House of Commons Hansard #71 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was decriminalization.

Topics

Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana PossessionBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:55 p.m.

NDP

Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC

Mr. Speaker, again, there is so much confusion. A perfect example is the RCMP commissioner himself is saying that RCMP officers are going to enforce the law. However, two detachments of the four in my riding are enforcing it and two are not. Therefore, it is very confusing on the ground about where they are going.

I find it disgraceful that people are continuing to charged when we know in a year it is going to be legal, according to the government promises. Why would the government be charging people today for something we know is going to be legal in a year?

It does not make sense to anyone in my community. I think we would be hard pressed to sell that on the streets of Port Alberni, Oceanside, Courtenay, or to anyone in Courtenay—Alberni.

Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana PossessionBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6 p.m.

Conservative

Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB

Mr. Speaker, it has been interesting to hear members of the NDP as well as of the government talk a lot about other jurisdictions. Yet, when I asked the parliamentary secretary if he could name a single jurisdiction where decriminalization or legalization led to a decrease in use, he was not able to name that jurisdiction. I wonder if the NDP, given that they are advocating this course, can do better. All the evidence I have read suggest that, for better or worse, there is an increase in use when we make the law more permissive, and that is only logical.

As well, with respect to the Conservative position, some members have said that we support decriminalization, which we certainly do not. We instead passed a motion, and I supported it, to have a ticketing option, to continue to have marijuana be a criminal offence, but to allow police to use a ticketing option. I would consider that a middle way that would allow for effective enforcement in a range of different kinds of situations.

I would like to know, in addition to this question about jurisdiction, if the member has thoughts on that as an option for addressing the situation we face, but also continuing to have that strong sense that marijuana really is associated with significant health problems.

Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana PossessionBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6 p.m.

NDP

Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to thank the member for putting forward some ideas on how we can move forward, and talk a little about the past.

When we look at the past, and we talk about the previous Conservative government, it did not work. Clearly, we did not see that approach reduce marijuana use.

I will cite an example from around the world. Portugal has brought in decriminalization. It brought in a more progressive approach and marijuana was reduced. Portugal invested its resources in harm reduction strategies and education, ensuring that especially young people had the support they needed.

When it comes to ticketing and how we move forward, again, I really appreciate the member bringing forward ideas. However, the NDP has been very clear: decriminalize first so people are not being criminally charged. We can then establish that independent commission with a broad mandate to include health and public health, to consult with Canadians on all aspects of the non-medicinal use of marijuana, and to provide guidance to Parliament on the institution of an appropriate regulatory regime to govern such use.

Therefore, there are a lot of options to be looked at as we move forward, but start first with decriminalization so people are not getting a criminal record that might prohibit them from getting a job or their ability to travel. With respect to the current laws, it is not an approach that has worked in Canada or around the world. However, we have models from around the world where decriminalization has worked.

Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana PossessionBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6 p.m.

Conservative

Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank the NDP for moving this motion today.

Certainly, the motion deserves to be clearly debated because this is an important issue. Canadians have questions, especially since the Liberal Party wants to legalize marijuana. Decriminalizing marijuana is extremely important because it would help clarify certain things for a portion of the population that does not necessarily make the distinction between the two. However, the distinction is very important in this case. I want to acknowledge the NDP's contribution to this file.

That is not where I have a problem with this. I take issue with the Liberal Party's position, how it is trivializing drug use, especially by the more vulnerable and young people, by wanting to legalize drugs. This is a real problem because we often hear the Liberal Party tell us that it consults people and respects other jurisdictions. It is nice of the government to try to please a segment of the population by saying that it wants to legalize drugs, but again it has to consult the provinces, the municipalities, and the police forces. What we have seen since the beginning of the discussion on this issue is that very few people have been consulted. On the contrary, they are finding out and are not all very pleased with what they are reading.

At the same time, the provincial governments are putting a lot of emphasis on promoting healthy living. They want to limit the places where people can smoke cigarettes, for example. We all know that there are regulations in place for that. While the provinces were busy working on promoting healthy living to protect the health of Canadians, the Liberal government was announcing in its throne speech that it wanted to legalize a drug, marijuana.

I find it very hard to get on board with a movement that goes against my personal values, like this one. I understand that some people have smoked a joint, that they have used marijuana. I do not think that we need to send those people to prison. I am not interested in judging people who have used this drug, but I think that going from there to promoting its use takes things to a new level and that is worrisome.

