Debates of June 6th, 2017

Bill C-45—Time Allocation Motion

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to answer this question with respect to our objectives around the legalization of cannabis, its strict regulation, and restricting its access to achieve the objectives of keeping it out of the hands of children and the proceeds out of the hands of criminals. In proceeding this way, we are recognizing that the status quo is simply not working.

We are working very diligently. We are working with our counterparts in the provinces and territories with respect to this federal legislation to ensure we are mindful and leave space for the provinces to regulate and restrict access in accordance with the needs of their jurisdiction and to provide a minimum framework for how one can access cannabis legally in our country.

This is a complex issue. That is why we have been working very diligently over the last 18 months to ensure we can meet the deadline of July 2018.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as a Conservative member of the opposition, I guess I should be glad that this is the most ineffective majority government in the history of Canada's Parliament. It has only passed 19 pieces of legislation. To do that, it has introduced closure 23 times, more than it has passed, and here we are again. The minister should be embarrassed that she is stifling debate on such a transformative bill.

The government is failing public health. The CMA is critical of what the government is rushing into. It is failing our provincial partners. Quebec has told it to slow down. It is failing public safety. Chiefs of police and Attorneys General are saying that there is no test for roadside impairment.

The government is failing public safety, public health, and stifling debate on all subjects.

When provinces, physicians, and Canadians are complaining, how can the minister stand before the House and say that the government is limiting debate and that it is over?

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my hon. colleague across the way talking about how transformative this is. This is necessary to ensure we move beyond the status quo, which simply is not working. It is easier for a young person to get a joint than it is to get a bottle of beer or access to cigarettes. This is why we are moving forward in a comprehensive, concerted manner.

We have spoken with the CMA. I have spoken with the Attorneys General across the country. We have spoken with chiefs of police. We are ensuring that we continue to have these conversations, not only based on the task force report and its recommendations, but also, and underscore, by taking a substantive approach to impaired driving. There is news. We do have tools that will detect, on the roadside, drug impaired driving, We certainly are moving forward on alcohol-impaired driving. It was news today. I hope the member opposite reviews that news.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Justice why she thinks this is so urgent when we proposed a solution that would allow her to change the status quo. The solution is to decriminalize marijuana now so that we can take our time and carefully study the measures related to legalization.

If the minister would agree to decriminalize marijuana now rather than stubbornly insisting on passing the legislation to legalize it right away, we could take the time we need to find a common-sense way of legalizing marijuana. Instead, the minister is preventing members from expressing their views. There is a solution that would allow us to take our time and allow police officers to take action on cases of marijuana possession without clogging up our court system.

Why is she being so stubborn and imposing time allocation motions?

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, to answer the question around why we do not simply decriminalize, to simply decriminalize right now, absent a comprehensive regulatory framework, will not achieve the objectives we are seeking to achieve with the legalization of cannabis. We need to have a regulatory framework in place. This is how and why we are moving forward as quickly as we can, because the status quo simply is not working.

We need to ensure we work in a collaborate way with the provinces and territories, and we are, so when cannabis is legalized, there is a strict regulatory framework and restricted access in order to keep it out of the hands of kids and the proceeds out of the hands of criminals.

I hope all members in the House will continue to have these debates at committee as the bill continues to proceed through the parliamentary process.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I really do not get the Liberals' rationale whatsoever on this. I just heard one Liberal member of Parliament say that the highest consumption of cannabis in the world was in Canada. Does he think it will go down once we legalize this, that we will get some statistics, that everybody will say to forget it, that now that it is legal they will not use it. I do not think we will see this, but this is part of the rationale.

The other thing the Liberals keep telling us is that they are doing it to protect children. The minister must have heard the same thing people have said to me. Could there be any greater access for children than to have four three-foot plants in one's kitchen, have a mini grow-op in one's house, and somehow we are protecting children? Surely she has had that same criticism directed toward this legislation. This is why we are so vehement in our opposition to it.

