Christine Moore

[Business of Supply, June 13th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I want to make it very clear that decriminalization is not the end of the story when it comes to marijuana.

This is absolutely just one step. We will continue to move forward, but what I know for sure right now is that decriminalization is less harmful than the prohibition we have now, which drives people into hiding, subjects them to legal consequences, and prevents us from having an intelligent conversation about the direct consequences. I am absolutely sure that decriminalization will work much better than prohibition, which has been the preferred approach for too long. Decriminalization is certainly not an end in and of itself. We need to do a lot more hard work on this issue.

[Business of Supply, June 13th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, yes, that money could be redirected from the justice system to the health system right now for programs related to marijuana use, such as addiction prevention programs. Some people are addicted and need programs to help them quit using.

The money could also be spent on programs to prevent drug use among young people and campaigns that provide accurate information about the potential health consequences of marijuana use and explain why it is important to be aware of this so people can make responsible health choices. All of that money could be redirected toward health rather than crime and justice. I think it would be win-win all around if we invested that money in health.

[Business of Supply, June 13th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, decriminalizing marijuana right now would give us some flexibility as we work on legalizing it.

For example, based on Colorado's experience, we can anticipate the negative effects, for example, with respect to products that can be marketed to look like candy for children.

If we decriminalize and do not legalize this product, we can take time to pass a law that takes a common-sense approach to legalization. This product is found on a small scale and not a large scale, for example, in the case of consumers who grow it themselves, Furthermore, if some products, such as candies made with marijuana, need to be restricted, in much the same way as we banned vanilla-flavoured cigarettes because they were enticing to children, we can have some flexibility.

The priority right now is to ensure that people do not suffer legal consequences for using marijuana and can talk about health issues. Decriminalization would help achieve both of those objectives.

[Business of Supply, June 13th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thought I gave a good explanation in my speech.

Once those who consume marijuana on a regular basis are able to produce what they need, and I believe that this will happen with many people who use marijuana regularly, the criminal market will collapse because it is all about supply and demand.

If people start growing marijuana themselves and the criminal market collapses, I believe that people with ties to organized crime will stop visiting schoolyards because the market will collapse. Naturally, they will focus on other substances, which are not quite as popular with young people.

[Business of Supply, June 13th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I think the main thing is understanding why it is important to decriminalize marijuana possession now. Over 50,000 people are still charged with simple possession of marijuana every year and end up with criminal records even though the government clearly signalled its intent to legalize marijuana. That is what we have to put an end to.

It is utter nonsense. The Prime Minister himself admitted to using marijuana. At some point that evening, he must have been in simple possession of marijuana. He even admitted to using it while he was an MP. Still, the government keeps telling more than 50,000 Canadians a year that they will have a criminal record and never mind the fact that the Prime Minister himself admitted to doing the same thing they did.

We have to consider the fact that a number of public figures have admitted to doing this at some point in their lives. Luckily for them, they were not caught, but other people get caught every year and suffer the consequences. This is out of whack. Whether or not someone suffers legal consequences is entirely a matter of luck.

We must also remember that this is a frequent occurrence. Many people are exposing themselves to possible legal consequences. In Abitibi—Témiscamingue, according to 2008 statistics, one in eight people or 12% of the population aged 15 and over used cannabis that year. Among those users, one in three had used it less than once a month, and one in four, or barely 3% in the region, had used it between one and three times a month. A majority of users, about six out of 10, used it more than once a week during that 12-month period.

In concrete terms, to paint a clear picture, this means that any time I travel around my riding, considering the number of people I meet along the way, I definitely, although unknowingly, cross paths with someone who is in illegal possession of a controlled substance, because of the government's inaction and failure to change the law. That is a large number of people. It is important that we take action to prevent these people from facing the legal ramifications of having a criminal record.

I also think it is important to stop bogging down the justice system with cases that I think have a lot more to do with health than crime. Marijuana for personal use is much more of a health issue than a crime issue.

