the impacts of single-use plastic bags.
The
Member for Conception Bay South, I'm not sure if he supports the bill or not
because he was all over the place. I'd like to talk a little bit about the uses
of single-use plastic bags. My colleague, the Member for Fogo Island - Cape
Freels, talked about a few.
Mr.
Speaker, I come from a district where there is a very sparse population, very
big geographical area. Most people up my way are land based. I'm a hunter and a
fisherman. I'm out on the land and on the water whenever I can. I see the
impacts and they say the impacts are first felt up north. I'd vouch for that,
Mr. Speaker. I've seen the mountain of plastic bags in the water that blow off
the dumpsites.
In 2009,
the community of Nain started to do away with the use of plastic bags and the
other communities in Nunatsiavut followed shortly after, Mr. Speaker. If you
want to see on a small scale the impacts of removing plastic bags from the
environment, in 10 years, we've seen the benefits of not having single-use
plastic bags in the stores.
There
were challenges with the bulk that some of these stores had already had in their
possession. People have become so dependent and, in this case, they became so
dependent on these single-use plastic bags that more often than not they forgot
multi-use or multi-purpose bags when they went shopping.
I can
say that, from my own practice, I forgot to bring my multi-use bag many times,
and I paid the price. I tell you what; it doesn't take too many times when
you're going shopping that you'll remember to take that bag.
Just one
thing I'd like to share before I sit down, Mr. Speaker. After going through a
ban for 10 years or seven years or six years, when I go to a store now that
still uses single-use plastic bags I am shocked about the merchandise that goes
in one bag and how you end up with so many bags on one trip. We packed bags so
tight it was a job to haul the handles together. But I go to a store if it's
Sobeys in St. John's or in Goose Bay, I walk out with six items sometimes with
four bags. That's where the damage comes from, when we're so dependent on
something that we don't really need that impacts the environment.
To do
away with plastic bags – and I commend the minister for bringing this
legislation forward, because I have seen the benefits of removing single-use
shopping bags from the environment. Mr. Speaker, I think we'll all learn from
this. Is there a transition? Yes, of course there is. I know some Members in
this hon. House talked about the time it takes to adjust, sometimes a
generation. I think this is a starting point, and I'm sure we'd all love to see
reusable items introduced instead of single-use plastic which takes hundreds
and, in some cases, millions of years to deteriorate to the point where it
doesn't affect us.
If you
look at the global picture, the sea of plastic that's out on our oceans, the
impact it's having on wildlife. Mr. Speaker, I've caught fish with plastic bags
around them. I've shot ducks with the six-pack wrappers wound around their legs.
I've seen the impacts first-hand. So, again, this is 10 years of no single-use
plastic bags on the North Coast of Labrador. We took the initiative. We're one
of the oldest, if not the oldest community in the country that implemented the
ban on single-use plastic bags.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. LESTER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It gives
me great pleasure to rise to speak to Bill 1. This is an issue that I feel very
passionate about. It was almost a year ago today that I did rise and present a
petition urging the government to move forward with this type of action.
I only
need to, I guess, refer to what we know as the plastic island. The Member for
Torngat Mountains referred to it, and that's what we call a plastic island in
the middle of the ocean, in the Pacific Ocean. It now is estimated to be 1.6
million square miles; 1.6 million square miles, that's three times the size of
France. How can we say that plastic is not an issue; 80 per cent of the plastic
that has been created still exists within our environment today.
Making a
legislative change that is going to adversely affect a small percentage of
people who are adverse to this ban, it has to be done with affirmity and
clarity.
I was
really disappointed when we went into another phase of consultation. We went
into another phase of consultation and, thankfully, they did propose this
legislative change, but, again, we're talking about fees for plastic bags, we're
talking about exemptions. So, really this could be nothing more than a tick box,
yes, we've done it. It is going to depend on the details of this bill.
I
personally believe that – and in reference to comments from the Member for
Torngat Mountains – if you have no other option, you'll remember to bring those
reusable bags next time.
So, I'm
a big proponent of, look, we're going to commit to this. We're going to commit
to the environment. We're going to commit to our children. We're going to commit
to their children. We're going to commit to all creatures on land and sea that
we're going to stop the use of single-use retail bags. No exemption, no backing
down, no option to pay, because that will always give humanity an avenue to not
be proactive.
In
speaking with several of my colleagues from Prince Edward Island, implementing
the ban was a little bit challenging. It was a little bit of an adjustment
period, but you get used to it. You change your behaviour because really it's
not the bag that causes the problem, it's what we do with it.
Just
like when the Member for Fogo Island - Cape Freels had said: Driving in I see
this on the side of the road, I see coffee cups on the side of the road. Do you
know what? Those coffee cups didn't get there by themselves. They got there
because someone irresponsibly threw it out the window. It's not the corporate
entities that produce this type of material, it still comes down to the
individual.
