Christine Moore

[Canada Labour Code, June 5th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the problem with EI benefits is that they are only given at the end of the pregnancy. When a woman has a job that poses a risk to her pregnancy, the beginning of the pregnancy is not included in the benefit period.

For example, if a woman who has an at-risk federally regulated job is five weeks pregnant and is unable to transfer elsewhere, she must wait until 12 weeks before the anticipated delivery date to receive employment insurance benefits. In fact, her case is taken over by the QPIP before that. In other words, she must wait for her 28th week.

However, the risks of miscarriage are greatest at the beginning of a pregnancy, so nothing is being done when the risks are greatest. That is why we must stop confusing preventive withdrawal with employment insurance, because preventive withdrawal exists to protect the pregnancy at particularly crucial times, namely at the beginning, when it is at a particularly high risk.

[Canada Labour Code, June 5th, 2017]

moved that Bill C-345, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (pregnant and nursing employees) be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to present an amended version of the bill that my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie introduced in the previous Parliament because I think this bill is very important for women's rights at work.

Many people do not understand the difference between preventive withdrawal for pregnant and nursing employees and parental leave programs. People may turn to employment insurance benefits when they are in a work situation that puts their pregnancy at risk, but preventive withdrawal is something completely different. Quebec legislation makes preventive withdrawal easier to understand.

Let me explain how it works for a Quebec worker under provincial jurisdiction to make sure everyone really understands.

When a worker feels that her work may put her pregnancy at risk, she requests a medical evaluation. If the evaluation indicates there is a risk, the worker must be reassigned to a less risky position or withdrawn from the workplace.

The priority really is to try to reassign the worker, because the employer must pay a certain amount of money if it decides to send the worker home. For instance, the employer has to pay for the first five days. When the worker can be reassigned somewhere with no risks involved, it is definitely better for the employer. This also means the worker can stay in the workplace and still remain safe.

Preventive withdrawal becomes necessary when the employer cannot adapt the workplace or the job. The woman stays home, because of the risk, and receives benefits that, in Quebec, are paid by the CSST, Quebec's workplace health and safety commission. Those benefits are paid as soon as the workplace poses a risk. For instance, if the employer cannot reassign a worker who is five weeks pregnant and whose job poses a risk to her pregnancy, she is given preventive withdrawal benefits. She can receive those benefits from the beginning of her pregnancy, thereby avoiding any harm to her fetus. I think it is important to understand this.

One important aspect of preventive withdrawal is that women are eligible from the very beginning of their pregnancy, as soon as there is a risk, unlike parental insurance programs, which only apply once the woman has reached a certain point in the pregnancy. It is important to understand that.

Under the existing legislation, if a woman with a high-risk pregnancy works in an area under federal jurisdiction or if she works in a province that does not offer benefits like the ones offered in Quebec, she is entitled to preventive withdrawal, but at her own expense. In that case, she will have no income for 20 weeks or several months. She does not have the right to benefits because her job falls under federal jurisdiction and she is not far enough along in her pregnancy to be eligible for employment insurance parental benefits.

As a result, these women end up in a situation where they have no income at all and they have to make very difficult choices regarding their pregnancy. They either have to choose to continue working, even though doing so will jeopardize their health and their pregnancy, exposing them to the risk of a miscarriage or birth defects, for example, or they can take leave and end up in a precarious financial situation where they do not have any income until they can claim EI parental benefits.

Quebeckers are very lucky when it comes to parental benefits. To be eligible, women must have earned $2,000 over the past 52 weeks. That means that most women have access to these benefits. In order to be eligible for the federal program, a woman has to have accumulated 600 hours. There is no guarantee that she will have accumulated the necessary hours, particularly if she chooses to stop working because it is too risky and she is not receiving any benefits or income during that time.

Many women are placed in a very difficult position, and there is a very simple way to fix that. The federal government could make an agreement with the provinces that have a better preventive withdrawal program for pregnant and nursing woman than it does. For example, the federal government could make an agreement with the Government of Quebec so that women in Quebec who fall under federal jurisdiction are entitled to the same benefits as every other woman in Quebec.

