Andy Fillmore

[Canada Elections Act, June 8th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for St. John's East for his dedication and hard work on this file.

The new BFFs on this side of the House have been labouring mightily to fabricate concerns around these fundraisers really under two headings as I can see. First, the member for St. John's East dispensed with it quite handily, and that was the inability of funds in the amount of $1,550 to influence any reasonable member of Parliament. That could never happen of course. That leaves what must be the secondary concern, which would be what is discussed at these events, with whom, and how that might give influence to decisions down the line.

I wonder if the member took note that on Tuesday, June 6, Kady O'Malley wrote, “When you get down to it, the prospect of publicly available invite lists should have a wonderfully clarifying effect on the judgment of any minister--or ministerial staffer...in deciding which events might cross the line and create at least the perception of a conflict of interest.”

Would the member agree with her conclusion that this would mollify any concerns about undue influence of deep-pocketed donors?

[Canada Elections Act, June 8th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I must say I find myself unsettled this evening by the creeping and insidious appearance of a tone of sanctimony in some of the comments coming from the other side of the House, particularly with regard to fundraising events and how tickets are purchased. Of course, the rules that apply now applied during the previous government's tenure as well, and nothing has changed there.

Could the hon. member perhaps explain to the House how the appreciation events that were often held for high-dollar donors worked under the previous Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government, how people bought tickets for those events, and how they were rewarded for those investments? We would be very interested to hear about that.

[Cannabis Act, June 6th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, members from across the country will have heard stories in their own ridings about young people who thought they were buying an innocent amount of marijuana of a quality that could be trusted, and instead found themselves in an emergency room because they did not know or understand what was in that product.

I thank the member for Malpeque for highlighting that. This is all about knowing what it is that is being purchased.

[Cannabis Act, June 6th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, there is very excellent Wi-Fi in the House here, and you could give it a try.

What the task force heard across the country was very clear. The concerns were around the health and safety implications to our children of ingesting adulterated cannabis, and then the very harsh and draconian, very old-fashioned and outdated punishments and criminal records that accompany possession at this point. Those, combined with getting the guns off the streets and the profits out of criminals' hands, are the biggest issues we are facing right now.

We have heard the hon. minister and the parliamentary secretary speak, saying that the law is the law until we change the law, and we must proceed in an orderly and predictable way with our provincial partners through this process, and we will get there eventually, but for now the law is the law until we change it.

[Cannabis Act, June 6th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member opposite for the question and his keen interest in this file as we move to improve the situation for all Canadian families and communities.

The illegal drug trade flourishes through the use of the plastic bags that the member refers to, and that is precisely what we are aiming to change through this regulation, so that the sale and provision of cannabis is done in a very safe, regulated way, where the crime is transferred from the person holding the legal amount of cannabis to the person selling the cannabis illegally.

[Cannabis Act, June 6th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I am rising today to speak to Bill C-45. I am honoured to contribute to the very thoughtful discussions that we have been having in this place and indeed beyond the House about the legalization and regulation of cannabis. I want to thank all of my colleagues for sharing their perspectives on how we can best regulate cannabis to foster healthy and safe communities across this country.

Underneath this debate there are many unifying themes. We are united by a common desire to protect Canadian youth, to uphold public health, and to ensure that cannabis profits are not fuelling organized crime or other threats to public safety. A similar desire is visible outside of the House. Canadians are ready to move toward an approach to cannabis that prioritizes public health and safety, especially for our children.

The current model has not achieved that goal. As we know, an illegal cannabis market is all too much a reality in Canada. We agree with Canadians that the status quo is not working for our families and for our communities. Now it is time to look to the future and ask seriously how we are going to make the positive changes that these families and communities deserve.

Bill C-45 does just that. Through Bill C-45 we are entering a new era where our approach to cannabis enshrines public health and safety. The proposed legislation is underpinned by cautious, evidence-based decision-making to ensure that we take the necessary steps to protect our families and communities.

This government has demonstrated its commitment to evidence-based decision-making across diverse policies and cannabis is no exception. Throughout the process of creating the legislation we have listened to evidence from across the country and in June 2016, our government launched the task force on cannabis legalization and regulation. Above all else, I want to sincerely thank the task force members for their incredible and diligent work on this topic.

