Robert Gordon Kitchen

[Petitions, June 15th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition from constituents in my riding, who are calling on the government to raise the pension system, CPP, OAS, and GIS, to bring it in line with the cost of living.

[Arleene Johnson Noga, June 2nd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, June 3, is National Health and Fitness Day. To mark this occasion, I would like to pay tribute to a baseball Hall of Famer, the late Arleene Johnson Noga, who sadly passed away on March 14 of this year.

Arleene grew up on a farm in Ogema, Saskatchewan, in my home riding. She is an excellent example of a pioneer and female athlete. Scouted out of high school, Arleene played for two teams in the All-American Girls Professional Baseball League from 1945 to 1948. After that, Arleene went on to be a consultant for the film A League of Their Own, which tells the story of an all-American girls professional baseball league. Believe it or not, Arleene taught Madonna how to properly slide into a base and taught Rosie O'Donnell how to play shortstop.

Arleene is a great example of how participation in sport can enrich a person's life. I encourage all members to get out and get active in their communities this National Health and Fitness Day.

[Cannabis Act, June 1st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, that is true. When we ask how far it is going to go, the reality is that it is not going to go far at all. The bottom line is that it is not even in place yet. If the legislation goes through a year from now and the government has not yet taken the steps to start educating young people, we will be behind the eight ball and way behind the curve. These people will be left out to dry.

[Cannabis Act, June 1st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, we often look at age limits and often in my life I have wondered why it is that certain states in the U.S. send their soldiers to war at 18 years of age when the drinking age is 25. These are issues that need to be looked at and we need to make sure, when we deal with the provinces, they are able to balance whatever the legislation is.

Do we say 18 or do we say 19? Do we say 12? The legislation would allow for somebody who is 12 years old to have four grams of marijuana. Why does a 12-year-old need to possess four grams of marijuana? I cannot fathom that. If it is 12, why should it not be 11? Who makes that decision? If we are the ones making that decision, we need to make certain we have the facts right and all of the policies and procedures in place before we take any of those steps.

[Cannabis Act, June 1st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about addictions. He is right that there are a lot of people in the world dealing with these issues and lot of times the question is why. What was it that started them on that path? There are many theories as to what that may be, but there is no 100% answer. To say that legalizing the product to allow somebody to use it is the answer to addressing it, I do not see that as appropriate.

[Cannabis Act, June 1st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to be here today to take part in the discussion surrounding Bill C-45, an act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code, and other acts. It is also known informally as the cannabis act.

On this side of the House it has always been a top priority to stand up for the health and safety of Canadians, and I would like to thank all of my Conservative colleagues for their hard work in that regard. We are committed to making sure that the voices of everyday Canadians are heard, no matter what the issue might be.

To that end, I feel I am privileged to stand here today and speak to the effects this legislation may have on the Canadian public, and to ensure that the Liberals understand the implications of this policy.

I must mention that I find it rather rich that the Liberals are willing to take years to consult Canadians about basic economic projects, but they have no issue ramming through legislation like Bill C-45 in a matter of months.

The bill represents a seismic shift in our society. With prohibition repealed in the 1920s, alcohol and tobacco have been legal, on and off, for nearly 150 years, and yet we are still working out the kinks of the policy framework for these substances. To think it is a good idea to rush legislation that would have such a wide-ranging and drastic effect across the entire country is short-sighted and ill-advised.

Bill C-45 is a very complex piece of legislation that touches on many aspects of people's lives. One of the things I am most concerned about with respect to the legal age of cannabis is the potential effects it could have on the health of Canadians. This means that we do not have very much science and evidence-based research on the effects of this drug. This was acknowledged in the final report of the Task Force on Cannabis Legalization and Regulation, which states:

We are aware of the shortcomings in our current knowledge base around cannabis and the effects of cannabis on human health and development.

That is concerning. I do not think it is unreasonable to want to have a full understanding of the health effects of cannabis use before it is legalized. That way, we can ensure that the proper framework, policies, and guidelines are put in place before making the substance readily available across the country. Instead, the Liberals are rushing this legislation through the House in hopes of keeping their promised timeline of having the bill reach royal assent before July 2018. Keeping campaign promises is all well and good, but doing it without the full knowledge of the implications of the bill is really irresponsible.

As mentioned, the main areas of concern I have with the bill are the impacts it would have on the Canadian health care system. Before I became an MP, I was a chiropractor and a primary care provider. I have seen first-hand how the abuse of intoxicating substances affects the health of individuals like us.

When it comes to cannabis, studies show that the earlier cannabis use begins and the more frequently and longer it is used, the greater the risk of potential developmental harm, some of which may be long-lasting or permanent. This becomes problematic given that Bill C-45 would make cannabis more accessible to everyone, including youth.

This goes back to my point that we do not fully understand the health effects of cannabis use. What we do know is that the brain continues to develop up to the age of 25, meaning that people who use it before that age are putting themselves at risk. There are associations between frequent cannabis use and mental illnesses such as schizophrenia and psychoses.