With regard to the Liberals, I get the impression that this debate is completely improvised. As I said earlier, they are talking about a plan, but we are all eager to see what that plan is. One thing is for certain: for a party that made the legalization of marijuana a pillar of its election campaign, the Liberals' plan for that legislation is not inspiring a lot of confidence in Canadians.

Ever since they announced that their bill to legalize marijuana would be tabled in the House in the spring, red flags have been going up everywhere. Police officers do not know how to deal with possession of marijuana charges. The municipalities do not know how to regulate the opening of stores that want to sell marijuana, and parents across the country are worried because they do not know how to protect their children.

Those who want to make money selling marijuana are prepared to do anything to sell their product. After Toronto police arrested 43 illegal distributors and closed their dispensaries in May, a good number of them reopened their doors nearby. Toronto's CityNews quoted one manager of a few stores, Erin Goodwin, as saying, “We’re determined to stand up [to the police] and not bend down to these intimidation tactics”.

These sellers are literally defying our police forces, which are turning to Ottawa for information about the plan. There is currently no plan. The sellers boast about selling their products in different forms such as candies, jujubes, and cookies even though these are all products that children can consume. In Vancouver, there are more storefronts that sell marijuana illegally than there are Starbucks where you can buy a coffee. That is indicative of how serious this problem is.

In terms of health, to the best of my knowledge, no doctor is prepared to state that the Liberals' plan to legalize marijuana is a good plan. Once again, the Liberals need to table something so that they can address this.

As part of the debate on legalizing cannabis in Canada, the Research Center of the Sainte-Justine University Hospital, a hospital that treats childhood diseases and is affiliated with the Université de Montréal, recently organized a day of scientific presentations on the theme, “Cannabis and youth health: What have we learned from science?”.

Since we are accused of being against scientists, we will share a few statistics and quotes.

Findings on the health of young people and their vulnerability are rather negative. If the government legalizes marijuana, medical prescriptions will become useless, since people can procure it themselves. They could even grow it at home, in their own gardens, next to their cucumbers, carrots, and lettuce. There will no longer be a way to control access to this drug.

As the Canadian Paediatric Society pointed out, the evidence shows that young people who smoke marijuana are more likely to have mental health problems, including diseases such as psychosis and schizophrenia.

Now, I want to share some quotes from a few experts, since I am not making this up. I am far from being a doctor or an expert in the field, but I know that there are ways to take care of your health other than using marijuana.

Here is a quote from the Canadian Press, from our very own government officials in a Government of Canada document:

...marijuana goodies such as candies and cookies pose “significant risks” to children who might accidentally swallow them...

Here is what Paul Frewen, a professor and psychologist at the University of Western Ontario, had to say:

These drugs, both marijuana and other forms of recreational drugs, are being used...for their effects on the nervous system....They have various dissociative qualities...such as the suppression of memory and distress in the immediate short term.

According to the Canadian Paediatric Society, the evidence clearly shows that young people who smoke marijuana are more likely to have mental health problems, particularly illnesses such as psychosis and schizophrenia.

Here is a quotation from the CBC, our public broadcaster:

...the health-community consensus is that regular recreational usage carries risks, including long-term cognitive ones for those under 25.

This next quote is from the report by Cochrane, a network of tens of thousands of researchers known for its rigorous methods that receives no sponsorship from pharmaceutical companies.

Youth are especially vulnerable to the health effects of marijuana use because adolescence is a critical time for brain development. Having THC in the brain at such a critical time can therefore interfere with brain development and harm brain function. It can also increase the risk of triggering a psychotic episode or a mental illness such as schizophrenia.

With respect to safety, while the Liberals talk about legalizing marijuana, police forces raise a number of issues around impaired driving.

The Liberals say that legalizing marijuana will keep it out of the hands of children, but recent events in Toronto prove that to be utterly false. How will the government control the production of marijuana in people's homes when a Federal Court ruling authorizes individuals to grow it for their own consumption for medical purposes? If is it legal for people to grow their own for medical use, then anyone will be able to grow it once it is legalized. It will be easily available, and police forces will no longer be able to protect our children.

Whereas the Liberals would have us believe that legalizing marijuana will contain the growth of organized crime, examples prove instead that its legalization has no effect on organized crime. How will the Liberals manage the flow of drugs at the border when they are legal in Canada, but illegal in the United States?

