Robert Aubin

[Food and Drugs Act, September 20th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, for five years now I have been listening closely to my hon. colleague's speeches. I am quite familiar with his rhetoric on the economy.

My question is simple. Given all the measures that were put in place by the previous government, how is it that Statistics Canada is telling us that only 10.4% of SMEs, which let us not forget create the majority of jobs in Canada, succeed in moving into export market? Is that because the old Conservative measures fell flat or because the cuts at Statistics Canada prevent us from getting reliable figures on which we can agree?

[Food and Drugs Act, September 20th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.

At this point, it is relatively easy to support this bill, even at second reading, because it makes only minor changes to Canadian legislation.

To answer his question, I imagine that the first questions asked in committee will be about the health and safety of the workers directly involved in the transshipment of goods that must remain in or pass through Canada.

We simply want to ensure that all workplace health and safety standards will be respected under the new agreement. The agreement only needs to be ratified by two-thirds of signatory countries to come into force. Therefore, Canada's support is not needed because some 78 countries have already ratified the agreement. Nevertheless, we are staying the course to ensure that workers' health and safety remain a priority every step of the way.

[Food and Drugs Act, September 20th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I rise to speak since returning from vacation. Allow me to say hello to you. It is always a pleasure to see you lead our proceedings.

Bill C-13 seeks to implement the agreement on trade facilitation concluded by members of the World Trade Organization. This bill amends a number of Canadian statutes. I sincerely believe it is imperative to scrutinize these changes in committee. For example, major changes are being made to regulations on Canadians' health and safety.

I would like to draw the attention of my colleagues to two clauses in particular. The first is on rejected goods. By accepting Bill C-13, an importing country could hereby return goods that do not comply with its health standards. If the bill were passed, Canada would no longer be required to keep questionable goods indefinitely. Moreover, if it were not possible to identify the shipper, Canada could simply destroy the dangerous goods.

The second clause I want to focus on deals with goods in transit. At present, Canadian regulations prohibit the transit of any goods that do not meet national technical standards. For instance, if a food product is banned by Health Canada, its transit within our borders is simply prohibited.

The bill ends that prohibition. Products could pass through our borders even if they do not meet Canadian regulatory requirements regarding health and environmental protections, since they would not be destined for the Canadian market.

Clearly, specific measures or conditions could be applied to certain statutes under the administration of Health Canada, and of course the NDP wants to ensure that any changes made to the way goods are treated do not compromise the health and safety of Canadian workers, who would be at risk during the transshipments.

Given that I represent a riding where marine transportation plays an important role, I feel it is my duty to ensure that workers who might have to handle those products are not in any way at risk. That is why I would like the committee to call on as many experts as possible in order to highlight any potential consequences of this change. The health of workers must not be compromised in any way.

I will be voting in favour of this bill at second reading, so that we can shed as much light on it as possible and get as many answers as we can to all our questions.

The NDP has always supported good trade measures. How do we distinguish between a good trade measure and a bad one? Once these regulatory changes are raised, we should try to see whether there are any economic benefits to this WTO agreement and whether it will facilitate trade.

For the benefit of those watching, I would like to point out that the NDP's support for any international trade measure depends on the findings of a careful study of, among other things, respect for human rights in the various countries concerned and respect for environmental rights. In fact, respect for environmental rights is becoming increasingly important and should be a major element of every agreement. The protection of workers, which I alluded to, is also one of the elements studied. The last aspect is the strategic interest of the agreement to Canada.

Canada's geography already provides a link to major world economies because we have access to three large oceans, which facilitate international trade.

Accordingly, cutting administrative red tape and streamlining customs procedures can improve the predictability of trade and reduce costs at the border for Canadian exports. This in turn means that SMEs in developing countries could also benefit from streamlined regulations resulting from this agreement.

This looks promising because all partners win. We call this a win-win situation.

Conversely, I will digress briefly and refer to a bad agreement that is being proposed by the government, the TPP. To quickly give you my views on this agreement, I need only quote the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, which has proven that the agreement's so-called trade benefits are nothing more than a smokescreen:

It is a vast overstatement to say the TPP grants Canada new access to Pacific Rim countries when 97% of Canadian exports already enter the TPP economies tariff free.

Behind these figures and these words, there are 60,000 jobs that could disappear. In Mauricie alone, dairy, poultry, and egg producers will be the big losers. The Fédération de l'UPA in the Mauricie region estimates that 300 farms will be impacted by the trade implications of the TPP. When I say “impacted”, it is clearly understood that they will be negatively impacted. These policies are detrimental to Quebec producers, local communities, and well-paid jobs generated by the industry.

Pierre Lampron, member and president of the UPA in the Mauricie region, made it very clear who would pay the price of these policies when he said, “At the end of the day, it is our producers who will pay the price, because a pound of cheese produced outside Canada is one pound less produced by local businesses”. He was likely implying that Quebeckers and Canadians can only eat so much cheese.

I hope that the government will listen to reason when it comes to the TPP. After that aside, I will now come back to the benefits that the trade facilitation agreement will bring to our SMEs.