We have often heard the government say that decriminalizing possession would keep the money in the hands of criminals. We have heard that argument a lot. I think that argument more or less makes sense when we consider that, as with any business, legal or not, there is the matter of supply and demand and the issue of price. The reason criminal groups grow and sell marijuana is that there is money to be made. Unfortunately, that is the main motivation. As soon as there is less to gain, they will leave the market. The reason they do well is that, since they are assuming risks, they can sell the substance at prices that do not at all reflect the cost of production.

If we decriminalize marijuana, then presumably the people who possess it for personal use will be able to grow the few plants they need for their own consumption.

The spouse of a man who uses marijuana for medical purposes was interviewed in a 2014 news article on medical marijuana. Even though she knows it is illegal, she grows marijuana because her spouse is suffering. She estimates it costs her 5¢ a gram. According to the Sûreté du Québec, the black market price is about $10 a gram.

If marijuana is decriminalized and the price stays that high, most people will choose to grow their own marijuana. Eventually, the black market will lose its appeal because most people will choose to grow their own depending on the price.

Furthermore, anyone who chooses to grow their own marijuana can control what fertilizer they use, for example. Perhaps THC levels will decrease because people will not be trying to grow the strongest product possible. They will simply want to grow something that meets their needs. For example, because the product is for their own use, people might apply less chemical fertilizer, which unfortunately can be found in plants sold on the black market.

It does not make any sense to say that, by decriminalizing marijuana, we will continue to send money to the criminal world. I believe that most of the people who use marijuana regularly will choose to grow it themselves because they will no longer have to worry about getting a criminal record. Of course, they will have to make sure that their children and others cannot access it. They will no longer have any dealings with organized crime. If there is a significant drop in demand because people are choosing to grow their own marijuana, there will be no more use for the black market. Criminals will slowly move away from smuggling marijuana or at least selling it.

Growing a marijuana plant is nothing like distilling alcohol. In the case of alcohol, a lot of controls are needed because the health risks associated with a bad batch of liquor are very high. The plants that people grow at home will likely have a lower THC concentration. Those plants will therefore be less harmful to health than the marijuana that is currently being sold on the black market. I think that it is completely false to say that decriminalizing marijuana will ensure that money continues to be sent to criminals. Decriminalization would allow people to grown marijuana themselves. That argument does not hold up if people are growing it for their own use.

Another important thing is that, if marijuana is decriminalized, then people can get the health care they need. Right now, the problem is that people are afraid to say that they use marijuana because they know it is illegal. Adults and people who are a little older, who are over the age of 50, use marijuana for different reasons. Because of the impact it could have on people's work or personal lives if others knew that they used marijuana occasionally, they do not talk about their use of marijuana and do not seek out information on the effects it could have on their health.

If marijuana were decriminalized, young people could seek out information on how marijuana affects their health, without fear of potential consequences if anyone were to find out that they use the drug. Decriminalization would also allow for a more open discussion on the difference between recreational use and problematic use.

It is no secret that marijuana has significant effects on the health of users. It can have some serious consequences, especially on the psychological health and motivation of young people. However, if young people cannot talk about this openly, they cannot get this information, and it is difficult to intervene. People will still avoid disclosing their marijuana use, and we will not have an accurate picture of the situation.

People regularly lie in surveys on marijuana use because they are afraid of what might happen if this information were obtained by a third party. As a result, they do not seek medical assistance. Occasional marijuana use may be acceptable, but when someone uses marijuana every day, that goes beyond recreational use and becomes a health problem. It is important to be able to say that.

What matters to me now is changing the lens through which we see marijuana. This is not a criminal matter; it is a health matter. We should be able to have an intelligent conversation about this. Compare marijuana to alcohol. If people have one or two drinks a week, that is not a problem, but if people feel the need to drink every day or drink incredible amounts of alcohol, that is a problem, and those people need to get help.