As a
government, not necessarily all decisions are going to be popular, even though
they're the right ones, but this is one decision that's very popular. Yes, there
is a little bit of adversity, but when you look at the good that can be
obtained, and I was really pleased to see that this current Environment Minister
had changed his position of the former, temporary Environment minister. I was
party to a letter that was copied to me, he had addressed a couple of the
municipalities in the region, saying: No, not interested in a bag ban, it only
amounts to less than 6 per cent and the current focus is on climate change.
As I
said yesterday in Address in Reply, we only need to make one small step. It may
only make 2 per cent of a difference, but do you know what? It's easy to make
the second step. So it'll be easy, just as the Member for St. John's Centre and
Members from across the way have said, and the Member for Mount Pearl -
Southlands said, he would be on board right away if we started adding more into
it. I'm pretty sure we all would. It's just a matter of accepting that what
we've done to our planet, and what we're continuing to do to our planet, is not
acceptable. We're on a crash course to exhaust the resources and compromise
every species.
It's a
widely known fact that there's not a fish that can be pulled from the sea that
does not have plastic molecules embedded in its flesh. As a matter of fact, and
embarrassingly enough, in Europe, they've actually detected plastic molecules in
people's feces from the food that they eat. So that's not an acceptable fact
that we're facing, but it's not too late to reverse this.
It's not
too late to take proactive decisions, such as we're doing here, but, again, the
devil is going to be in the details. I'm supportive of what's happening, but
before this becomes enacted and before it becomes complete legislation, and we
know as consumers and as citizens of this province where we stand, I'm reluctant
to say this is going to be the truth and virtue of what we intended to do by the
plastic-bag ban.
As we
move forward into Committee, there will be questions, and I'll commend my
colleague from CBS who did take some questioning and jeering from the opposite
side as to whether he supports the ban or not, but at this stage, we're in the
preliminary examination of what we're proposing. We're in the preliminary
examination of the details that are going to be here because, we, as an
Opposition right now, we're not going to see the details. We're only going to
see basically the change of the bill that will permit the changing of the
details. So, it is his job, it is all of our jobs as Opposition, to question, to
throw out scenarios, to throw out probabilities and that will give due diligence
to what we need to do as a Legislature.
There is
no doubt that this has to go ahead. There is no doubt that this is a positive
step, and while I do question the timing, I am still very proud that I can stand
here in this Legislature today and say that we, as a collective House, are
proposing this bill change that will enable us to ban plastic bags.
I've
often said: Why do we need to follow suit of another Canadian province? Why do
we need to be the last one to jump on board? Why can't we, as a responsibility
to our citizens and our future generations, lead the way?
We need
to listen to what is emerging worldwide. Australia, for example, they've also
had a plastic ban in place, and to the Member for Torngat Mountains, I am so
proud to hear that a Northern community has had the bag ban in place for 10
years.
Last
Friday, I took a run down to dumpsite A, that's the, I guess, the commercial
side of Robin Hood Bay landfill. I commend the waste management authority for
prettying up the residential side and, basically, it looks like we're doing an
absolutely fantastic job on managing our waste, separating our waste and keeping
it out of the environment, but I think that as part of our responsibility as
users of this facility, we should actually have to go over to dumpsite A; go
over and see what we're doing to our environment on a daily basis.
Last
Friday, winds were up around 75 or 80 kilometres an hour and I happened to go to
the dump with some material, non-recyclable material. Unfortunately, it has no
other destination but the dump, and, at that time, they were allowing one truck
at a time to pull in and dump the garbage. While they were doing that, as soon
as the material was coming off the truck – if I quoted a number it may be
inaccurate – but a substantial amount of plastic became airborne and headed out
over the Atlantic Ocean. But do you know what? That Atlantic Ocean is not going
to absorb that and it's going to disappear from our environment. That is going
to continue to infiltrate our food systems, our environment and ecosystems for
years and years and years.
We've
heard some, I guess, personal situations where the Member for St. John's Centre
and the Member for Lab West, they spoke of bags that have been caught in their
trees. Do you know what? In theory, that bag will outlast those trees. That bags
will be hanging in those trees long after the trees have reached maturity and
the tree falls down, that bag will keep going on because bags, just like a lot
of waste that's in our environment, they don't entirely disappear, they just get
smaller and smaller and smaller and go throughout all organisms within an
ecosystem.
In my
career as a farmer, I've often purchased cattle from one area of the province.
It's on the Avalon, but this one particular pasture is right adjacent to a
former dump, and every farmer who buys those cattle knows that those cattle
don't have the life expectancy or the productivity of other animals in other
pastures. Why that is, is because they plug themselves up with the plastic.
They'll just munch away on the plastic. It'll get caught in one of their four
large stomachs, it'll settle in the bottom and it reduces the amount of capacity
of the absorption.
So, not
only does it affect domestic animals, the Member for Torngat Mountains referred
to several specifies in which he's seen a direct effect on either the digestive
systems or their ability to forage for food, be it a physical hampering or a
chemical infiltration of the digestive system, plastic is not something that
species have evolved fast enough to deal with in their digestive systems or in
their environments.