The tireless members of the task force and their chair, the hon. Anne McLellan, crossed the country to consult Canadians. They spoke with provincial, territorial, and municipal governments. They spoke with indigenous governments and representative organizations. They spoke with diverse people across Canadian civil society including experts, patients, advocates, youth, employers, and industry experts. That is only the in-person discussions.

The task force also reviewed an amazing 30,000 submissions. Throughout these discussions, the task force developed a rich perspective on how we can best design a new legislative and regulatory framework for legal access to cannabis. The result was an extensive report with far-reaching and detailed recommendations, which was released in December 2016. I am proud that our proposed legislative and regulatory system was informed by and closely aligned with these in-depth recommendations, recommendations that are the product of broad public conversations.

Bill C-45 seeks to ensure that Canadians have the information they need to make evidence-based decisions in their own lives. Through public awareness and education, we can cultivate a culture that is more conscious of cannabis's effects.

I want to reinforce the importance of public awareness and education with a question. What happens when we Google cannabis? The same thing that happens when we Google many other things. A deluge of information appears. Some of it is true. Some of it is not, and it can be incredibly dangerous when that false information informs Canadians' decisions around cannabis use.

The Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse released a study in January 2017 called “Canadian Youth Perceptions on Cannabis”. This study questioned how youth form their understandings of cannabis. In their research, the CCSA found that youth receive most of their information about cannabis from, not surprisingly, friends, peers, the media, and to some extent from their families. The CCSA also found that participants appeared to struggle with critically evaluating the mass of information online and in the media. Amidst the glut of information on cannabis, this study found it is challenging to pick out which conclusions are valid and which are highly biased.

Why is this alarming? These perceptions of cannabis are shaping Canadians' choices around cannabis across the country. Misinformation can lead to dangerous choices. We need to question how we can encourage our youth to make safe decisions around cannabis. I am excited that the proposed legislation works towards this goal through two complementary foci, public education and protecting our youth.

Public education on the harms and risks associated with cannabis will be guided by our evidence-based approach. We will monitor patterns and perceptions around cannabis use, particularly those held by Canadian youth, through an annual Canadian cannabis survey. This information will be crucial to informing our public education and awareness activities, allowing us to more effectively reach out to Canadians. What is more, the survey findings will enable us to mitigate the risks and harms of use associated with cannabis. That is the power of evidence-based decision-making.

Budget 2017 reflects our commitment to public education and awareness around cannabis. In the budget, our government committed $9.6 million over five years to a comprehensive public education awareness campaign as well as to surveillance activities. This campaign will ensure that all Canadians, including youth, understand the risks and harms of cannabis use. This is a crucial step toward safe and healthy communities.

When it comes to protecting youth, the framework we have right now is not working. We have all heard the numbers, but they need to be repeated. Statistics show that youth and young adults are the highest users of cannabis in Canada. Twenty-one per cent of our youth and 30% of young adults in our country used cannabis in 2015 alone. To put these numbers in a global perspective, Canada has the highest rate of youth cannabis use in the world. These numbers are a reminder to everyone why this legislation needs to move forward.

Bill C-45 would take strong action to protect Canadian youth. Under the proposed legislation, selling or providing cannabis to youth would be met with serious criminal penalties. What is more, new offences and strict penalties will be established for those who use youth to commit a cannabis-related offence.

The proposed act would also take steps to ensure that law enforcement will be able to focus on working to ensure that cannabis stays out of the hands of Canada's youth.

In addition to these crucial measures to protect youth, the proposed cannabis act would also work to change how cannabis is perceived and assessed. We spoke about the impact of perceptions of cannabis among Canadian youth. The proposed act would address these questions by prohibiting any products, promotion, packaging, or labelling that could be appealing to youth. Similar to the Tobacco Act, this is an important means of ensuring that marketing campaigns are not targeting youth.

Canada's youth are our future. As we stand at Canada's 150th year since Confederation, we need to look at the future and ask, “How can we best support young Canadians?” We need measures like Bill C-45 to create a safe environment for Canada's youth so that this next generation of leaders can flourish.