What benefits would these agreements provide? If every woman in a given province followed the same rules of preventive withdrawal it would make things much simpler. It would be much easier to communicate information, putting women in the same province on equal footing. That equality is especially important. It is outrageous that in a system like ours there are two classes of women depending on whether their employer falls under provincial or federal jurisdiction. That situation could be resolved through these agreements.

Under the bill, provincial legislation must to be better than Canada Labour Code provisions for federal employees. That is not so hard to achieve considering that currently under the Canada Labour Code an employee is entitled to preventive withdrawal, but at her own expense. Other provinces might choose to introduce preventive withdrawal programs and the government could enter into an agreement with those provinces.

Alberta currently has an NDP government, a progressive government, and it is in a position to choose to act on this situation. British Columbia is going to have a coalition government between the NDP and the Green Party. Again, it can choose to act on this situation. If so, the federal government could enter into an agreement to provide measures that would help all the women in those provinces.

Preventive withdrawal is about the work and not the worker. Take for example the woman who has three part-time jobs and wants preventive withdrawal. If she can continue working at two of her jobs, she will get benefits only for the job she is no longer able to do, and she can withdraw only from that job if she cannot be reassigned.

This also has an advantage when we are dealing with preventive withdrawal. In the case of parental insurance programs, when we choose to take the weeks we are entitled to earlier, while continuing to hold both jobs we are able to do, those amounts are deducted from our benefits. It is therefore not very advantageous to do that, because there will be cuts to the amounts of money, and since those weeks have been used, they cannot be recovered. It is more advantageous to take that time to rest. Where there is no preventive withdrawal associated with the work, this requires that the worker leave all her jobs, even if only one of them is problematic.

Because this is associated with the work, it is not the employee’s health that counts, it is the work, regardless of the conditions. What is done is really an analysis based on the work. The question is whether any pregnant woman would run a risk if she did that work. If the answer is yes, then an effort is made to find a solution, whether by relocating her or by paying her benefits.

This is a fairly simple bill. A few minor corrections have been made to it. There is also the addition of a report, because I think it is important that the federal government be accountable to the House, that it say what the status of the agreements is, and that it show what it has done, in concrete terms, and how things have progressed.

Because this is a bill that could help women who are under federal jurisdiction, it is important to act quickly. The choice these women have to make is entirely impossible to live with: they can go back home, with no income and no consequence for their employment, and have access to parental insurance, but only after a few months. They therefore go back home with no income. The other option is to continue working, with the risks that entails for their pregnancy and for the fetus, in order to continue to earn a living.

Obviously, when there is another person in the couple to help, the decision may be a little easier to make, but we must not forget women who are on their own to deal with their pregnancy. In those cases, we can say that they have no source of income during a crucial time, precisely when they need money to start buying things to prepare for the baby's arrival, to eat well, and to stay healthy. What we have, in both cases, is a situation where the woman’s health is in jeopardy, whether because she has no income and her status is precarious, or because her work presents a risk. This is a situation that would be impossible to live with, particularly if we consider cases where, for example, a woman might have worked for 10 years before becoming pregnant.

Mr. Speaker, I know that you cannot become pregnant, but try to put yourself in the shoes of these women. Imagine that a woman has tried for 10 years to have a baby; she finally becomes pregnant, and she discovers that she is not entitled to any benefits, when she was sure she was entitled and all her friends were entitled. In Quebec, for example, there is the CSST, the occupational health and safety commission, so the woman in question was certain she was covered, and that if there was a risk to her pregnancy, she would be eligible for benefits. Suddenly, she learns that she is not, because she under federal jurisdiction, and that if she wants preventive withdrawal, she will have to pay for it. These situations really are impossible to live with.