That
creates a huge challenge when it comes to specie diversification and specie
existence. There will be animals that succumb to extinction as a result of
plastic in their environments. One of the biggest ones we often hear about is
the sea turtle. Plastic bags replicate a jellyfish, of course, they swallow the
plastic bag, they plug up the system and they are unable to eat. That's a
continued thing that's happened.
Even
when we implement this ban, and I pray that it will be a firm and solid ban and
very little tolerance for exemption, if at all. We need to lead the way. We
need, as a responsibility to our children, as a responsibility to their
children, we must be proactive and continue on with these initiatives.
I
personally support this. I will have lots of questions, there's no doubt. I'll
probably get a bit of heckling from the other side when I ask questions, but my
heart and my soul is supporting this action. The issue is how are we going to
implement it? How are we going to enforce it? I don't want to see this being
another cash grab on behalf of the government. Fees for bag use – nope. I want
it to be firm and I want it to be certain, there's no option but to bring your
own bags.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):
Thank you.
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I hadn't
intended on speaking, but I do feel I need to put a few comments on the record
to ensure clarity and accuracy as it relates to this very important debate. One
thing I will say is that I support the bill being brought forward by our
minister and the department, they've done a very good job.
Specifically, I want to refer to the comments from the Member for Mount Pearl
North who took advantage to mention my time in the office. I will say, he was
accurate on one point that he said, in that he said that I was a temporary
minister, and the fact is that is true. I served in the role for seven months,
knowing that I would hold the role for as long as the Premier chose. That being
said, there was a significant amount of work that got done, but all the credit
for that goes to the people within the department. That's a very competent and
capable department, and I truly think that those people there, the work that
they do, often goes unrecognized.
What I
will say is this, I think what the Member said – and he'll have a chance to
clarify me if I'm wrong and he can do this during the Committee stage – is that
he said I'm glad to see that the new minister has a different attitude than the
previous minister, which is implying that I would not support this. But what I
would point out to the Member opposite is that on any issue – same as the
Members have said now a couple times, they've said that we support this, but we
want to take our time to figure it out.
Well,
somebody doesn't jump into that role and take on an issue and come out one way
or the other without also doing their research. I received a significant amount
of correspondence in that role, and I think everything that I laid out in
correspondence that I sent to anybody during that time would have been 100 per
cent accurate. In many cases, again, all that would have come from listening to
the staff within the department when we talk about various forms of plastic,
when we talk about the pollution that we have ongoing, and this is something
that we all feel strong about.
So, I
want to clarify the Member's comments, because, again, we'll be long gone, but
Hansard survives, and if I were not to
question what he said, it would go on with his implication that I do not support
this, which cannot be allowed to stand.
What I
would suggest is that we take our time when it comes to important issues like
that. We actually did a significant amount of consultation during the time I was
there; consultation that the current minister has carried on even further, and
he's done a great job with this issue. It's one that is very important to him
and I want to commend him for it.
Certainly, during the time I was there, we had a number of issues to deal with
and we run the risk, when you come in and take a significant issue and implement
a change without consultation or without doing work, we end up with the
possibility of doing things like expropriating mills, and that's not something
that I want to do during my time.
So, what
I would say to the Member opposite is that when you make your comments to this,
just try your best to be accurate when it comes to what a person would imply or
be stating in their letter. I will be standing up and supporting this.
I did
not question the comments by one of your colleagues, the Member for CBS, who
stood up in the House one day and said: Get on with it, get on with it, get on
with it. Then during the debate today stands up and say: Well, hang a second
now, I'm not sure where we are on this.
What I
would say is I'm not going to talk about that, but I just want to clarify the
comments made by the Member for Mount Pearl North as we move forward in this
debate and in support of the bill that the current minister, who's doing an
excellent job, is bringing forward.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
MR. DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Before I
start, I just wanted to make it upfront clear, I'm supportive of the bill in
what it is intended to do, so in my speech afterwards you don't get to think
something else.
The ban
of the plastic bag is long overdue. It's been something we've seen and heard
other countries, other communities, deal with and have dealt with. It has huge
implications for our environment. My Member here to the right of me mentioned
the great Pacific garbage patch. A picture tells a thousand words, and if you go
online and google that, it's, as he said, I think he called it miles, but it's
1.6 square kilometres of garbage floating in the Pacific Ocean. That's 607,000
square miles of garbage. That's actually 1.8 trillion pieces of plastic; 80,000
tons. That's just one island. There are several out there in the Pacific
floating around. So, whatever steps we can do to get plastics and that out of
the environment is certainly a step in the right direction.
I heard
the Members here today talk about whales and ducks and fish that are caught and
have plastic either wrapped around them or in them. Midway Island is littered
with carcasses of birds. You can just picture their ribcages and all that's
inside of them is plastic straws, caps, whatever you can find. This is what they
die from because it's in the oceans.