It is true that the implementation of the TFA could reduce the administrative burden on our SMEs. Small and medium-sized businesses spend a lot of money on administration, and reducing those costs could improve their export potential. However, the federal government must do a lot more for SMEs. The government could keep the election promises it made to support SMEs. After promising to lower their taxes from 11% to 9%, the government is depriving SMEs of the tax relief required to invest and create jobs.

In Trois-Rivières, over 2,000 small businesses would have benefited from this measure, but the government prefers to give tax breaks to large corporations that do not put those tax savings back into the Canadian economy.

By abandoning our small businesses, the government is also abandoning the middle class, since, according to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, one-third of business owners earn less than $33,000 a year, and 41% work more than 50 hours per week. I would remind the House that one has to earn at least $45,000 in order to benefit from the most recent tax cuts.

With this budget, the Liberals are turning their backs on hard-working families just trying to make ends meet, but it is true that small businesses depend largely on international trade. Therefore, in order to ensure the success of small businesses internationally, the government needs to develop a specific support policy taking into consideration the following two facts: first, Canadian small businesses have very little presence in international markets—a measly 10% to 14%—, and second, those that do export their products are still far too exposed to the vagaries of the American economy.

To improve the situation, the government needs to make it easier for small businesses to access funding when they are trying to succeed in international markets. Small businesses often do not have the resources to carry a lot of inventory and keep up with demand.

I see I am running out of time. I would have liked to say so much more. I will probably have a chance to make a few more points as I answer questions, but let me wrap up by saying that following a careful assessment, I can support TFAs as long as they are concluded with strategic partners that respect basic human rights.

I would also remind the House that, while the TFA might be beneficial for small businesses, the government needs to do more. Finally, the TFA's measures can help developing countries, although I did not have time to address this issue and I hope to come back to it.

I will stop there and I look forward to questions from my esteemed colleagues.

[Public Safety, September 19th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, travellers who use the Pierre Elliott Trudeau international airport are furious. The waiting time to clear Canadian customs is simply unacceptable. Since April 1, passengers in Montreal have been three times more likely than passengers in Toronto to wait more than one hour while staring at empty booths.

This is a simple question: will the minister fix the problem quickly or call for another study in order to buy some time?

[Consumer Protection, June 15th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, this week, Walmart threatened to stop accepting Visa cards in its stores because the transaction fees are too high. Too high for Walmart.

Imagine the dilemma for small and medium-sized businesses that must now choose between accepting the exorbitant fees or losing customers. In the opposition, the Liberals opposed the Conservatives' voluntary code of conduct, and now, in power, they are promoting it. This makes no sense.

When will the government finally take action and cap credit card fees for our SMEs?

[Business of Supply, June 13th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I understood from his firm tone that protecting our children comes first. My question is a simple one.

Right now, a teenager who wants to try marijuana has no choice but to turn to organized crime or the illicit market. Once marijuana is legalized, supposing that happens, and once a retail network makes it available to those 18 years of age and over, how will that solve things for a teenager who still cannot buy a joint at the Société des alcools du Québec, for example? That teenager will still have to turn to the illicit market, and that market will surely offer more attractive products to protect its market share.

What we want is for that teenager not to end up with a lifelong record for a youthful mistake.

[Business of Supply, June 13th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question.

The short answer is yes. Even worse, it is more difficult and expensive to obtain a pardon because of the previous Conservative government's policies. Someone with a criminal record for simple possession of marijuana who would like to be pardoned will find that it has become more expensive to be pardoned for a so-called minor offence. In any event, the Liberals are telling us that this offence will no longer exist in 2017 because they are going to fully legalize marijuana.

[Business of Supply, June 13th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I will respond with something entirely legal that adequately expresses, in my opinion, the state of mind of teenagers who live in the moment and at the whim of their surging hormones.

Teenagers are legally allowed to have sex. Oddly, I often saw cases involving students where the young girl was dumbfounded that she was pregnant because they had sex only once. That is not the issue. Bringing this back to drugs, the issue is on simple possession. I am not saying that we must make it legal for the schoolyard big shot to sell drugs. I am saying that we should not give a criminal record to a student who is experimenting or is caught with simple possession. Again, 80% of our marijuana cases are for simple possession. That is what we are trying to address with our motion.

[Business of Supply, June 13th, 2016]

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

My 25 years as a teacher compel me to make education the foundation of everything I do. Who currently controls the drug market? Is it organized crime? We will be quick to agree on that.

Since this morning, what I want out of decriminalization is for us to be able to work on the buyer. If there is no longer a buyer, then there is no longer a market. With that we can take a giant step. If by educating the person we ensure there are no more clients, and a student does not get a criminal record for making a mistake once in his life, then we will have taken a big step.

[Business of Supply, June 13th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that, since debate on this topic began today, the discussion has been all over the map, which is probably normal with such a delicate topic.