We need to be able to talk about responsible use and determine what constitutes a health risk, and decriminalization is key to having that conversation. If not, some people will not talk because they will fear the consequences. As people get older, the consequences for their lives, their work, and their family become more far-reaching, so they are less likely to come forward or to seek out the information or the help they need, depending on their situation.

Decriminalization will enable us to get the answers we do not have right now, such as the long-term health consequences of marijuana use. It will also enable us to figure out how much is too much for driving. How long should a person wait after using marijuana before getting behind the wheel? How much would make it dangerous?

If people cannot even talk about their usage without fearing legal consequences, they will not be able to seek out that information. However, this information is essential if we want to pursue legalization. For one thing, we need to set limits for operating a vehicle so that people can be informed. If we do not have accurate information, we will keep going around in circles.

There is another argument to the effect that decriminalization will not do anything to prevent young people from accessing marijuana. That is not true at all. Right now, if someone is smoking marijuana in a park, for example, a police officer has no choice but to take all of the legal measures: arrest and charge the person, keep evidence, etc. These legal procedures take a long time. There are therefore no immediate consequences associated with using marijuana in an inappropriate place.

If marijuana were decriminalized, municipal bylaws could be put in place to prohibit its use in municipal parks, for example, and violators could be fined. Police sweeps could be used to change behaviour. Since an immediate sanction would be imposed, people would think twice about using marijuana again in an inappropriate place where there are young people.

By decriminalizing marijuana possession, the government can give the provinces and municipalities the latitude to regulate the context in which use is acceptable. It could also make the actions to prevent use more effective.

Right now, legal action must be taken each time. If we consider the fact that 12% of the population is using marijuana or has used it in recent years, it is clear that it is not realistic to take all of those people to court. Between 3.6 million and four million Canadians per year would be going through the court system. That does not make any sense. We cannot do that.

If marijuana were decriminalized, people could be fined for using marijuana in inappropriate locations. It would also allow community workers and parent committees, for example, to target areas where they think such use would be inappropriate, such as schoolyards, parks, or other places where young people go. It would allow the municipalities to ensure that marijuana is only being used in places where there are no young people. That could have a positive impact by reducing access to cannabis, since right now, it is impossible to put in place bylaws on something that is supposed to be illegal.

The problem is that if simple possession continues to be illegal, we cannot put certain regulations or policies in place, because the product is supposed to be illegal.

For instance, if someone is caught in possession of a substance at school, the police must be called and legal proceedings for a young offender must be initiated. However, if a young person is caught in possession of cannabis at school and it has been decriminalized, he or she could be asked, under the school's regulations, to destroy the substance and a lot more effort can be put into social intervention. We could try to understand why that young person is using drugs. There is also a public health approach. If there are underlying health concerns involved, such as mental health, we can intervene accordingly. By continuing to criminalize it, the Liberals are burying their heads in the sand and depriving the authorities of the tools needed to properly intervene.

It is very important to keep in mind that we absolutely must not trivialize marijuana use. I recognize that this substance has adverse health effects. Regular use creates motivation problems in young people, as well as mental health problems. It affects blood pressure and it changes electroencephalograms. It is important to decriminalize possession immediately in order to address the health risks and the ineffectiveness of prohibition.

This would allow people to talk more openly about their marijuana use and to seek health information. Decriminalizing possession immediately would help us to intervene and to stop criminals from trafficking in this drug. As soon as cannabis possession is decriminalized, people who use it more regularly will find that it is much easier to produce what they consume themselves. This will enable them to gain control over their product and pay less than what criminals are currently charging, since that cost is associated with a risk that would no longer exist with decriminalization.

This is the logical way to proceed. The fact that it would still be illegal to sell cannabis will keep things under control and will very much help the people who consume it regularly anyway. They will benefit because they will have more control over the product they consume and will also be much more open about looking for information on their health.