Many
people, Mr. Speaker, comment on my complexion. They say how nice it is. That's
from facial scrubs. Facial scrubs, believe it or not, have the little plastic
beads in them. They get washed down through, so I'm gone all natural. I go with
the seeds now. That's how it looks so nice. But the plastic beads – think about
it, those facial scrubs that used to be out there, and we don't think about
this, little tiny plastic beads, fish are filled with them. We talked about the
sea turtle and plastic bags imitating jellyfish. They eat them and they die with
this because they can't digest them.
Just
last night I turned on the nature channel – and I love wildlife; otherwise, I
wouldn't be in this House. This is wonderful wildlife in here. I think the
Member here opposite mentioned Australia. There was a show on last night about
Australia. Now, in the very depths of Australia, in these very remote parts of
the country, they did a piece last night on the bower bird. It's interesting;
the bower bird builds a nest and decorates it with scrapes of flowers and
leaves. Do you know what they're decorating it with now? Bottle caps, plastics,
straws. I encourage you to google; it's really amazing. The far reaches of the
world plastic is having an impact on our wildlife.
The
Member for Fogo Island - Cape Freels talked about plastic in the boots. I
certainly remember growing up with the Sunny Bee bags; you put them in your
boots in the wintertime when you go off. When you come home, you cut the little
bees out and stick them on the windows. There were uses for them then but now
we're seeing them, bags are flying around.
I had
the opportunity to listen to the Eastern Regional Service Board this past
weekend and the councillor for Cabinet spoke. He spoke about their landfill
site. He was talking about having a fence around it to maintain what blows
around. When they dump garbage there, the first thing that flies up and flies
miles down the road are the plastic bags. Again, it was noted today how a bag
gets stuck in a tree and it's there forever. So, banning the plastic bag is
certainly something that I support.
I will
echo some of the comments of my colleagues in terms of the detail, and I'm very
hopeful that the detail will come. There's a cost to doing this and there's a
cost to not doing it, so I think there's a cost that we can't ignore. It has to
be done, but I think the devil is in the details and I think the more details we
can get out to the public on how we're going to move this forward would
certainly benefit everyone. At the end of the day, we only have one environment
and how we take care of that is going to determine what our future generations
have.
I
support the banning of the bag. I hope it's a step towards more decisions on our
environment. I look forward to the Committee stage when we can ask some
questions and get some greater detail.
Thank
you for the time.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
If the
hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment speaks now, he will close
debate.
The hon.
the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. LETTO:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's a
pleasure to rise again to talk about Bill 1. I thank everybody, all the speakers
for their comments. I'm not going to get into debate on them. All I will say,
Mr. Speaker, I would love, myself, to be able to move this forward a little
faster and know where we are with the regulations, but the fact of the matter is
that this legislation that we're entering today, I have to have that legislation
in order to move ahead with the regulations. It's not a matter of rushing it
through because it's an election or anything like that. The fact of the matter
is that this amendment to the legislation is required before we can legally do
anything with the regulations.
Mr.
Speaker, it's a matter of procedure. I don't think anybody needs to be overly
concerned where the regulations are going. We've heard the feedback. The
consultation was geared around a lot of the information that would be required
to go into regulations with regard to if there is going to be a fee – and I know
the Member for Mount Pearl North suggested that there shouldn't be a fee. Well,
there may not be a fee. That's something that we have to discuss with our retail
people. The regulations will be drafted in consultation with all the groups I
mentioned in my previous comments and that would include the retail sector.
Implementation date again was something that we are going to allow the retails
sector and business and especially – and they mentioned the mom and pop. Again,
that's a concern for us. We have to sit down with those people to ensure that
we're not putting their business at risk. Although we've heard from the Canadian
Federation of Independent Business in the beginning, and that was one of the
things, go back to September when the last consultation was done with those
stakeholders, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business were not totally
on board, but since that time they have come – but one of the reasons, and the
main reason, actually, that we went with more consultations, was because that
was the recommendation that came out of the last stakeholder meeting. The
stakeholders recommended that more consultation was required with the public
before we would move ahead with such a ban, so that's why the consultations were
done.
I know
the will is there to support this piece of legislation. I'm glad that the
Opposition are on board with that. Again, I won't get into any of the comments;
I know they have some questions. So with that said, I will take my seat and
await the Committee stage. From what I can gather, and I think it's fair to say
that the Opposition, certainly most of them, are in favour of this bill, and I
thank them for the support. As I said, this bill is necessary for me and our
department, for us as a government, to move forward with the ban.
If we
could just bring in the regulations and have that debate, we would do that, but
in order to even develop the regulations, we have to move ahead with the
legislation.
So on
that note, Mr. Speaker, I thank you, and I look forward to the Committee stage.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Is the House ready for the
question?
The
motion is that Bill 1 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?
The
motion is carried.
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Environmental Protection Act. (Bill 1)
MR. SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a second time.
When shall the bill be referred to a
Committee of the Whole?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Now.
On motion, a bill “An Act To Amend The
Environmental Protection Act,” read a second time, ordered referred to a
Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 1)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and
Environment, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to
consider Bill 1.
MR. SPEAKER:
It has been moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair for the House to
resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 1.
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?
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 (P. Parsons):
Order, please!
