Debates of May 30th, 2017

Extension of Sitting Hours

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, we are not asking for more supply days. If we are extending the days for government business, then why can we not extend the hours for the opposition supply days?

We are willing to do that. We are willing to work hard to try to do whatever it is that the government is trying to do and pass that legislative agenda that it is trying to put forth. We all agree that we should be working hard and doing what we have to do. We should be working around the clock if that is what we need to do. I am willing to do it and I am here, so let us do it.

We disagreed because again the government said it would like to work with the opposition parties and consider the amendments, but it is not considering simple common sense amendments to just allow the opposition supply days to be longer in extended sittings, the same as government business.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I certainly agree with my colleague's characterization of the reason we are having this debate at all. The need to extend hours is a result of the Liberal House leader not managing the file well and not working co-operatively with the opposition to bring matters of public interest forward.

However, this is just a funny time, because this very same tactic was used by the Harper Conservative government as well. I understand, although I was not in that Parliament, that often the Conservative government did not even show up for the debate at night. It was just an extension of time and it was frustrating for all of us to watch.

The NDP moved amendments at that time, trying to protect the opposition's powers in those extended hours, but the Conservatives opposed that motion.

How does the member feel about the irony of this debate?

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, I wish I had been here in the last Parliament. I wish I had had the privilege of being able to see what the amendments were. She is asking me to comment on something I have not seen. I was not part of that Parliament.

However, I would like to again talk about the government pointing fingers at the opposition for dragging its feet and moving dilatory motions. I would offer to my colleague from the NDP that at this point we seem to be some of the last voices standing up for Canadians. Pointing fingers and bringing up things that happened in the past is what we have heard the government doing. The Liberals are blaming the Conservatives for what was done when we were in power, so they think it is okay for them to do it. I think that is the wrong thing to do.

We should be looking forward. The Liberals are in power now. For true leadership, it is their responsibility to do whatever they can to give voices to Canadians and to make sure they are protecting the voices of Canadians.

[Pat Finnigan, Liberal, Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB]

Madam Speaker, when considering whether to allocate additional time in the House for debate, it is important to consider the significance of the legislation being debated.

Bill C-45 is important legislation that proposes to legalize, strictly regulate, and restrict access to cannabis. Despite decades of criminal prohibition, Canadians continue to use cannabis. In fact, Canadians have some of the highest rates in the world.

Currently, cannabis is grown and sold illegally, generating profits for criminals and organized crime with no concern for public health or safety. The current approach to cannabis is not working. Scientific evidence shows greater risks associated with cannabis use for youth than for adults. Moreover, risks are greater the younger a person starts using cannabis and the more often they use it.

The objective of the legislation is intended to delay the first use of cannabis and reduce the frequency of use. A sustained education and information campaign is also part of the approach. The bill would also impose serious criminal penalties for providing cannabis to young people or enlisting them in committing cannabis-related offences.

The bill is also about creating a legal and regulated market for cannabis, taking profits out of the hands of criminals and protecting public health through strict product requirements for safety and quality. The key components of our government's approach are first, protect youth; second, education and public awareness; third, product safety and quality controls; and fourth, goals and responsibility and implementation.

Let us begin with protecting youth.

We know that too many youth have easy access to cannabis. In fact, during the task force on cannabis legalization and regulation consultations nation-wide, a trend became clear: how easy it was for young people to obtain cannabis.

Young people are at the heart of the government's strategy to regulate cannabis and restrict access to it for three reasons.

First, there are risks associated with the use of cannabis. Even though some people use it for medical purposes, it can still be harmful to a person's health.