[Business of Supply, June 13th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health. If the government continues to criminalize the possession of marijuana, some young people who might be looking for information on how marijuana affects their health will not do so because they know that what they are doing is illegal. If we were to at least decriminalize it, they would perhaps not be afraid to ask questions and seek information on how marijuana will affect their health. Decriminalizing marijuana could make it easier to talk more openly and could help warn more young people about how marijuana affects their health.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1, June 7th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague for the question.

That is a real problem. In 2015, I ran in my fourth campaign. I have been a candidate since 2006. People are sick of being lied to. They want the truth. They do not want any surprises.

Being honest with Canadians is how we score points. People have had enough of politicians promising them to fix everything and doing nothing once elected. They simply want the truth. Is that so hard?

When I worked as a nurse, it was the same thing. Patients do not want to be told that everything is fine, that they still have 10 years ahead of them. They want to be told the truth when things are not going well so they can plan for what comes next. They do not want reality to be sugar-coated; they want us to tell it like it is and stop springing surprises on them. That is how they can make informed choices.

When politicians promise one thing and do the opposite or fall short of expectations, people are disappointed. That is unfortunate, because it reflects badly on all of us.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1, June 7th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the majority of my constituents do not make enough money to take advantage of the much talked about middle-class tax cut. They had hoped to be part of the middle class as defined by the Liberals, but it seems that they were wrong. There are many people in my riding who do not earn the $45,000 a year it takes to get a single dollar back in tax relief.

Thank goodness that the cost of living remains low in many of the towns I represent. Houses can be bought much cheaper than in Toronto, for example. There are perfectly decent houses for less than $100,000. Perhaps Toronto is a different world. That said, most of my constituents will not be benefiting from the middle-class tax cut because their low annual incomes do not meet the income eligibility threshold.

People are left feeling like we have failed them, which is a shame. If the tax cut had been applied to the lowest tax bracket, as the NDP suggested, the vast majority of people would have benefited. However, the Liberals held firm, and as a result, most of my constituents will not make enough money to receive a single dollar in tax relief.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1, June 7th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to talk about the budget implementation bill and, of course, a number of things that are particularly important for my riding, including the mineral exploration tax credit. I think it is worthwhile at this point for me to sketch a portrait of what Abitibi-Témiscamingue represents in terms of mineral exploration.

In my riding, one in six people is connected to the mining industry. That is 16% of jobs, both direct and indirect. In Abitibi-Témiscamingue, investments in mining exceeded $1 billion in 2011, but dropped to about $780 million in 2014 because of the economic downturn.

In addition, 370 businesses are active in the mining industry either as product manufacturers or mining companies. Clearly, this sector is huge in my riding. That is why I want to talk about the mineral exploration tax credit.

The budget implementation bill renews the mineral exploration tax credit, which helps junior mining companies using flow-through shares. Of course, we support the mineral exploration tax credit, but unfortunately, the Liberals missed this opportunity to make it permanent. I think it is very important to make this tax credit permanent in order to make life easier for mining companies.

The fact that the tax credit is not permanent and that no one knows whether it will come back has a serious impact when firms try to plan their exploration activities. They can try to hurry, but they do not know whether it will happen.

It is important to understand the mining cycle. When it comes to mining, if companies wait for metal prices to go up before they explore, by the time they go through all the steps to eventually get to a mine in production, metal prices will have dropped again. It would be much better to promote exploration when metal prices are low, so that when the price of gold, for instance, goes up, the mines are ready to go into production quickly, within two or three years. That is the logic that must be applied to the mining sector. That is why this tax credit must be permanent, if we want to promote the development of our mining sector in a much more intelligent manner.

When it comes to prospecting, that is, when a company thinks there is a deposit somewhere, it takes about five years to do the research, get some core samples, and analyze them. The delimitation also has to be completed, in order to find out exactly where the deposit is located.