It would be easy for the federal government to take action. All it has to do is enter into an agreement with the provinces so that women in those provinces working under federal jurisdiction are eligible for provincial benefits. We can sort out the paperwork afterwards. Relatively few women would be affected, but the issue is important enough that action should be taken on this. About 5% of employees in a province are under federal jurisdiction. Of that 5%, about half are women. Obviously, not everyone is pregnant at the same time. The number is further reduced based on the number of women working high-risk jobs. For example, office employees who are under federal jurisdiction will not be affected, because their jobs do not involve risk. They do not need benefits for preventive withdrawal.

I will conclude by saying that I believe this is an important subject. It is time to give every woman, in every province, the same rights in matters of preventive withdrawal. It is entirely reasonable for the federal government to take action. The Prime Minister has said several times that he identifies as a feminist.

I believe this is a good bill that will initiate concrete action to help women who might find themselves in very precarious situations. I hope that we will back up our words with action and that we will try to advance the rights of women, and in particular of women in Quebec.

[Cannabis Act, June 1st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts about something that happened during the election campaign.

I was participating in a debate with young people in grades 9, 10, and 11 at a school in Notre-Dame-du-Nord. When these young people asked the familiar question of what our party would do for them, the Liberal candidate said a few words and then she added that her party planned to legalize marijuana. That is how she answered the question.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks about that answer.

[Cannabis Act, June 1st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know what my colleague thinks of how hard it is to predict the effects of cannabis on the human body. Apparently, the same dose of marijuana can affect different people very differently. In the case of someone who uses medical marijuana, it might have very little or no effect, while a young person who takes the same dose might get incredibly high.

This makes it very difficult to set blood concentration levels to establish limits for various situations because it can be very difficult to predict how different doses will affect the human body. Indeed, young people seem to be more affected than people in their 40s or 50s.

Would the member like to comment on how hard it is to predict how it affects people?

[Cannabis Act, June 1st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw on my colleague's experience in the National Assembly and ask him if there were debates about marijuana while he was there.

What are his thoughts on the burden this will place on the provinces, including Quebec?

[Cannabis Act, June 1st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question.

Had we opted for decriminalization, cannabis would not be legal, police officers could seize it, and people would be fined rather than prosecuted. Would my colleague be in favour of such a system?

Under that kind of system, marijuana would be decriminalized, but police officers could still intervene by seizing the marijuana and handing out fines.

[Cannabis Act, June 1st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I think we all make an effort to share information when people ask us questions. I recently took part in a documentary on this issue at the Abitibi-Témiscamingue CEGEP. I explained all the arguments, both for and against legalization. I think what matters most is getting information out there.

[Cannabis Act, June 1st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I am not an expert on the black market, but from what I have read recently in the media, there is no guarantee that this legislation will eliminate the black market because, unfortunately, there is still money to be made.

Although it could happen, there is still a risk that the legalization of cannabis does not have the intended effect on the black market. For example, if the government does not manage to set a low enough price, then people may turn to the black market. That is what is currently happening with cigarettes. Many people buy cigarettes on the black market because of the high price of tobacco.

There is no real guarantee that the black market will be eliminated. It will depend on the price. It remains to be seen. However, some people who have done research on this seem to be calling into question the Liberals' claim that this will eliminate the black market.

[Cannabis Act, June 1st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, that is one of the things that I find the most problematic.

Since we know that cannabis will be made legal a little over a year from now, it does not make sense to continue prosecuting people and bogging down the court system. Right now, murderers and people who have committed serious crimes are being allowed to go free because of the Jordan decision, and meanwhile, we are continuing to bog down our court system with cases like this.

The government could have decriminalized cannabis right away and implemented a system that would have allowed the police to give out fines and seize cannabis, since it would still be illegal. Rather than initiating a long legal process, the offence would be punishable by a fine. I think that measure should have been put in place immediately. It would have made it possible to avoid legal proceedings while still punishing offenders.

Most importantly, it would have helped reduce the burden on our courts and prevented people who have committed serious crimes from being released because of procedural delays.

[Cannabis Act, June 1st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to this bill because it is important. While I do support it, I have some reservations, and we need to ask a lot of questions.

Why is the government choosing to do this?