We are
now considering Bill 1, An Act To Amend The Environmental Protection Act.
A bill,
“An Act To Amend The Environmental Protection Act.” (Bill 1)
CLERK:
Clause 1.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 1 carry?
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I guess
I'll highlight just a couple of things before I ask some questions. I want to
highlight or mention to some Members opposite after we had second reading and
made references to they didn't know where I stood, we made it clear, and
Hansard will show that I said on at
least, I'd say, six to seven times, probably more, we do support this ban. But
we want regulations; we want more details.
So,
Members opposite, the Member for Torngat Mountains, the Member for Fogo Island -
Cape Freels, they need to go back and check their facts because I know they
stated I was all over the place. I was very focused on what I said. I'll stand
here right now and I'll stay focused because what I'm asking for is not
unrealistic, it's a genuine question I asked the minister and government
opposite, and I think we, as the Opposition, and the public deserve better
answers than what we're getting.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. PETTEN:
Minister, one of my questions
in Committee is: Why are the regulations not part of this bill?
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. LETTO:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I think
I made that quite clear in my comments. We needed this legislation to be amended
in order to move ahead with the regulations.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
But why are the details of
the regulations not in the legislation?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. LETTO:
Madam Chair, again, I'll say
this is step one of the process. Step one is to amend the legislation so we can
start developing the regulations. I cannot do regulations unless I have the
legislation amended. It's a matter of process.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I
disagree, Minister; I can't see why. You could bring in a new act. PEI brought
in a whole new act to put all the stuff, all their legislation, all their
regulations in the act and brought it to the House. You're bringing in two
little lines. You're implementing we are going to ban bags, but there are no
details on the regulations. We're looking for why are the details of these
regulations not being made clear. We just know there's going to be a ban. We
don't even know the date of implementation, Minister.
We're
passing this through the House. Everyone agrees with a ban, but this lacks
details. That's what I'm asking. I'm asking it again. I've asked it over and
over again and I'm asking you again – making it legal does not – I don't know
where that's coming from, so better clarity, please.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. LETTO:
Madam Chair, there's nothing
else I can say about that. I needed legislation in order to do regulations.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Minister, for the purpose of
the bill, how are you going to define a plastic retail bag?
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the
Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. LETTO:
Again, Madam Chair, we see a
single-use retail bag as those bags that are used at the counter in retail
outlets as in grocery stores, small businesses and any other stores that use
single-use plastic bags at the point of retail. That's the ban that we're using.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the Member for Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Minister, when will the
regulations be drafted?
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the
Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. LETTO:
Madam Chair, if this bill is
passed today, tomorrow the regulations start immediately.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
But my question was when are
they going to be drafted. That's the question.
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the
Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. LETTO:
Madam Chair, I don't know if
I'm making myself clear – and I'll use a hypothetical situation. If the
legislation is passed at 5:30 today, the regulations start to be drafted at
5:31.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Madam Chair, who's going to
have input in these regulations, Minister? Who's going to have the input in
these regulations? Is that going to be done by the department or is it going to
be consulted with the retailers and the users?
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. LETTO:
Madam Chair, the regulations
will be developed in consultation with all the stakeholders and anybody else who
wants to have input into those.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Minister, during our
briefings we were told discussions with stakeholders are going to continue. So
which stakeholders are you going to be including – on a go-forward basis from
now when this is passed, which stakeholders will be used, just a select group –
can you elaborate?
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the
Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. LETTO:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I think
the stakeholders were listed in the What
We Heard document. They would include the CFIB, the Canadian Federation of
Independent Business; Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador; PMA, the
Professional Municipal Administrators; Restaurants Canada; Restaurant
Association of Newfoundland and Labrador; the Council of Canadians; the
Newfoundland and Labrador Environmental Industry Association; MMSB; the Retail
Council of Canada; the Canadian Federation of Independent Business; the World
Wildlife Fund; Stewardship Association of Municipalities; and so forth.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Madam Chair, you know they
are bickering across the way; this issue is important to people in the province.
I don't know what the humour – there are lots of humorous shots across the way,
but this is an issue that the public cares about, so I don't get this. Anyway,
I'll continue on.
Minister, outside of these, is there opportunity for others to join in these
consultations when this is being developed in consultation with – will you be
open to adding new people, should they want to partake?
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the
Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. LETTO:
Absolutely.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Will there be a plan to
inform businesses and the public about the regulations before they come into
effect?
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the
Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. LETTO:
I would think, Madam Chair, that they are going to be part of the consultations
and the development of the regulations, so they would be well aware of any
regulations before they come into effect.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Minister, when can we expect this ban to take effect in the province?
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the
Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. LETTO:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
What we
heard in the consultations is that we should take anywhere between six to 12
months to make the ban official, to give retail stores, for instance, the time
to use up their stock, to allow people to adjust. A lot of people are adjusting
as we speak. I would say we'll follow those suggestions, those recommendations
that we heard in the consultations. That's why we did them, to get that
information. I would say we certainly won't go beyond the one-year period.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Minister, this bill is not to address other plastic products. Is consideration
being given to banning other plastic products outside the plastic bags?