Ideally, this five-year period would coincide with the down cycle in ore prices. That way, when the price starts rising again, the next phases can begin. It is currently a good time to undertake mining exploration. We cannot abandon our mining companies, especially those who are just starting up. They need help now. Unfortunately, when metal prices are low, it is harder to find investors to back up these companies. That is another argument in favour of supporting our mining startups in their exploration activities.

When we talk about the development phase, which encompasses pre-production preparations, the setting of every technical and economic parameter, and all feasibility studies and environmental assessments, we talk about a three- to eight-year period.

For installation and production, we are talking about a 10-year timeframe, give or take, during which the mine will actually be in production.

That is the mining cycle. Afterwards, of course, there is everything related to closure and rehabilitation, which can take a year or two. Environmental monitoring can last for several years, depending on the situation.

That was one of the especially important aspects of the mineral exploration tax credit. The other important aspect that was brought to my attention several times had to do with eligible expenses.

At the exploration phase, mining companies are increasingly responsible for consulting the public to notify them of their activities, and they are on board with that. Sometimes, they also conduct environmental assessments or studies on the fauna before even beginning with the exploration, to ensure, for example, that they are not disturbing the habitat of animals such as moose or other wild animals.

Before exploration even begins, there are expenses for consultations or environmental assessments. Unfortunately, since these are not expenses for extracting core samples, for instance, where the work is actually done on the ground, these expenses do not count as eligible exploration expenses.

It might be a good idea to include these expenses with those that are incurred for mining exploration because they go hand in hand with ensuring that the projects unfold seamlessly. The purpose of all these expenses is truly to ensure that the approach taken by the mining companies is much more respectful of the communities. I think that the Liberal government could also take a look at this as part of the budget.

I would also like to take the time to talk about other measures. For example, feminine hygiene products have been added to the list of tax-free products. I believe that it is a good measure that can be primarily attributed to the NDP, which proposed this measure in the previous parliament. It has now been implemented. We can be proud of what we accomplished.

I would like to remind the government that I introduced a bill to eliminate the tax on basic baby supplies. These products are zero-rated in most provinces that do not have a harmonized tax. In all provinces where the provincial tax is not harmonized, these products are considered zero-rated supplies.

I believe that we should consider taking action to ensure better coordination between the provinces and the federal government. We do not have to wait for my bill to reach second reading stage. I have many other interesting bills. Therefore, I would not be upset if the problem were to be solved before we reach my bill. The government is completely free to implement the measures contained in my bill before it is debated. I would be pleased if it wanted to do so.

I also think that it will make life easier for a lot of parents who buy basic baby products. The bill provides a list of products that are absolutely essential when caring for a baby. I also think that many parents would be grateful to the Liberal government for taking action on this.

Another important point is that the Liberals have gone back on their promise to lower the small businesses tax rate to 9%. Small and medium-sized businesses in my riding will be particularly disappointed, especially when you consider that they provide the vast majority of jobs there. They are the heart of our communities.

Some communities rely solely on a local SME, which enables people to earn a living. For example, in La Reine, where I am from, Les Aciers JP manufactures metal products. It hires welders and people who work on the cutting tables. Without this business, there would be nothing left in town, aside from a few service businesses.

When the government chooses not to support these businesses and lower their taxes, it is adopting measures that hurt rural ridings like mine. It is important to support these businesses. These are local jobs that help keep people from leaving many of these towns. I think that is particularly important.

Since I am out of time, I thank my colleagues for listening. I would be happy to take questions.

[National Defence, June 6th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, they have been in power for seven months now, and replacing our CF-18s did not seem to be on their radar, and yet, we have known for years that they need to be replaced. I hardly need to point out that replacing any military equipment requires planning. It is not like going shopping at Toys “R” Us. These kinds of purchases are not made on a whim. What our soldiers need is the right equipment for the job. When will the government put in place a transparent process to replace the CF-18s?