At this point, current science is not definitive on a safe age for cannabis use. Why is it that the Liberals, who love to study and consult everything under the sun, have no issue with rapidly ramming through legislation that does not have a solid basis in science, has the potential to burden our health care system, and may cause irreversible harm to our youth? These same Liberals continually tell us that they are the true scientists, that they understand science, and that they listen to scientists—well, perhaps junk science, but I digress.

The burden to the health care system seems to be one of the aspects of the bill that has not been thought out. Cannabis is typically smoked, and similar to tobacco, it has negative effects on the health of the lungs.

Each day in Canada, 100 Canadians die of a smoking-related illness. Each year, there are more than 230,000 deaths for that same reason. With the legalization and wide availability of cannabis, it is assumed that this number would only increase.

Smoke is smoke. We do not send firefighters into a smoke-filled room without respirators, so why would we encourage another means to harm our lungs? As a health care provider, I cannot support an increased burden to our country's health care system, and I certainly cannot get behind this idea when the demographic it will affect most negatively is our youth. The federal government needs to protect the young people of Canada. I do not feel that the bill goes far enough to ensure that is the case.

Another major issue that I see with this piece of legislation is that of occupational health and safety. In my riding, there are a lot of industries that rely heavily on manual labour from their employees, an example of which is the construction industry. The Construction Labour Relations Association of Saskatchewan wrote a letter to my office, outlining some of its concerns with Bill C-45. I have an excerpt from that letter. It says that the construction and maintenance industry is widely recognized as being a safety-sensitive industry, where substance use and abuse pose significant risks to workers' health and safety, and that their contractors are deeply concerned about the forthcoming legalization of marijuana.

Another industry that this has the potential to affect is the transportation industry. My riding serves as one of the major trucking corridors through the United States and up into Canada. Hundreds of transport trucks traverse my riding daily, going through small communities and often on single-lane highways. These single-lane highways are dangerous, to the degree that a “time to twin” committee has been established with the specific goal of working to get infrastructure funding to have Highways 39 and 6 twinned.

There are already a number of accidents involving 18-wheelers every year in southeast Saskatchewan, which sadly results in an average of three deaths annually. I can only assume that there will be more, unless there are specific provisions in place regarding the use of cannabis while at work.

There needs to be a framework for employers to lawfully continue to manage the workplace risks associated with cannabis use. They need to be able to have an option to test their employees whenever they feel the need, especially if the employer feels as though safety standards have been violated. Who will protect these employers from legal challenges, and who will protect fellow workers from the safety risks caused by intoxicated individuals?

I hope that the Liberals can understand why this is so important in labour-centric industries like construction, agriculture, oil and gas, and more. Both employees and employers deserve to have a clear and standardized set of rules regarding the acceptable use of intoxicants, including cannabis, to ensure that occupational health and safety is the major priority, no matter what.

This also applies to the matter of public safety in general. This is a story I do not tell a lot, but when I was 16 years old, while riding a bicycle, I was the victim of a hit and run collision where a driver who was impaired due to drug and alcohol use hit me and left me for dead on the side of the road. I had brain matter draining out of my ear and was in a coma for two weeks. I nearly died as a result of that. It affected my life dramatically, and still does to this day.

That personal experience is part of the reason why I feel so strongly about the need for policies to be in place regarding drug testing with respect to impaired driving before cannabis is legalized. It is a matter of ensuring public safety, and on this side of the House, we think that public safety should be put above keeping campaign promises. These tests need to be concise, accurate, and defensible. They need to be usable and in place prior to any legislation. Otherwise, we are closing the barn door after the horses have left.

In closing, I believe that Bill C-45 is flawed in many regards and that there needs to be a better understanding of the overarching effects of cannabis before it is made available to the Canadian public. I call on the Liberals to do the right thing, and to stand up for the health and safety of Canadians when it comes to the legalization of cannabis.

[Cannabis Act, June 1st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure my colleague is well aware that in 2013 Uruguay became the first country to legalize all aspects of marijuana use, and the intended purpose was to shrink the black market. I would be interested in hearing the member's comments on if she feels this legislation would have any effect at all on shrinking the black market for this product.

[Questions on the Order Paper, May 29th, 2017]

With regard to greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs): how many GHGs does the current Prime Minister's motorcade emit every (i) minute, (ii) hour, for which it is running?

[Questions on the Order Paper, May 29th, 2017]

With regard to videos which appear on the Environment and Climate Change Minister’s Twitter Account between March 23, 2017, and April 6, 2017: (a) what is the total cost associated with the production and distribution of the videos, broken down by individual video; (b) what is the itemized detailed breakdown of the costs; and (c) what are the details of any contracts related to the videos including (i) vendor, (ii) amount, (iii) description of good or service, (iv) file number, (v) date and duration of contract?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1, May 9th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, there are a number of things that I have found with the Liberal government and its promises, particularly when we talk about the Canada pension plan and that aspect of protecting Canadians.

The Liberals promised that they would be giving Canadians security with this Canada pension plan, but it will not benefit Canadians. It is going to cost them more money, thereby adding to their expenses. We are going to end up losing jobs because of this, which is not going to help the economy. I contributed to that program for many years in my previous career as a chiropractor. I had to put double the amount of money in. Even with making a significantly good income, I will not max out on the amount that was promised.

I do not see how the promises that the present government is offering are going to work, either on your issue or on other issues.