To protect Canadians, a pillar of Bill C-45 is public health. This legislation will take two fundamental steps to create a regulatory regime that will enshrine public health and safety.

First, we will set rules for adults to access quality-controlled cannabis. I mentioned the importance of increasing awareness and information about cannabis. However, it is key that this information be rolled out in parallel to a comprehensive regulatory regime. These strict quality controls would ensure that Canadians know what they are buying. We need to monitor product quality to minimize risks to Canadians' health and safety.

Second, we will establish a new, tightly regulated supply chain. Through this regulated supply chain, we can take profits out of illegal markets and away from organized crime. Bill C-45 would bring in serious criminal penalties for those who operate outside the legal market. Together, these measures will foster public safety for Canadian families and communities.

I am privileged to have a strong working relationship with the law enforcement community in my own riding, including with the Halifax Regional Police. In fact, on a Saturday night just last month, I had the opportunity to do a ride-along with the commander of the night watch. I saw first-hand that team's commitment to protecting our communities and ensuring our neighbourhoods are safe for everyone. That night I learned that the illegal guns and gun violence on the streets of my city are there because of drug deals, and it is the same across this country. Taking profits from illegal cannabis sales out of criminal organizations is the best way to further the goal of getting guns off the streets and to complement the ongoing efforts of our tireless law enforcement officers.

It is also important to note that under the new act, the program for access to cannabis for medical purposes will continue. Researchers are continuing to explore the medical effects of cannabis use. Dr. Jason McDougall at Dalhousie University in Halifax received a grant from The Arthritis Society to study how cannabis compounds can be used to manage arthritis pain. Bill C-45 would maintain the program that allows access to cannabis for medical purposes, which reflects the task force's recommendation to maintain a separate medical access framework to support patients.

Finally, after listening to Canadians and experts across the country, this government has taken an evidence-based approach to move toward a new regulatory regime. I deeply admire the extensive work that has been done to ensure that we introduce comprehensive legislation that puts Canadians' health and safety first.

[Committees of the House, May 30th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, thanks to the member opposite for his thoughtful and studied devotion to this topic over a long period of time.

The member asserted in his interpretation that there was in fact consensus around the idea of a referendum in the special committee's report. I am not sure how that squares with the minority dissenting report from the NDP, which is against having a referendum. That does not sound like consensus to me.

Canada is a vast country spanning over 6,000 kilometres, and constituents value the direct connection they have with their members of Parliament. They put them into office and are able to communicate with them. I wonder if the member could help me to understand why he believes it is a good idea to replace that in part with a system whereby political parties would pick members for certain geographic regions.

[Committees of the House, May 30th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, the member has hit exactly on the areas in which there was great consensus through our public engagement process over the last year or so. Those are things like removing barriers to traditionally marginalized voters so they can get to the ballot box, through our work with Bill C-33. It includes efforts to engage youth into our political process through things like the pre-voter registration, a proactive analysis of cyber-threats to our democratic institutions and voting systems, making changes to make our political fundraising more open and transparent and reintroducing the voter identification card. It also improves large-scale efforts by allowing the Chief Electoral Officer to engage in education efforts for all Canadians.

[Committees of the House, May 30th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, of course I would never, and have never, disparaged the work of the committee or any Canadian who has participated. I know everyone would agree with that. There is nothing in what I said that would suggest otherwise.

The committee report made the statement that no electoral system was perfect. From expert witness testimonies, no clear preference for a way forward emerged.

I do not understand how we could possibly move forward credibly and responsibly unless there were a greater mandate to do so.

[Committees of the House, May 30th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I understand that it can be very politically tempting to attribute various other reasons to the decision of the government not to proceed with electoral reform, but the fundamental truth is that there was no clear consensus. We worked very hard to hear from as many Canadians as we could. I will just put a number to this. In the most inclusive and generous estimate, the number of Canadians who were involved in this consultation was a little less than 1%. That is a little less than 2% of the 17.5 million people who cast a vote in 2015. It is simply not responsible, nor is it the right choice, to move ahead with a change of this magnitude with so few people weighing in. Again, within that 2% of the people who voted in 2015, there was no consensus on which system to move ahead with, nor does the report suggest a specific system.