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the
Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. LETTO:
Madam Chair, actually, we looked at that and we decided against it at the end.
This legislation deals only with plastic bags because that's all we had
consulted on. Nevertheless, as part of the federal plan to reduce plastic in our
environment, I understand the federal minister is making those announcements
sometime in June. We will be part of that. Definitely, there will be
considerations given to other plastic products that exist, but we are starting
with the single-use plastic bag, but it certainly doesn't stop there.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
PEI has
a number of exemptions in its act. What exemptions are being considered here?
What alternatives are being explored?
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the
Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. LETTO:
Exemptions, I'm not sure what
the Member is referring to, in particular, but what this ban does include is
only the single-use plastic bags at retailers. There will be a need for some
retailers to use plastic to separate meats, chicken and fish, so we have to look
at all that. There's an issue with pharmaceuticals as well.
There
will be material and provisions made at those counters to allow for that to
happen so that we can do this in a safe and environmentally friendly manner.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Minister, will retailers be charging for the paper bags and for the reusable
bags when this is implemented?
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the
Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. LETTO:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
That was
one of the questions we asked, actually, in the consultations, and several
answers came back on where that money should go, if we were to charge a fee. A
decision has not been made on that yet, but if you read the
What We Heard document, the average
was 38 cents for a paper bag and $1.68, I think, for reusable. But those
discussions will take place with retailers because we feel they're the ones
going to be most impacted, and, in most cases, any money collected as a
replacement, that money would go back to the retailer.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Minister, who will keep this fee? We're going to pay 38 cents a bag, who's going
to keep the fee? I know you said in your consultations, government or some
retailers. Has there been any discussion who's going to keep this fee?
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the
Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. LETTO:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
There
has been some discussion, but we feel, at this point, that's something that the
retailers should be getting. There were other suggestions in the consultation,
actually, 46 per cent, I think, thought that it should go to the
retailers, 30 per cent thought it should go to government and the rest thought
it should go to other organizations. At this point, that's a discussion that
we're having with the retailers.
If a fee is implemented – and that decision has not been
made yet – it is more than likely that revenue will go to the
retailer, because they're the ones that are experiencing the cost now to get to
banning the bag and get to the reusable and the alternatives that exist out
there, whether it's a paper bag, whether it's a cloth reusable bag or some other
means, that's something that the retailers are looking at.
By the
way, the Retail Council of Canada fully supports a ban on single-use plastic
bags. They're willing to work with us and I think that's important. So, that's a
discussion that we'll have during the development of the regulations.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Minister, will this bag fee be subject to the HST?
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the
Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. LETTO:
That's a question that I will have to get clarification on. I'm not sure, but I
think that any purchase that would happen at a retail outlet would be subjected
to HST. I don't see this as being any different.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Minister, our understanding is that this will be a ban at the distribution
point, not a ban at the landfill. Can you confirm this?
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the
Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. LETTO:
Madam Chair, I thought I made that quite clear, this is a ban at the retail, and
it's at the counter, it's over the counter. So, yes, the ban would be at the
point of sale, at the point of retail, not at the landfill.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Minister, what's your plan regarding enforcement? How will these new regulations
be enforced? What is the plan for that?
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the
Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. LETTO:
Madam Chair, there are stipulations and provisions in the act now, that exist in
the Environmental Protection Act, that would apply to any violation of
the act. This will be part of the act, so any violation would be subjected to
the fines already outlined in the
Environmental Protection Act.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Minister, just to be clear, in the
Environmental Protection Act there are set out fees, whether you're a
corporation or an individual, first offence, second offence. Are those same fees
going to be applied to a store owner, for instance, if they violate this after
an inspector comes in to inspect them? Will that be the same fees or is there
any consideration given to adjusting those fees?
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. LETTO:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
The only
change recommended in the act at this point is to allow for the ban of the
single-use plastic bag, so anything that's in the act today regarding fines or
enforcement will continue to exist.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Minister, we know there has been struggles sometimes with inspectors, so will
there be new inspectors hired to do the enforcement of this ban when it takes
effect?
CHAIR:
The Chairs recognizes the
Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. LETTO:
At this point that's not a
discussion that we've had, Madam Chair, but, the fact of the matter is, we
believe that once this ban is in place that people will co-operate. It's a ban
that 87 per cent of the people that responded want and everybody in the
Opposition wants. So I don't foresee a big need for enforcement because I think
people will do the right thing.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Minister, are you considering any particular time frame to permit businesses to
get rid of their current supply of plastic retail bags?
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the
Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. LETTO:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
That
will depend on the implementation date and that is why we are having discussions
around the implementation date is to allow businesses, that is one of the
reasons, to allow businesses to use up their stock that they have and to make
sure that they have the alternative use bag in place. I don't foresee that
taking anymore than one year from the time that the regulations are implemented.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Minister, what's the plan to inform and educate businesses and the public about
any proposed changes?
