2017-11-21

Routine Proceedings
Parliamentary Budget OfficerThe Speaker: Pursuant to subsection 79.2(2) of the Parliament of Canada Act, it is my duty to present to the House a report from the parliamentary budget officer entitled “Fall Economic Statement 2017: Issues for Parliamentarians”. 
Auditor General of CanadaThe Speaker: I have the honour to lay upon the table the fall 2017 reports of the Auditor General of Canada. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(g), these documents are deemed to have been permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.
Indian ActMs. Yvonne Jones (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, an assessment of the population impacts of select hypothetical amendments to section 6 of the Indian Act.
Office of the Taxpayers' OmbudsmanMs. Kamal Khera (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour pursuant to Standing Order 32(2) to table the Office of the Taxpayers' Ombudsman annual report, in both official languages, entitled “Fairness: A Right, Not a Privilege”.
PetitionsMr. Arnold Viersen (Peace River—Westlock, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to present petitions signed by over 8,000 Canadians from across our nation. These petitioners are concerned about the accessibility and the impacts of violent and degrading sexually explicit material online and the impacts on public health. 
Recognizing that we cannot say that we believe in preventing sexual violence toward women while allowing pornography companies to freely expose our children to violent, explicitly sexual material imagery day after day, these petitioners are calling on the House of Commons to implement meaningful age verification on all adult websites.
Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present petition e-1162 concerning Tibetan human rights defenders. 
This petition was originated by Namdol Tenzin from Scarborough, and it calls upon the Government of Canada to urge China to fulfill its international human rights obligations, to create a comprehensive report on the situation of Tibetan human rights defenders, and to make public intervention on behalf of Tibetan human rights defenders, particularly the 11th Panchen Lama.
Questions on the Order PaperMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand at this time.
The Speaker:  Is that agreed? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.

Government Orders
Cannabis ActHon. Bardish Chagger (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism, Lib.):  moved:
 That in relation to Bill C-45, An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other Acts, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the report stage and two sitting days shall be allotted to the consideration at third reading stage of the said bill; and 
 That 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration of the report stage and on the second day allotted to the consideration at third reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the stage of the bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment. 

The Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1, there will now be a 30-minute question period. I invite hon. members who wish to ask questions to rise in their places so the Chair has some idea of the number of members who wish to participate in this question period.
The hon. House Leader of the Official Opposition.
Hon. Candice Bergen (Portage—Lisgar, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we have before us a bill that would make Canada probably one of the countries in the world with the most relaxed laws around marijuana. Marijuana is a substance that evidence shows affects young people right up to the age of 25. It is a substance that impairs people's ability to drive and their ability to work. It is a substance that our U.S. neighbour to the south has big problems with when it comes to people crossing the border. Marijuana will be legal in Canada yet it has so many problems attached to it. The provinces are concerned about it. Police are concerned about it. Parents are concerned about it. 
What is the government doing? It is shutting down debate and ramming this legislation through because it has an arbitrary timeline. We are not sure what the government's motivation is but it is clear that its motivation is not the safety and security, the health and well-being of our children, our communities, people on the road, people driving vehicles or operating machinery. The Liberals do not seem to care about that. They only seem to care about ramming this legislation through. This is worse than appalling. This is the worst example of the Liberals' disrespect of Parliament and disrespect for Canadians, municipalities, and provinces. 
I cannot believe we are seeing this happen again on this legislation.
Hon. Jody Wilson-Raybould (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the purpose of Bill C-45 is in terms of respecting the health and safety of Canadians. We have had substantive discussions around this particular legislation from pre-election, through two years that we have been in government, through a substantive task force focused on health and safety that engaged with Canadians right across the country. This legislation received 30,000 submissions in terms of what we have committed to doing, which is legalizing cannabis and strictly regulating access to cannabis in order to keep it out of the hands of children and the proceeds of its sale out of the hands of criminals.
The current status quo is simply not working. It is easier for a young person to get cannabis than it is, for example, for that young person to get a cigarette. 