Has she heard what people say? Children will get it if it is growing in the kitchen?

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, children are getting it right now in massive quantities. Canada has the highest number of young people smoking cannabis.

We are seeking to legalize cannabis, strictly regulate it, and restrict access. There is nothing in the legislation that provides legal access to young people.

The purpose of the legislation is to ensure we keep it out of the hands of kids and the proceeds out of the hands of criminals. We took many recommendations from the task forces with respect to the cannabis act. One of those recommendations was to have the four plants at home for possible home growth.

It is incumbent upon the adults in those houses to do what they do with alcohol or prescription drugs, to put limits around that to ensure that the children who may live in the house do not have access to it, much like they do with alcohol and prescription drugs.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I guess the good news for the minister is that when she has finished with politics, she will certainly have a career in stand-up comedy. If we look at the premise she is trying to explain to the House, she is saying that the status quo is not working, that we have the highest rates.

Statistics Canada says that between 2002 and 2012, the number of 15- to 17-year-olds reported to having used marijuana went from 40% to 25%. From 18- to 24-year-olds, it went from 62% to 54%. The number of 15- to 17-year-olds who reported having used marijuana the previous 12 months dropped about 30% over the same time.

The minister has heard the arguments how in other jurisdictions it has actually gone up when it has been legalized. Why should Canadians believe her over Stats Canada? This is not a joke.

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this not a laughing matter. I would ask my friend opposite to read the report of the task force on cannabis. The reality is that, right now, Canada has the highest rates of young people using cannabis, and the reason we want to move forward with the legalization of cannabis is to strictly regulate and restrict access to cannabis. This is entirely important. I would expect that all hon. members would look at the task force report and at the substantive recommendations to ensure that we actually put in place a regulatory framework to achieve those objectives. The status quo simply is not working.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am really enjoying this debate. I cannot wait until we actually get to the debate of the time allocation. I very much support this bill. In fact, I ran for office back in 2004 with a number of my colleagues, and I remember that Jack Layton was way out in front on this, and I am glad to see this finally coming to this House.

My concern is with the other place. I am just wondering if the minister has a strategy for getting this bill through the other place, because it is a little uncertain over there, and I certainly would not want to see this die before it becomes law.

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly thank my hon. colleague across the way for the support for this important piece of legislation. I recognize that there have been advocates for this legislation for a great deal of time.

As with all bills that I have and that our government has, we will work very diligently to ensure we speak to as many if not all people in the other place to ensure that we can dispel myths and explain the various provisions of this very long bill to provide technical updates and background to them to ensure that the bill can proceed through the other place as quickly as possible and that we have a legalized regime and move forward with strict regulation.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the minister will know that I am unique on this side of the House in being a long-time advocate of marijuana legalization, a position I have held since the beginning of my political career some 17 years ago. I am, however, finding it difficult to reconcile some of the arguments made in favour of the government's legalization plan.

The government argues that legalizing marijuana would have the effect of taking the sales of marijuana out of the hands of organized crime, something that would happen if the price of legally available marijuana were below that of marijuana that is being sold illegally. If the price is too high, then, as with cigarettes in Ontario and Quebec, the illegal market will continue. Therefore, we lower the price.

I fail to see how lowering the price is going to lower the amount of marijuana being consumed, which is the second argument I am making. The two simply do not go together.

While it may make sense to create a legal market and to lower the price, making the argument that if the government does that it will somehow keep marijuana out of the hands of Canadians in general and young Canadians in particular is not merely unproved, but it goes against the laws of economics in which, when the price goes down, the amount consumed tends to go up, all things considered. Could the minister explain how she is contradicting the rules of economics here?

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the support of my hon. colleague across the way for this piece of legislation.