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the
Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. LETTO:
Madam Chair, we have involved
several organizations in this process. One of the organizations is the
Multi-Material Stewardship Board, the MMSB. They will play a large role. They're
a big partner in this and they're a big part of the stakeholder group. I foresee
the MMSB as playing a big role in the education, whether it's through the
schools, whether it's through the businesses, whether it's through the general
public, that's their job. That's why they are there and I see them playing a
major role in that.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Minister, you keep talking about the retail, which is fine, I understand that.
I'm wondering about wholesale because there can be a little bit of a mixture.
I'll just throw out an example, Kent over on Kelsey, they have like a contractor
store or whatever which is more of a wholesale, it's not for the general public.
So, if
there's a wholesale business that's doing business with other businesses and
they're getting supplies there, would they also have to have a ban on those kind
of bags?
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the
Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. LETTO:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
The
short answer is yes. If you used Kent as an example – I will use it too – even
though they have a contractor counter that they do sell probably at wholesale
prices, Kent is considered a retail store and they would be subjected to the
ban.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you.
I thank
you, Minister, for that.
Maybe
Kent wasn't a good example, but I guess my point is –
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. LANE:
Maybe it wasn't the best
example, but I guess my point is just simply there are a lot of businesses that
are wholesale businesses. Whether it be in Donovans, Pippy Place, wherever the
case might be, that retail businesses would be getting supplies and getting
stuff from them and so on. I know a lot of it probably comes in cardboard boxes
and bulk anyway, but I'm just wondering: When the wholesale businesses are doing
business with retail businesses, will they be required to ban single-use plastic
bags as well?
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. LETTO:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
The
answer is yes.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Minister, for
that.
Minister, I just want some clarity. When we're talking about fees, or the
potential for fees because you haven't decided yet if there will be fees or not,
when we're talking about the potential for fees for bags, I just want to
clarify, it would be my understanding what you're referring to would be
alternative bags.
So,
right now, I can get a plastic bag at Walmart but I have to pay for it. So I'm
paying a fee, but this is going to ban out – so when we're talking about paying
a fee for bags, it's not going to be a case of, if you want to have a plastic
bag, you're going to pay for it as a deterrent, but there will be no plastic
bags at all, right?
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the
Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. LETTO:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
You're
absolutely correct. The only fee that will be implemented will be a fee for an
alternate-use bag. There will be no plastic bags at the counter. That will be
illegal.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Minister, again.
Another
question – and I think my colleague from Conception Bay South kind of raised it
in second reading. I never heard it in Committee because I had to step out for a
second so I might have missed it. I apologize if I'm repeating the question.
He
talked about farmers and stuff, but whether it be farmers, whether it be, I
don't know, crafters –
AN HON. MEMBER:
Food banks.
MR. LANE:
Well, food bank was mentioned
but food bank is not a retail business. I would see that maybe as different, but
maybe you can clarify that as well.
When
you're talking about someone who is operating a business, albeit a home-based
business, a small business, a crafting business or whatever, are they allowed to
use bags that are – they are recycling them because they got the bags themselves
at Dominion and then they use them in their home-based business for putting
stuff in. Would they be fined if you went over and there was a guy up in Foxtrap
putting vegetables into a Dominion bag?
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. LETTO:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
That may
happen for the first little while, but the intent of this ban is to ban the
single-use plastic bag. We're hoping to get to a point where there will be no
single-use plastic bags to use. But anybody who is at a point of retail will be
banned.
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Minister. I
appreciate that.
Another
point that just sort of comes to mind because you can think of so many different
scenarios, of course, but what about the case of let's say sometimes you go to a
trade show, like the home show or something, they give you a plastic bag, you go
around and put trinkets and stuff into it going around to tables and stuff. It's
not retail, you're not paying for it, yet they are giving you plastic bags. Will
that be banned as well?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. LETTO:
I guess the short answer
again is yes. But we know that there are going to be situations whether – some
people have brought up the example of a yard sale, and if you go to a craft
show. We're going to get to the point where there is not going to be any
single-use plastic bags out there.
The
point is as well that all those groups agree with the ban, these organizations,
they agree with the ban on single-use plastic bags so I think once the ban is
implemented – and the Member for Mount Pearl North alluded to it in his comments
– that people will take responsibility. It's proven in other cases where a ban
has been implemented. People have taken that responsibility, they have adhered
to the plan, and they found an alternative way of carrying whatever they buy.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE:
I thank the minister for
answering all my questions.
A good
bill; I support it.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.
MR. JOYCE:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'm just
to stand and have a few minutes on this. I was involved with this for a nice
while. Before we go any further, I just want to thank the staff of Municipal
Affairs and Environment for their hard work over the last almost four years for
this. They've been working on this tirelessly. They've met with many
stakeholders. They had many consultations.
We hear
everybody around just say let's just ban the bag. But if we change the
dimensions of the bag, it won't become a single-use plastic bag. So that's the
kind of issue that the minister is facing. When you look at the usage of a bag
and change your behaviour, if you charge 25 cents for a bag, it will go down 75
per cent of the usage for the bag. That's the kind of issue that you're facing
when you get the retailers involved.