Second, young people are particularly vulnerable to the effects of cannabis on the development of the brain and brain function because their brains are still developing.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The hon. member for Beloeil—Chambly on a point of order.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's enthusiasm on this subject. However, if I am not mistaken, he is talking about Bill C-45, which is on the agenda for later this evening. Right now, we are talking about Motion No. 14.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Does the hon. member for Winnipeg North wish to respond?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure you will find that the member is relevant. Part of the case being made here is that we need to have the extended sitting hours so we can ensure there is a thorough debate on a wide spectrum of legislation. My colleague is making reference to one of that legislation. It is the same as when the government House leader introduced the issue. She made reference to various legislation. All my colleague is doing is making reference to a bill that was brought forward earlier today.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I think this was an honest mistake. The member was simply reading the wrong script that was provided to him by the PMO. If he flips a couple of pages, I am sure he would get to the appropriate speech for this debate.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

One of the things we do quite often is allow latitude, and I have said this often. I have sat here and unlike members in the chamber, I do not have the luxury of walking away when I do not necessarily enjoy what is being said, but often I will listen to the speech. It is interesting how individual members will take a speech, wrap around and come back to make their point and make it relevant.

I will give the hon. member the benefit to finish his speech and we will see where it goes. I thank all members for bring this up.

[Pat Finnigan, Liberal, Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB]

Mr. Speaker, this is exactly why we want to extend the hours, so we can pass the bills that are urgently needed to push our agenda forward.

At the same time, adults must have access to clear and objective information in order to make informed decisions about their consumption.

Therefore, the legislation would permit only information-type promotion. This means it would allow factual, accurate information about cannabis products, such as the ingredients and THC levels. Information allowing consumers to differentiate brands would also be permitted, provided it could not be seen by youth. Penalties for violating these prohibitions would include a fine of up to $5 million, or three years in jail, or both.

When it comes to enforcement, the bill seeks to avoid criminalizing youth and subjecting them to the lifelong consequence of criminal records. To this end, I should note three points.

First, individuals under the age of 18 would not face criminal prosecution for possessing or sharing very small amounts of cannabis, up to five grams.

Second, violation of the proposed legislation by youth would be subject to the Youth Criminal Justice Act and addressed in the youth justice system.

Third, provinces and territories would have the flexibility to prohibit the possession of any amount of cannabis by youth, thereby permitting police to seize any cannabis youth have in their possession.

I will move on to education and public awareness.

I will move on to education and public awareness. We know that Canadians need information about cannabis. We have to talk about it with our children, make informed and responsible decisions, and ensure that our roads are safe. That was the very clear message that our government heard thanks to the working group's consultations. We have a plan to address the situation.

In budget 2017, our government committed $9.6 million to a public education and awareness campaign to inform Canadians, particularly young people, of the risks of cannabis use and for health surveillance activities. This campaign has begun and will continue over the next five years. In collaboration with the provinces and territories, the campaign will raise public awareness about the risks associated with cannabis use and monitor the impacts of providing strictly controlled access.

To do this, we have launched the Canadian cannabis survey. This annual survey includes detailed questions on how often and how much Canadians use cannabis, how they acquire it, and whether they consume it with other substances before driving.

I will now talk about product safety and quality requirements.

Adults would also be able to legally access cannabis through one of three mechanisms. They could purchase it from a provincially licensed retailer, they could share legally grown or purchased cannabis with another adult, or they could grow it themselves at home.

The sharing of cannabis would be limited to no more than 30 grams of dried cannabis, or its equivalent, and personal cultivation—

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I appreciate the latitude you are allowing in this debate, but I do not hear anything about the current bill being debated. I do not know how much latitude needs to be given before we get back to the original bill about which we are talking.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is not legislation being debated, per se. We are talking about the need to extend hours so we can debate a series of legislation, whether it is the budget or what the member is talking about. The issue of cannabis is of great importance. We want more members to be able debate it. My colleague is bringing to the floor the issue of extending hours. It is up to the member as to how he justifies the extension of hours. He has obviously chosen to emphasize a particular issue to justify the extension, and we should hear him out. The last time the member stood, he referenced extending the sitting hours. It is up to the member whether he focuses more attention on why we need to extend the hours.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I am afraid I will have to side with the hon. member for Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner. I have been listening intently to the speech and not a lot has pertained to Motion No. 14. On the other hand, I am sure the hon. member will have the opportunity. He still has 10 minutes to bring it around to the topic at hand.

