Garnett Genuis

[Cannabis Act, June 6th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, never has there been such a great dissonance between the government's stated reasons for legislation and the actual impact of the legislation. What does the government tell us? It is that its goal is to keep marijuana out of the hands of children and to keep the profits out of the hands of organized crime.

What does its legislation actually say? It says that there will no longer be any criminal penalties for someone 12 to 17 who possesses up to five grams of marijuana, and not just possesses it, by the way, but distributes it. That means that a 16- or 17-year-old could take up to five grams of marijuana and be seen wandering around an elementary school carrying that much marijuana, and there would be no basis for a criminal charge. A 17-year-old could give marijuana to a 12-year-old and there would be no basis for a criminal charge.

For context, a study by The New York Times found, in mid-2016, that the average joint contains about .32 grams of marijuana. Therefore, we are talking about it being legal to carry and distribute up to 15 joints.

The government talks about careful regulations to keep this out of the hands of children, but the reality is its legislation would allow homegrown. It would allow someone with children in the home to grow up to four marijuana plants, and it does not, in any way, have storage requirements around that marijuana.

The reality is a very real risk that it would be quite easy for young people to access marijuana that they could get from home, or they could perhaps steal it. Either way, marijuana would be readily available, and young people would be able to possess it without the possibility of being stopped, having it confiscated, or having a criminal charge with respect to the federal legislation.

That is the reality of the law, so how the government can claim that this is about keeping it out of the hands of children is ridiculous. All Canadians have to do is read the legislation to realize that is not what we are talking about at all. Again, possession and distribution of up to five grams would no longer be prohibited for minors, people 12 to 17.

The government talks about a public health approach, but what is striking is that the government members will not even send a clear message about the risks of marijuana. We have the parliamentary secretary talking about the risks, on the one hand, but then we have the Prime Minister talking publicly about his own use of marijuana while a member of Parliament. What kind of message does that send in terms of the public health risks associated with marijuana? We should have leaders in this Parliament who are an example to young people about responsible and healthy behaviour, but we have a Prime Minister who refuses to do that. What does that say about the public health approach of the government, when it refuses to talk about or—

[Cannabis Act, June 6th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting to hear the member talk about people having a lifelong impact in terms of a criminal record. I do not think we need to have ths discussion in an all-or-nothing way. Our party supports a ticketing option. I would certainly support proposals that the NDP might have around easing the pardon system, because I agree, in principle, that if people are involved in simple possession of marijuana when they are young, a criminal charge may be appropriate although very rarely would be the result. More likely, a warning would take place and a ticketing option would help address that. In any event, if someone were to get a criminal charge, it is sensible that he or she would be able to, within a reasonable time frame, have access to a pardon.

Does the member not think that some of the proposals we have would maintain a clear message about the harms of marijuana, while still minimizing the impact? In other words, could we not go about this part-way in the middle?

[Cannabis Act, June 6th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I want to ask the member about the regulatory approach that the government talks about.

Government members go on about their regulatory approach. Their regulatory approach, fundamentally, is that we can grow this stuff in our house. That is not a regulatory approach. Yes, we can prescribe heights and limits, but the reality is that when we allow people to grow it in their homes, we will not have control over THC levels, we would have the same problems with diversion, it will be very easy for a minor to access it, and it is not a criminal offence for someone as young as 12 to possess it.

The minister talks about having to store it just like we have to store prescription drugs and alcohol. Yes, but it is a plant, and we cannot grow a plant in a bottle with a sealed top or in a locked storage cabinet. Therefore, I wonder if the member can acknowledge that letting people grow this drug at home does not constitute a regulatory approach and completely eliminates the possibility of meaningful control.

[Cannabis Act, June 6th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, in 2016, The New York Times did a study and found that the average joint contains 0.32 grams of marijuana. According to this legislation, it will be legal and there will be no criminal penalties for someone 12 to 17 years old to possess up to five grams of marijuana. According to that New York Times estimate, that is up to 15 joints.

It would be legal for a minor to possess up to 15 joints, and not to sell but to distribute them. Because they are not going to smoke it all themselves right away, how does allowing someone to carry that much marijuana, allowing 12-year-olds to have with them up to 15 joints of marijuana, consistent with the government's stated objectives?

[Paris Agreement, June 6th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I have to say I was quite struck during the previous question by the minister's glowing comments about China with respect to these issues. It is passing strange to hear the government wanting to praise nearly everything about China. Of course the environmental problems that are the result of the problems of the PRC government are, I think, quite well known and easy to see when one spends time in China.