The
other thing, the big issue that was facing the department at the time is what
are you going to do now, say, for garbage. How many people in this province use
the single bag for garbage in their garbage catchers? What's going to happen now
is that you're going to end up buying the thicker, bigger white bags with the
same effect?
So these
are all the issues that the department has been dealing with for a number of
years. I say to the minister, I remember when we were having consultations with
it, and they always talk about the fees. One of the great things that was even
discussed then about the fees, is take the fees and either put it back in some
way that you give a discount to buy the cloth bags, or do some environmental
projects with the fees.
Have the
fees some way that people can see some benefit from it, not just, say, a
taxation, not just say, okay, we got the money. Put it back into promotion,
education of single-cloth bags. This has been an issue not just here in
Newfoundland and Labrador, but all around the world. This is not just a simple
issue for the department. I know that when there was a survey done there was
something like 18 or 270 sites, and most of it was Tim Hortons, Mary Brown's –
very little was the actual plastic bags.
Then you
hear all about the straws. I was glad to hear the minister talk today about the
national association for food packaging in Canada, that there'll soon be a
strategy for that, because that's a big part of it. If you look at all the
plastic and doing it on the national level for the packaging for food will be a
great benefit to all of Canada, which Newfoundland and Labrador will be part of
– which is a bigger strategy than just plastic bags.
I have
to bring something up to the minister that I know the Opposition were bringing
up, about where are the regulations. I just want to let the people in the
province who are listening and have it on record. It's normal to bring in the
act and follow up with the legislation later. This is normal. You get the
permission and then you go ahead and do the act. So this is normal. I don't
think there's any need to pick up for the minister for this or defend him, but
this is not something they're rushing through because it's election time. This
is normal, to bring in the act, then follow up with the regulations later. They
will have consultations with stakeholders on the regulations. So this is not
something that was just the first time this has ever happened in this
Legislature. That is not the case in this, and even though the Opposition are
trying to portray it as that, you're just rushing it through because there's an
election, just let the general public know that this is common.
I've
been in the Legislature now for a long while and I've seen the Opposition, I've
seen this government, I've seen all governments bring in the act and the
regulations will follow later. So this is nothing new on it.
I know
MNL has been pushing for this for a long while. They've been a big spearhead of
this here. You have to give them credit, they were pushing, and they were doing
it for the right reasons.
The
other thing that I just want to advise people is that the biggest part of this
whole endeavour of plastic bags is a change in behaviour for the people of the
province. We'll always find situations, we'll always find a scenario where
you're going to find plastic. A good example is down to the trade shows. You
might not have the single plastic bags but you might have the bigger, wider
ones. So, there's always going to be plastic.
What we
need to do to try to help the environment, it's just not plastic bags, it's stir
sticks and then you got cigarette butts. We all know the causes that they have
for cigarette butts. So, it's a change of behaviour.
I'll
just make a suggestion to the minister, when you're looking at the fees. If
there's going to be a fee included, there's no definite decision made on that
yet, but the thing I would say is that if you use the money for education;
education in the school programs, education in some way that you can take the
funds and the people in some town – I'll use Walmart, for example. When all the
kids that are out our way and at the elementary school, at the school right next
to Walmart, if you can see some great initiative for the environment at that
school that would education the kids: Look, here's what we're doing with those
funds. Here's how you can save the environment and help out with the environment
and be a legacy. That's the kind of thing that I would suggest to the minister
to do with the funds.
In
general, I will be supporting this. I thank all the staff, thank all the
stakeholders and thank all the groups that participated over a while. This is a
decision that couldn't be done overnight, you had to follow it through, and, of
course, there are going to be growing pains. Once this is passed, everybody
starts saying: Well, when are you banning the bags? Why is it banned, we still
got more around? This is a bigger issue. This is going to take time.
Minister, I will be supporting this bill and the regulations. I look forward to
the regulations. Once again, I thank the staff at Municipal Affairs and
Environment for the work that they've done. I thank all the stakeholders
involved that were a part of this here because a lot of them too had to come to
the table and help out with this here.
It will
be a great step for Newfoundland and Labrador. It will be a great step for a lot
of people, but we need the education and the youth is where the education is.
So, I will be supporting this bill.
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:
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
Environmental Protection 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
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 Chair recognizes the
Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I move, Madam Chair, that the
Committee rise and report Bill 1.
CHAIR:
The motion is that the
Committee rise and report Bill 1.
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
Harbour Grace - Port de Gave and Chair of the Committee of the Whole.
MS. P. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have
directed me to report Bill 1 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 her to report Bill 1 without amendment.
When
shall the report be received? Now?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
When shall the said bill be
read a third time?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, report received and adopted. Bill ordered read a third time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Member for Exploits, that the House do now adjourn.
MR. SPEAKER:
It has been moved and
seconded that this House do now adjourn.
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.
This
House does stand adjourned until tomorrow at 10 o'clock.
On
motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, at 10 a.m.