We are doing something substantive. We are addressing this matter in terms of health and safety. We are putting in place a comprehensive framework while working in partnership with the provinces, territories, and municipalities. This framework will protect children and will do as much as possible to keep marijuana out of the hands of organized crime.
Mr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP): Madam Speaker, it is the position of the New Democratic Party and has for decades been our position that we need dramatic reform to Canada's criminalized approach to cannabis. We are in favour of legalizing cannabis. We are in favour of this legislation but we also want to do it right. We cannot change 100 years of criminal, social, and cultural attitude toward a substance like cannabis without taking great care. 
The McLellan report was very clear that the federal government had to work with all levels of government, provincial, municipal, and indigenous in order to have a successful rollout.
This legislation, while better than the status quo, has significant gaps. We heard this at committee. It has serious holes. It does not deal with pardons. 
Indigenous representatives testified at committee. Chief Isadore Day told us there has not been any negotiation or discussion with indigenous people whatsoever prior to this and they are going to have to apply the bill on indigenous reserves and bands.
The hon. justice minister just said that the government is concerned about getting marijuana out of the hands of organized crime and protecting children, yet the bill would not legalize edibles. The bill would have kept it illegal, period, but for pushing by New Democrats. It will be legal within one year of the bill becoming law. The government is content to leave edibles and concentrates in the hands of organized crime marketing to children. This is their big gap.
Finally, the bill perpetuates the criminalized prohibitionist approach to cannabis.
In 2015, when the government promised Canadians it would legalize cannabis, why did it not tell them that after the bill became law there would be more cannabis offences in the Criminal Code after legalization than before? 
Why will the government not work with provinces and municipalities that are asking for it to slow this process down instead of putting its own political interests ahead of providing good sound legislation in this country that really would protect children? 
Jody Wilson-Raybould: Madam Speaker, we are committed to the passage of Bill C-45 in order to legalize cannabis in the country, to strictly regulate and restrict access to cannabis in order to, as my friend articulated, keep it out of the hands of children and keep the proceeds out of the hands of criminal organizations. We are committed to doing it right, and we are working and will continue to work with all levels of government. We started that engagement and discussion and received substantive feedback through the efforts of the task force that was constituted by our government. We received 30,000 submissions, including from provinces and territories, municipalities, and law enforcement agencies. We are continuing to engage with them through my parliamentary secretary and the Minister of Health. 
This is something we are committed to doing. We are injecting substantive monies into the provinces and territories, and into a substantive public education and communications campaign. We have engaged, and will continue to engage, in a substantive way with indigenous communities to recognize their specific interests and desires with respect to their communities. My colleagues and I are committed to engaging in that conversation on an ongoing basis in the lead-up to the legalization of cannabis and strict regulation. 
Mrs. Cathy McLeod (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC): Madam Speaker, I would like to point out that the opposition has been remarkably co-operative with a whole number of bills, where we put up one or two speakers and we get our viewpoints on the record. Every now and then, a piece of legislation comes along that anyone who wants to speak to it deserves to have an opportunity to speak to it. I would suggest that such a profound change to our laws around the use of marijuana, which is getting rushed through, deserves that kind of scrutiny and debate. Therefore, I would like to ask the minister to stand up and tell Canadians why she is going to deny the opportunity to many members of Parliament who wish the opportunity to represent their constituents and to speak to this issue. I do not want to talk about the legislation. I want to talk about her denying the ability of parliamentarians to speak on such an important issue. 
Jody Wilson-Raybould: Madam Speaker, I consider it vitally important to hear from all members of the House in terms of discussions and debate with respect to proposed legislation. We have had substantive debate on various pieces of legislation throughout the course of the last two years. Particularly with respect to Bill C-45, we have had eight committee meetings. We have heard from nearly 100 witnesses at committee. We have received 115 briefs. In this honourable place, we have heard from 86 speakers. We have had 31 hours of debate. This is an incredibly important piece of legislation that we are wanting to move forward in order to legalize cannabis, to strictly regulate and restrict access to cannabis in order to keep it out of the hands of kids and the proceeds out of the hands of criminals.