Despite the fact that we are talking about marijuana, which is commonly known as a soft drug, some people are worried about abuse. I would like to come back to the key aspect of the motion so that we know what we are talking about. I would particularly like to draw members' attention to point (a), which is the heart of the NDP's proposal. It reads:

That the House: (a) recognize the contradiction of continuing to give Canadian criminal records for simple possession of marijuana after the government has stated that it should not be a crime;

We are talking about simple possession of marijuana. That is the situation we have been put in since the most recent election campaign. During that campaign, I often told the people who asked my opinion on the dreams, promises, and commitments of the Liberal Party to be careful because everyone knows that the Liberals tend to signal left during the election campaign and then turn right when they take office. As a result, we are now in a situation where Canadians' dreams have been shattered. There are many examples of that.

For example, we could talk about all those people who were thrilled at the prospect of a tax cut that would give them more money and help them make ends meet. Once the Liberals came to power, very few people actually benefited from a tax cut, and those who received the largest tax cuts were already among the wealthiest Canadians.

Seniors in my riding were especially attracted by the idea of investments in home care. There was nothing in the budget about that. On the environment, people were saying that they could finally see light at the end of the tunnel. The Liberal government made the same commitments as the previous government in Paris. We can clearly see that on all counts, there is a gap, actually it is an abyss, between the vision presented during the campaign and what the government is currently doing.

In the case of marijuana, I would say that there is an even greater gap, if that is possible. The Liberals told everyone that they would quickly legalize marijuana. However, that is not the case. What people continue to believe, especially adolescents, whom I really understand, is that they are invincible. In fact, I have spent most of my life in touch with adolescence, first as an adolescent myself and then as a teacher of adolescents for 25 years. When we think about our adolescence, which for most people in the House was not as long ago as mine, we can remember often having the feeling of being invincible. When we are adolescents, the things we do are not risky, and we believe everything will be fine. If we try smoking a joint, we are not going to be arrested, because that only happens to other people.

The reality is quite different, and thousands of Quebeckers and Canadians who want to try smoking a joint or consuming an edible, such as a muffin or what have you, run the risk of ending up with a criminal record. They could end up with a criminal record, even though the Liberals made a promise and said that no one in our society should end up with a criminal record for simple possession of marijuana. Therein lies the contradiction and the confusion surrounding this issue we are trying to resolve with the very simple approach of decriminalizing marijuana. The majority agrees on this measure, and we are not talking about 50% plus 1 of Canadians. We are talking about 68% of Canadians who agree with decriminalizing simple possession of marijuana. I would remind members that we are talking about simple possession.

I must admit that the issues are diametrically opposed, but I have a hard time understanding the Liberals' inconsistent approach.

In recent weeks, we have talked a lot about Bill C-14 on medical assistance in dying. We heard that even though the Supreme Court issued a clear unanimous ruling, society was not ready and we needed to move forward slowly. As a result, the Liberals proposed the criterion of reasonably foreseeable natural death, which has been challenged in both the House and the Senate.

Small steps are necessary in the case of medical assistance in dying, but in the case of simple possession of marijuana, small steps are apparently not needed. In that case, the government wants to go full bore. Legalization needs to happen immediately, which is completely impossible. We need to forget about that. All we have been promised is that a bill will be introduced in 2017. Some Liberal members are saying that it could be introduced later, and, rarely, someone says that it could be introduced earlier. We hear nothing about consistency.

We need a bill to deal with the drug issue once and for all, but the first step is to implement a simple, easy-to-understand measure for everyone. Say a teenager is influenced by a group of friends or just wants to try this once. We need to make sure our measure eliminates the possibility of ruining that teenager's life with a record that will make finding a job or travelling much more difficult. We know that teenagers are tempted to try new things. There is a disconnect there.

I would like to talk about my own transition from childhood to adolescence. In my day, things might have seemed simpler because becoming a man or daring to do the forbidden meant trying to smoke. Cigarettes could be had for a penny, back when we still had pennies.

Obviously, that has changed. Each generation is better educated than the last, and we now have very clear evidence about the dangers of cigarettes. Cigarette consumption has decreased markedly, but the battle is not yet won. Some young people still choose to smoke, and they need to be shown the negative health effects of that choice.

Right now, the legal system spends $4 million on cases that may result in records for teenagers. If we used that money to educate young people about this, we could make tremendous progress. Contrary to what my dearly departed mother believed, one toke does not a hard-drug addict make. It is a long way from the former to the latter, and we can easily interrupt that progression with health education.

Since time is running out, I will close by painting a picture of the situation using some statistics. We invest $4 million in our justice system every year, and 80% of the offences that have to be processed involve simple possession of cannabis. If members want to talk about organized crime and everything else, so be it. However, 80% of offences are related to simple possession of marijuana. That amounts to 66,000 arrests a year and 22,000 people who risk getting a criminal record.

As I said earlier, 68% of Canadians are calling on us to take this first step, go ahead with decriminalization, and work on education so that experimentation remains just that, experimentation.

What is even clearer is that all of the parties are slowly coming around to the NDP's approach, which we first proposed a number of years ago.

I see I am out of time. I will end there, as I will have an opportunity to continue through questions.