There is a lot of work we need to do and continue to do in ensuring that we work with the provinces and territories around a complex regime from seed to sale in fixing a price to ensure that we can achieve our objectives of eliminating the organized crime or the illegal market and setting the price that is appropriate to ensure that we go about doing that. We need to continue to work with the provinces and territories to put in place the regime around sale and distribution to ensure that we achieve the objectives of restricting it and keeping it out of the hands of kids. These are legitimate questions that are going to have to be discussed on an ongoing basis, in terms of how they will be reflected and what price would be set in the various jurisdictions we are dealing with.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it could be a monumental shift. Right now it is a monumental mess.

If you are going to do something, you should at least do it right, as they did in Europe and in certain U.S. states. The Liberal hypocrisy has meant saddling our youth with criminal records for the past year and half, when the Liberals led them to believe that it was already legal.

The Liberal hypocrisy means not consulting the provinces and not listening to the psychiatric association, which is concerned about the legal age for purchasing the drug. Now the Liberals have imposed a gag order, preventing us from having a reasonable debate on this issue. If you are going to do something, then at least do it right.

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would submit that we are doing it properly. We have been very open and clear about our objectives around legalization of cannabis, strict regulation, and restricting access to it in order to keep it out of the hands of kids and the proceeds out of the hands of criminals. In doing so and in moving forward in a responsible way, we struck a substantive task force of eight eminently qualified people that travelled the country, went to jurisdictions not only within Canada but throughout the world to get feedback and look at best practices, in order to provide us with 80 substantive recommendations, many of which formed the basis of Bill C-45. I very much recommend that all members in this House read that task force report, if they have not already, and continue to engage in the discussions at committee, where we will hear from more experts and more Canadians.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, let me first of all say this is an absolute joke. This is an absolute outrage that this government is ramming down the throats of this Parliament and shutting down debate on a bill that is more than 140 pages, with hundreds of paragraphs, that is monumentally going to change the law in Canada.

Be it as it may, I want to ask the Minister of Justice a question about one of the objectives of the bill. The government says it wants to strictly control and regulate the sale, production, and distribution of marijuana, yet in the bill is an allowance for up to four marijuana plants, which is going to increase the risk of diversion to the black market, is going to make it impossible to enforce against potency and quality controls, and is going to make it impossible for law enforcement to enforce against diversion and overproduction, which is why the chiefs of police have expressed opposition to the bill.

I was wondering, in light of that, how home grow squares with that objective.

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we want to put in place a comprehensive regime, a legal source of cannabis, so we can be assured and ensure that the source of cannabis is safe. We took recommendations from the task force around possible home grow, if somebody chooses to do that, with the limits of four plants a metre high. What we will continue to do is ensure that we work with the provinces and territories and local municipalities to put in place, or to assist them if they choose to put in place, whatever regulations they want around home grow. It may result in fewer plants than that, and what zonings they want. This is something on which we are going to continue to work with all of the provinces and territories.

This is not a joke. This is serious, and we are committed to ensuring that we proceed in a substantive manner and hear from all voices and ensure that we support all jurisdictions in moving forward in this regard.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the voices that the government should listen to is the Parliamentary Budget Office, because it did take a look at whether this was going to stay out of the hands of kids between the ages of 15 and 17. I think it would be a surprise to the minister to note that what it said is quite the opposite of what she has already said in the House today, which is that it will increase the use in 15- to 17-year-olds. The metrics it used were estimates that took into account the existing and planned policies of the federal government as defined in the task force.

Is the minister telling me, a mom of a 15-year-old, that she is guaranteeing, despite the PBO's advice, that marijuana use in the age group between 15 and 17 is going to decrease?

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the concern from the hon. member across the way.

We are moving forward with a public policy approach with respect to the legalization of cannabis, strict regulation, and restricting access. We received recommendations from eminently qualified Canadians in a task force, by way of 80 recommendations. We are going to ensure that we continue to work as a federal government with the ministers of health and public safety, and me, and with the provinces and territories to ensure we put a strict regime around the sale of cannabis to ensure it is from safe, licensed producers, and to ensure that we empower and embrace the provinces and territories to regulate even further, if that is what they choose.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith the question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House.

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

no.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.