Here is another quote:

Canadian police forces are worried about drug-impaired driving...Police are concerned about trivializing consumption [and] an increase in drivers under the influence of drugs.

A survey showed that almost half of Canadians who drive under the influence of cannabis believe that they do not pose a threat on the road.

Finally, for those who look to other countries and the only country to have legalized marijuana, Uruguay, I would like to cite Washington's chief of police. He believes that since Washington State legalized marijuana, more than one third of impaired drivers are under the influence of drugs, and they test more than 13,000 cases every year.

I will now quote Stéphane Quéré, a criminologist and expert in criminal networks:

The decriminalization of cannabis use has not eliminated organized crime [in Uruguay, despite what some may say]. It has merely adapted and managed to gain a foothold in coffee shops, while retaining control over cannabis production.

I think that this is a serious problem. There is no plan and no direction. We do not have any information on how we could assure safety. Before we talk about decriminalization, we need to know much more about the Liberal bill before us.

Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana PossessionBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:10 p.m.

Liberal

Ramez Ayoub Liberal Thérèse-De Blainville, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech on marijuana.

I wish I could have understood him. It is always dangerous when a Conservative analyzes scientific studies, since, once again, all we get are scientific answers being cobbled together.

I would like to hear what my hon. colleague would think if he were to go back to the days of alcohol prohibition. Do we need to return to a time when alcohol was prohibited here? Should tobacco also not be legalized?

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on this.

Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana PossessionBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:10 p.m.

Conservative

Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his thoughtful question.

I will tell him what I made sure to say in my speech. Had he been listening, he would know that I in no way consider myself a scientist or a doctor with respect to this issue. All I have done is quote experts in the field.

Instead of asking me questions about alcohol and cigarettes, can my colleague quote one single expert who is well-versed in this subject and can say that using marijuana is good for one's health? There is no evidence that it is.

Today, what I would like to see from the leader here in the House, our Prime Minister, who boxes and seems to like sports, is more emphasis on healthy lifestyles. He should be more like Pierre Lavoie, who encourages young people to join a wonderful movement. What I do not want is a Liberal government Prime Minister who trivializes drugs by promoting the use of marijuana.

Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana PossessionBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

It being 6:15 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana PossessionBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana PossessionBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana PossessionBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana PossessionBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

All those opposed will please say nay.

Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana PossessionBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana PossessionBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana PossessionBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

NDP

Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet NDP Hochelaga, QC

Mr. Speaker, we ask that the vote be deferred to Tuesday, June 14, 2016, at the end of oral questions.

Mr. Speaker, I believe if you were to seek it you would find unanimous consent to see the clock at 6:30 p.m.

Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana PossessionBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

Do I have the unanimous consent of the House?

Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana PossessionBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

The House resumed from June 10 consideration of the motion that Bill C-15, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures, be read the third time and passed.

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1.Government Orders

6:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

It being 6:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division of the motion at third reading stage of Bill C-15.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #87

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1.Government Orders

6:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed)

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1.Government Orders

6:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

Colleagues, I think it is notable that tonight was the first time calling the vote for Clerk Jeremy LeBlanc.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

SeniorsAdjournment Proceedings

6:45 p.m.

Conservative

Mark Warawa Conservative Langley—Aldergrove, BC

Mr. Speaker, on April 13, I asked the Prime Minister why he has not yet appointed a minister for seniors. This is a very important question because one in six Canadians is a senior. There are already more seniors in Canada than youth. In 13 short years, one in four Canadians will be a senior. It is extremely important that our country is prepared for this critical change in Canada. We need the federal government to make this one of its highest priorities. We need the Prime Minister to appoint a minister for seniors, and we need a national seniors strategy.

Unfortunately, we have a federal government now that is playing politics with seniors. The Prime Minister has appointed a minister for youth, himself; a minister for families, children, and social development; but not a minister for seniors.

In the last Parliament there was a minister for seniors, but this government thinks that some Canadians are more important than others, that youth, families, and children are more important than seniors.

The minister of families admitted at committee that the Liberals will not appoint a minister for seniors because they believe ministers for groups of people are only good for photo ops. Why does the minister think that seniors are only good for photo ops? Why does the minister think that the ministries of youth and families are only good for photo ops?