Many countries are pursuing their Paris obligations without carbon taxes. By my count, the majority of countries that are signatories to the Paris agreement do not have and do not have any intention of imposing carbon taxes. Therefore, why did the current government choose to focus on collecting revenue, as being the real objective of its policy as opposed to addressing environmental issues, when clearly many other countries that are part of the agreement are seeking to meet their obligations without imposing new taxes on their citizens?

[Business of Supply, June 6th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs is not a new member. I think she is familiar with the rules that say that if a member enters the House while the Speaker is reading the question, the member is not able to vote. The member still endeavoured to vote, so I ask that her vote be stricken from the record.

[Canadian Foreign Policy, June 6th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I want to dig further into one question the Conservatives and NDP have raised in question period, and that is the situation in Chechnya with respect to gay men. The Liberal government cancelled a program that was in place to help gay refugees coming from Iran. We have statements made domestically in Canada, but what is needed is high-level engagement between the Liberal government and other governments on these issues, as well as a willingness to prioritize the most vulnerable refugees, which includes Christians and other religious minorities coming from certain countries. Another context certainly includes gays and lesbians.

Could the member provide her thoughts about what the government should do on those issues in Chechnya and, more broadly, those affecting the LGBTQ community.

[Canadian Foreign Policy, June 6th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, my friend makes the very good point that many things that we might in retrospect regard as obviously the right policy to pursue were actually unpopular in the context of their own time. The minister spoke about peacekeeping. This was a new idea that put us offside with some of our traditional allies.

It was not in particular our opposition to apartheid, because many countries shared that opposition, but our view that we needed to take particularly strong tactics in terms of responding to South Africa that put us a bit offside with some of our allies and partners; nevertheless, we were still forceful in standing up for our principles and standing up for what was right.

Let me speak to this point about multilateralism. Canada needs to be engaged. We need to be a part of these fora. We need to speak clearly and forcefully about our values.

Some people in the House seem to think that multilateralism means always going along to get along, putting our name on every single agreement, signing on to every single resolution. That is not a coherent definition of multilateralism, at least not one that is in our interests or reflects our values. Our multilateralism should be selective. We should be engaged where it is right to do so, always advancing the things that we believe are important.

[Canadian Foreign Policy, June 6th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her kind words. Of course we disagree, but it is good to have a collegial working relationship in which we can discuss issues on which we disagree.

Earlier in my speech I did talk about the distinctions between Kyoto and Paris, some of the problems with the Kyoto protocol, and the ways in which it was not in Canada's interests.

The global response right now is gas emissions. When it came to deciding whether Canada should pay Canadian tax dollars to other countries to buy emissions credits or whether we should invest that same money in responding to climate change and reducing greenhouse gas emissions here at home, the government decided that being part of the Kyoto protocol framework would require us to use tax dollars to buy emissions credits, and this would actually be less in our interests and less effective in terms of the overall issue than it would be to spend that money domestically to try to respond to and improve issues around our environment.

I would like to speak very briefly on the issue of the Arms Trade Treaty. The Arms Trade Treaty raised serious concerns for the rights of law-abiding gun owners in Canada. While we should be forceful in trying to address the problem of the arms trade, we should recognize the realities when there is a negative effect from certain kinds of international treaties, an effect that may not be the one intended by those who promote these agreements or sign them, but still a negative effect on the legal rights of Canadians, and recognizing that reality was a reasonable response.

Being committed to multilateralism does not mean going along with everything. Being committed to multilateralism means engaging in the—

[Canadian Foreign Policy, June 6th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, most of that, frankly, is not worthy of a response. If that member thinks that signing trade agreements with countries constituting over 60% of the world's GDP is an isolationist foreign policy, I would like to know what the opposite would be.

Perhaps I missed hearing the minister mention NATO once in part of a list of 10 other international organizations. However, what the government should be more focused on, rather than on whether the word was thrown in there, is meeting our obligations under NATO. The minister talked about the importance of collective security, yet the finance minister substantially cut the support for our men and women in uniform.

Rather than those kinds of attacks, I think members of the cabinet should spend more energy trying to address issues of fundamental human rights. Why will the parliamentary secretary and why will the minister not address some of these issues about human rights in China, Burma, Sri Lanka, Saudi Arabia? Why will they not address the issue of genocide recognition? The Liberals are not doing it because they are more interested in currying favour in the councils of the world than in standing up for fundamental human rights.

We believe in multilateralism, but we also believe in multilateralism that is rooted on and acts from Canadian values.