The hon. member for Miramichi—Grand Lake.

[Pat Finnigan, Liberal, Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I can certainly expand my speech. We can talk about the budget implementation bill. We can talk about the tax break that has been announced, and all the infrastructure projects we have. This is along with all the economic opportunities this will create.

I am certainly happy to expand on those fronts. This legislation is not only about the right thing to do, but it is about the business of it and our budget, which will help to deliver the promises we have made to all Canadians.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Historic investments.

[Pat Finnigan, Liberal, Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB]

Absolutely.

We will be using the authorized production system in place as the plan of action to control cannabis production under the proposed cannabis legislation.

Over the coming weeks, Health Canada will introduce changes to its program overseeing the medical cannabis industry to accelerate the licensing of—

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was a staffer in a former life. Sometimes I delivered the wrong speech to my former boss. If you ask the member, I think this is what has happened in this case. He is reading the speech on Bill C-45 and not on what we are to be debating.

I wonder if you, Mr. Speaker, can rule on this.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I thank the member for bringing that up, but I am afraid I am going to have to leave that to the hon. member for Miramichi—Grand Lake. I will let him continue.

[Pat Finnigan, Liberal, Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB]

Mr. Speaker, again, this is more than just about the cannabis speech. It is about our budget. It is about passing legislation that needs to be passed to move along our agenda. This is part of it.

Over the coming weeks, Health Canada will introduce changes to its program overseeing the medical cannabis industry to accelerate the licensing of producers and enable the industry to meet an increased demand for cannabis. This is a great economic generator. We have two examples in my home province. A lot of businesses are excited about this. It is about taking money out of the hands of criminals and putting it into the government's coffers. It will help with the budget.

The existing rules surrounding product safety, good production practices, and restrictions on which pesticides may be used will remain in place. Health Canada will continue to inspect producers and enforce the regime. I can talk about that because I am a producer myself, not of cannabis but of other crops. Being a certified grower, we want to ensure that no pesticides or foreign substances enter the product. The example of organic production is certainly applicable with this bill.

As I already mentioned, the proposed cannabis law would establish a rigorous national framework to limit the production, distribution, sale, and possession of cannabis in Canada.

All levels of government in Canada would be able to—

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As a member of the third party, and it is not something I like to brag about, we have fewer speaking spots. We can look at the fact that a closure motion was presented on Motion No. 14. There are no more New Democrats speaking tonight, so if the member is going to skip ahead to the business that is going to take place later with Bill C-45, perhaps he could sit down and allow others to speak, those who wish to talk about the important work we do here, which is part of Motion No. 14, the extended sitting hours, and other pieces of procedural rules.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Once again, I am sure the hon. member will bring it around to Motion No. 14. I am trusting that his judgment will bring him back to the order we are discussing.

[Pat Finnigan, Liberal, Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I will certainly conclude at this time, but this is an example of what we need to discuss. This is an important topic for all Canadians. We will get back to it of course, but I am anxious to have the members opposite give their views. This is why we need to extend the hours: to pass the important legislation that Canadians want us to pass.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the member's speech. It seemed to be on Bill C-45, the marijuana bill. He talked a little about the budget implementation bill, but I thought we were debating the extension of sitting hours. Perhaps I will ask a question on that since that seems to be what we are debating.

My question is fairly simple. Why is it that the Liberal Party is so intent on all of a sudden ramming legislation through the House after having such a lax legislative agenda thus far, sending it off to the other place where they amend it and send it back our way? Why do we not just take the due diligence here and actually accept opposition amendments, rather than sending it to the other place and having them amend it and send it back here?

[Pat Finnigan, Liberal, Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB]

Mr. Speaker, we do have an aggressive agenda. We want to pass this legislation. My colleague just expressed why we are having to extend the hours. It is because of all the delays we have experienced over the past couple of months.

Canadians want us to get to work. We want to work until we have this legislation passed. I hope the other side will also sit with us and pass this important legislation.