The status quo simply is not working. We have had two years of substantive discussion right across the country. I was very pleased to hear from the 86 members of Parliament in this place who have submitted their concerns, as well as the views from committee that made some amendments to the bill. Discussion will be ongoing in the other place. 
Mr. Pierre Nantel (Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, NDP): Madam Speaker, it is astounding to see how the Liberal Party's political talking points have tainted a person of good faith like this minister, who used to be the chief of the BC Assembly of First Nations. Those folks are saying that this is not working and that we are going too fast. All the provinces are saying that.
In Quebec, legislators are being forced to make hasty decisions on extremely important matters that require a legal framework. Police forces are not ready. It is shameful. I do not understand how the minister can stand up here and tell us that the Liberals are not playing politics simply to fulfill that promise and pat themselves on the back.
How can she defend such a disavowal of her own vision for first nations and all the provinces? 
Jody Wilson-Raybould: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments from my colleague across the way. I am not disavowing any vision with respect to indigenous peoples. Bill C-45 would, and is committed to, legalize, strictly regulate, and restrict access to cannabis to keep it out of the hands of children and the proceeds out of the hands of criminals. That has been the agenda of this government for two years. We have engaged in substantive discussions right across the country, including within this place. We value the feedback we have received from members of Parliament. We look forward to the discussion that will happen in the other place.
With respect to indigenous communities, we will continue, on an ongoing basis, to engage with indigenous communities. We have and will continue to engage with provinces and territories, as well as law enforcement, to ensure they have the tools necessary to meet legalization in July of 2018. We have invested a significant number of dollars to assist the provinces and territories and to assist in an education and public awareness campaign about the harms of cannabis. We will continue to proceed in this manner to ensure that in legalization, we have and bear the utmost priority of the health and safety of Canadians. That is our commitment to Canadians.
Ms. Marilyn Gladu (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC): Madam Speaker, it is absolutely outrageous that this debate is being shut down. From the beginning, the government has been rushing ahead to this arbitrary date, which is 223 days away. The Liberals always talk about how they are consulting, but unfortunately they are never listening.
 Quebec has recognized that home grow does not keep cannabis out of the hands of children. New Brunswick thinks the same, so it has introduced measures to lock it up. Everyone at committee told us that we needed public awareness and education in place before legalization. The government has had two years and has done nothing. It has not even started to roll out the public education and awareness program. Speakers are lined up to speak to the bill, and the government is shutting down Parliament's ability to take a look at the legislation and point out the things that are wrong.
 It is not just the indigenous peoples who have not been consulted. Municipalities are saying that they have not been consulted. The Real Estate Association still has concerns. There is no plan to address the three treaties we will break as a result of this.
Also, on a point of order, we have props in the House. While I love the United Church, and I am all about the poor, we cannot have props in the House today.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): Unfortunately, I did not see any props. However, if there are some props, they are not to be used.
The hon. Minister of Justice.
Jody Wilson-Raybould: Madam Speaker, I want to confirm that we are listening. We have been listening for two years, and we will continue to listen. We will continue to engage with the provinces and territories, six of which have introduced their own measures with respect to responding to Bill C-45. We will continue to support them in that regard, as well as the other jurisdictions that will likely move forward in some manner.
On public education and communications, we have implemented substantive measures in this regard, including investments. Very recently we announced $36.4 million for public education and awareness, and that campaign has begun. For example, we have engaged in many initiatives via social media. We have issued 110,000 leaflets for a drug-free Canada. There are ongoing efforts by my colleagues, the Minister of Health and the Minister of Public Safety, to ensure we continue to communicate the risks related to cannabis, particularly with respect to young people.
 We will continue to have this campaign. We will continue to work in collaboration on this campaign to ensure the provinces, territories, municipalities, and law enforcement are prepared for the legalization, strict regulation, and restriction of access to cannabis.
Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP): Madam Speaker, what contempt for indigenous peoples, civil society, and the individual communities across Canada. What contempt for the provinces.
The government says it is listening, but it is as deaf as a post. It is incapable of listening. Maybe that is why I am raising my voice, so that it might reach their ears at some point.
While the Government of Quebec is asking for more time, the Liberals have the nerve to impose time allocation to speed up the passage of Bill C-45. It makes no sense. The government wanted to usher in a new era of collaboration with the provinces and establish new federal-provincial relationships. Well, that ended just as quickly as it began, thank you very much. The government could not care less about raising awareness or training police officers. It could not care less about health and social services or the cost to the provinces. There is just a need for speed.
What is the rush? My Conservative colleague was right. July 1, 2018 is an absolutely arbitrary date and it makes no sense. The only logical reason for rushing through this is to cater to cannabis producers who have received authorizations and permits, many of whom are former Liberal ministers and organizers.
Are they not the reason why we are voting on this time allocation motion today?
Jody Wilson-Raybould: Madam Speaker, I completely reject that characterization. I appreciate the passion and the emotion in the way the member is expressing his views. Therefore, I will reiterate what I have stated in response to his comments to assure him we are listening.
We have been listening for two years. We engaged a task force that put together a report and recommendations and benefited from discussions across the country. We have been and will continue to listen to indigenous communities. 
We are taking great care around awareness, while ensuring law enforcement officials have the tools they need to conduct their jobs. We are also ensuring that we are taking into account the costs. We are having these discussions and consulting with the provinces, territories, and the Canadian public to determine the cost and taxation. We will continue to work with the provinces, territories, and municipalities. We have had conversations with the province of Quebec, and we will continue to do that.
Once again, we are listening. This is important legislation. It seeks to address an issue of the status quo, which simply is not working. It is so incredibly easy for young people to get cannabis, easier than it is to get a cigarette. 
We will legalize and have a comprehensive framework in place. Our government is committed to doing that. 
Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, I have listened to the minister. One thing that is being lost on the other side is that we, in opposition, made a commitment to Canadians that if we were to form the government, this is exactly what we would do.
It should be no surprise to members opposite that we have legislation dealing with this very serious social issue. The Harper government chose to do nothing. The legislation would take literally hundreds of millions of dollars out of the hands of criminals. It would work much better toward assisting our young people today. We have more young people engaged in smoking and consuming cannabis than any other country in the western world.
For the very first time, the legislation will take direct action. Could my colleague, the minister, comment on the importance of maintaining this election platform commitment?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): I want to remind members that there is an opportunity to ask more questions. If they have questions and comments, they might wish to wait as opposed to yelling them across the way.
Jody Wilson-Raybould: Madam Speaker, my thanks to my colleague for his reiteration of our commitment in the campaign in the lead-up to the election, a campaign commitment we are moving forward with in a substantive and comprehensive way, while taking a health and safety approach, to ensure we address the dysfunction of the status quo and the ability for young people access to cannabis. Canada has the highest rate of usage of cannabis by young people as compared to other places in the world.
We made a commitment to the legalization, strict regulation of cannabis, and the restriction of access to cannabis to keep it out of the hands of children and the proceeds out of the hands of criminals.
We have undertaken to achieve this commitment with vigour. We have introduced Bill C-45. It has benefited from the substantive expertise of the task force on cannabis. Most of their recommendations were incorporated into the legislation. We have also benefited from recommendations and amendments that were made at committee.
I look forward to the continued debate and discussion over the course of today and to the passage of the legislation. I also look forward to the discussion that will happen in the other place.
Mr. Kerry Diotte (Edmonton Griesbach, CPC): Madam Speaker, we keep hearing the  justice minister say that this is all about keeping pot out of the hands of children. What kind of Orwellian doublespeak is that? Clearly, when they are 12 years old, they will be able to possess five grams of pot. How do mothers or fathers go to their children and tell them that pot is not good for them, when the government says that it is okay for 12 year olds to have five grams of pot? How is that keeping pot out of the hands of children?