Canadian seniors built this great country and continue to have a very positive impact. They make important contributions to families, workplaces, and communities. As the official opposition critic for seniors, I have met with many seniors across Canada. They are very concerned with the approach the government is taking. Time and again I am told the Prime Minister should appoint a minister for seniors, just like the previous government did. They also ask for the government to create a national strategy for seniors.

I recently attended a round table with seniors in my riding of Langley—Aldergrove. They requested two things, a national seniors strategy and a minister for seniors.

An organization called 411 Seniors Centre Society wrote to the Prime Minister recently, highlighting the many unique needs of seniors and how concerned its members are that there is no minister for seniors. The letter reads, “We discovered that six ministers have mandates to address specific issues related to seniors. A further seven ministers will be dealing with matters which, while not addressing seniors specifically, will have implications for us. We are concerned that these arrangements carry the potential for fragmentation and even contradiction. Instead, we ask that you act to ensure a focused, coordinated, and comprehensive approach to policy and programs addressing seniors' issues. Our preference would be that you appoint a minister responsible for seniors to coordinate and monitor progress.”

Canadian seniors are very concerned with the government's broken promises. However, it is never too late to do the right thing. I encourage the government to keep the promises it made, respect all Canadians equally, and work constructively with all members of Parliament. I ask the government to appoint a minister for seniors and to work with us on a national seniors strategy.

SeniorsAdjournment Proceedings

6:45 p.m.

Winnipeg South Manitoba

Liberal

Terry Duguid LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for the opportunity to reiterate this government's commitment to seniors and to highlight once again the concrete measures in our first budget to support Canadians who have earned the right to a secure and dignified retirement, our seniors.

We on this side of the House value the contributions that older Canadians have made and continue to make to our communities, workplaces, and families. We are taking concrete steps to support this important component of Canadian families and Canadian society. One of the first measures that this government initiated when it came to office was to cancel the previous government's plan to raise the age of eligibility for old age security benefits from 65 to 67. Without these benefits, seniors aged 65 and 66 would have faced a much higher risk of living in poverty, and that is not acceptable.

The 20% of people aged 65 and 66 with the lowest income would have lost 35% of their income with that measure, while the 20% with the higher income would only have lost 5%. It is not fair. In addition, the previous government had not been able to produce proof showing that their irresponsible move was based on sound economic research. In fact, the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development researched this very issue as a leading university professor of economics and demonstrated that the current system was viable. He also stated in the House that his findings contributed to his decision to seek public office prior to the last election. As a consequence, I am very proud to serve with the minister in the House.

Under the previous government's plan, the most vulnerable Canadian seniors would have lost approximately $13,000 per year. The plan would have plunged 100,000 seniors into poverty. As a percentage of Canada's GDP, the estimated cost of restoring the age of eligibility to 65 represents an increase of less than a third of a percentage point in old age security expenditure in 2029.

Next, this government is increasing the guaranteed income supplement top-up benefit by $947 annually for the most vulnerable single seniors, many of whom are women. This action represents a 10% increase to the total maximum guaranteed income supplement benefits available to the lowest-income single seniors. It will improve the financial security of about 900,000 single seniors across Canada and help to lift thousands of seniors out of poverty. We are also moving ahead with concrete actions to ensure that couples living apart for reasons beyond their control, such as being in long-term care facilities, will receive higher benefits based on their individual incomes.

Most of the measures that I have just enumerated are contained in Bill C-15, the budget implementation act. I would encourage members from across the way to join with this government and support this important piece of legislation for seniors, the middle class, children, and all Canadians. It is not about a title, it is about the substance of the actions that are being taken and the real difference these actions will make in the lives of older Canadians now and in the future.

On behalf of the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development, the minister responsible for seniors' issues, I am proud to say that we are delivering on the promises we made to Canada's seniors.

SeniorsAdjournment Proceedings

6:50 p.m.

Conservative

Mark Warawa Conservative Langley—Aldergrove, BC

Mr. Speaker, I am going to put down my prepared text and would ask my colleague to do the same thing.

The question is very simple. What Canadians want is a minister for seniors and a national seniors strategy. That is what they are asking for across this country and, unfortunately, the member did not address that at all. I have put down my prepared text and I am going to ask him to speak from the heart and honestly tell the House why the government is refusing to appoint a minister for seniors.

I will repeat the question. Why is the government not appointing a minister for seniors? That is the question Canadian seniors want answered. They do not want him to talk about other things. Why are the Liberals not appointing a minister for seniors?