The member for Vancouver Centre said clearly in her speech that unlike alcohol or tobacco, using cannabis could be justified for certain medical conditions.

I do not understand why the government did not decide to make marijuana an over-the-counter drug instead of legalizing it for recreational use. That option could have been studied, but apparently it was not. It could have been safer for people to go into a pharmacy if they wanted to buy marijuana and speak to a pharmacist every time. Marijuana could have been an over-the-counter drug.

This substance can interact with medication and other health conditions. Speaking of recreational usage, the government is trivializing the possible side effects associated with the drug. This approach and word choice is unfortunate. In a good many cases, recreational usage is not limited to having fun. Many people have told us that they use marijuana without a prescription because they have a hard time sleeping and it helps them fall asleep.

These people are not using marijuana for fun. They are using it to treat a health problem. They are self-medicating. “Recreational use” implies that anyone who uses marijuana without a prescription is assumed to be doing so for fun. That trivializes marijuana consumption and causes a problem.

Some of the bill's provisions will be difficult to act on because they are so vague. They lack clarity. For example, the bit about people being allowed to own four plants up to 100 centimetres is not very clear.

First of all, who is going to go into people's houses and measure those plants? Second, what if the plants are two centimetres too tall? Will the offending centimetres have to be cut off? Is there a fine per centimetre?

There are a lot of factors to consider here, and a bunch of measures that will be hard to implement because nobody has come up with concrete ways to implement them.

I mentioned the plant height, but who is going to be responsible for going to people's houses to see if they have four plants or not? How is that going to be monitored?

This is very complicated, and it downloads a lot of responsibility onto the provinces. I mentioned the $74,000 paid to an outside consulting firm to find out what marijuana sells for on the street so some kind of pricing scheme can be developed. The government gave a consultant a contract and then ended up telling the provinces to set their own prices.

That is a pretty strange way to do things. There is going to be a lot of pressure on the provinces even though they were not necessarily consulted during the process. The government put all of this out there expecting the provinces to do all the work.

The biggest problem was that a health problem was being treated as a crime problem.

This resulted in young people having a criminal record. It also put pressure on the judicial system, which is ongoing, because we were still prosecuting people for simple possession of marijuana for personal use. The biggest problem is that we are clogging the judicial system. In light of the Jordan decision, it is even more important to eliminate from our courts cases that should not be prosecuted and could be handled differently.

In my opinion, drug use should be viewed as a health issue. We must provide the tools to fight addiction, do screening tests, provide support for prevention, and provide clear guidelines to health professionals so they know what to do.

At present, we do not have a lot of information about marijuana and medical marijuana. For example, we still do not know the exact profile of drug interactions. We know that cytochromes affect metabolism, but we do not know which ones. Although we know something about it, the profile of drug interactions is still not completely understood. We often look to past cases rather than a complete biochemical analysis. Thus, there is a lot information missing.

The most serious shortcoming of the Liberal bill is that it does not leave enough room to do an about-face. Once it becomes legal, the product will be on the shelves, companies will have been set up, and there will be an important lobby. We will not have the breathing room to gradually move forward with the bill. We go straight to legalization whereas we could have gone step by step, with the first step being the decriminalization. Then, we could have gradually moved forward if legalization were required. At present, we are heading straight for legalization, a commercial legalization that is going to create companies and lobbies. It will not be easy to reverse this legalization.

Even though I support the bill, I think the government's approach does not leave a lot of room to manoeuvre. We will be stuck with this decision without really knowing if it was the best way to proceed, when what the government could have done was simply decriminalize marijuana immediately and stop treating a health problem like a crime problem.

What we have here is a bill that raises a lot of concerns. Unfortunately, there are some answers we will not have until well after the bill is passed. Once the law has been in force for a few years, we may start to realize that legalizing marijuana too quickly caused some problems, but by then it might be too late for a do-over.

Globally, we do not know exactly what the impact will be in jurisdictions that have legalized marijuana because the measures have been in place for just a few years. Some of these measures may be re-evaluated in 10 or 20 years, but by then it may be too late to take action.