Jody Wilson-Raybould: Madam Speaker, I know the member opposite has asked this question in previous forums.
Nothing in Bill C-45 makes it legal for a young person to possess cannabis. In having the five grams in Bill C-45, we have sought to ensure that we find a balance between the over-criminalization of young people and to ensure we do everything we can to protect the health and safety of, and restriction of access for, young people.
In the legislation, the provinces and territories have the ability, much like they do with respect to tobacco and alcohol, to put in place measures to ensure that cannabis can be seized from a young person by law enforcement officers, much the same way they do with respect to alcohol and cigarettes.
Ms. Anne Minh-Thu Quach (Salaberry—Suroît, NDP): Madam Speaker, this is the 25th time that time allocation has been invoked to limit debate on a bill, even though the Liberals have only passed 19 bills so far. This is senseless and demoralizing.
 The Liberals talk a good game about transparency and listening. They claim they are still at the listening stage and are open to amendments. However, of the 38 amendments proposed by the NDP, how many were accepted? Zero. The Liberals rejected every single amendment in committee, even though the goal was to improve the bill so it would truly protect youth. 
The minister says we are protecting youth. In reality, however, only a paltry $36 million over five years has been set aside for education. Colorado invests $40 million a year in education and prevention, but Canada is only prepared to put $7 million a year towards its so-called historic marijuana legalization bill. That is totally inadequate. This is supposed to be an investment in protecting our youth. 
The deadline is less than nine months away, but no front-line youth outreach organization has been contacted. There is no outreach going on with youth at home or in school or with street workers. There is a problem with communication and prevention.
What can the minister offer us in the way of assurances? Nothing is giving me much comfort this morning.
Jody Wilson-Raybould: Madam Speaker, my colleague across the way has always been an advocate for ensuring we have public education and awareness campaigns. I appreciate her raising this in the House, time and again. Our government is fundamentally committed to it, ensuring we do it in a substantive way.
I know my colleague, the Minister of Health, as well as my parliamentary secretary, are going to continue to engage, as am I, as is the Minister of Public Safety. We have made substantive investments with respect to public education and awareness. We have been engaging in social media to raise awareness about the harms and risks with respect to cannabis use. We have been talking about this and distributing leaflets on a drug-free Canada.
We will continue to do this. We will continue to engage with Canadians about how best we can move this forward to ensure that awareness is made in all areas and within all the places and populations that it is necessary to make substantive efforts.
Hon. Peter Kent (Thornhill, CPC): Madam Speaker, the minister speaks of exhaustive consultations, but she does not acknowledge the appeals for delay from all levels of society.
Here we have time allocation, the legislative guillotine, cutting off debate on perhaps the most important piece of legislation, where debate should be exhausted, not cut off. The Liberals have rejected appeals from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the provinces, the municipalities, and from all sorts of groups across society. We are now seeing checkerboard regulations being brought in, province to province, in some cases contradictory regulations, which will complicate both the application and enforcement of the law, as well as the public's right to know what happens on this side of the Gatineau River or on the other side.
It is particularly offensive, as this week we have the representatives from towns and cities, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, in Ottawa to talk to government, to talk to their parliamentary representatives. How can the Liberals and the minister look those representatives in the eye and tell them that they are not listening to their appeals for delay?
Jody Wilson-Raybould: Madam Speaker, in fact I do recognize that these individuals are in Ottawa, and we have been listening. We have been talking to municipal officials. We have been looking them in the eye and having substantial conversations about Bill C-45 and the provisions contained therein. We are committed to ensuring that we change the status quo, a status quo that simply is not working. We want to move forward with the legalization of cannabis and strictly regulate and restrict access. 
In order to have a comprehensive framework in place by July of 2018, we have to work with provinces, territories, law enforcement, and municipalities. We are committed to continuing to do that and look forward to the discussion that will happen today in ongoing debate, which has been substantive in this place.
Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP): Madam Speaker, the fact is this has become a government that is engaged in serial closure. This is the 25th time in this Parliament that the government has sought to ram through legislation without having proper debate, and it is particularly egregious.
Yesterday, on Bill C-59, an immensely controversial piece of legislation, the government imposed a procedural trick to shut down debate after only a few hours. Today, we are dealing with deeply flawed legislation with holes in it that need to be fixed, and the government is saying that it is going to shut down debate in the House of Commons and ram things through. The number of witnesses the minister cites does not matter. The fact is that amendments have been rejected time and time again and now the Liberals are trying to shut down debate. Why do they not fix the bill? New Democrats are willing to work with them.
Jody Wilson-Raybould: Madam Speaker, I have to reiterate the comprehensive nature of Bill C-45, the consultations, and the ongoing discussions we have had, and will continue to have, with provinces, territories, and municipalities to ensure that we can establish the comprehensive framework that will legalize cannabis, and strictly regulate and restrict access to cannabis. This is an ongoing effort. 
As we have seen, six jurisdictions have instituted their own measures with respect to the regulation of cannabis. We are going to continue to work with them and the other jurisdictions to ensure, come July 2018, that we have a comprehensive framework in place that obliterates the status quo and ensures that we keep cannabis out of the hands of kids and the proceeds out of the hands of criminals.
Mr. Nathaniel Erskine-Smith (Beaches—East York, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I have heard a lot of talk about delays from the other side, requests to delay this legislation further, and that we are rushing ahead so quickly. I would note that Colorado and Washington, in November 2012, passed resolutions at the ballot. The electorate called for legalization. In Colorado, 13 months later, businesses opened to sell cannabis. In Washington, 21 months later, businesses opened to sell cannabis. Given that it has already been more than 24 months since our election, does it seem like a rush here in Canada?
Jody Wilson-Raybould: Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's reiteration of the substantive investment of time that we have made. It has always been clear that this was a priority for our government. We engaged with a task force of experts, health experts and law enforcement, which provided us with substantive recommendations that we listened to. We listened to Canadians right across the country. We had the benefit of vigorous debate and discussion at the committee hearings, and amendments have been made. 
We will continue to listen to Canadians, provinces, and territories, as well as municipalities, indigenous communities, and governments. This is a commitment we have made. We are committed to ensuring that we roll out robust public education and awareness campaigns around the risks of cannabis. Again, I appreciate all of the substantive efforts and engagement by many people right across the country.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House. 
 
 The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
 No. 
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes):  All those in favour of the motion will please say yea. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea. 
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes):  All those opposed will please say nay. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay. 
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes):  In my opinion the yeas have it. 
 And five or more members having risen: 
 Call in the members.
[Stage Direction]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:) 
Vote #396
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
I wish to inform the House that, because of the proceedings on the time allocation motion, government orders will be extended by 30 minutes.
Report Stage[Stage Direction]
 The House resumed from November 9 consideration of Bill C-45, An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other Acts, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1. 
Mr. Marco Mendicino (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House of Commons today to speak about the motions moved by the member for Sarnia—Lambton.
 Before I begin, I would like to acknowledge the work of the Standing Committee on Health in its study of Bill C-45, an act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code, and other acts. The committee heard from nearly 100 witnesses in five days. The committee's deliberations resulted in the adoption of 20 amendments that contributed to improving various aspects of the bill. These were informed by the insight and advice of the many witnesses, both domestic and international. I want to thank the members of the committee for this thoughtful review of the bill and its efforts to improve the proposed legislation.
Bill C-45 follows through on our government's commitment to legalize, strictly regulate, and restrict access to cannabis in a way that protects Canadians, including our youth, and removes profits from the hands of criminals and organized crime. In my remarks today, I would like to further explain some of the reasons our government's approach to cannabis is the right one. 
The motion put forward by the member for Sarnia—Lambton would effectively prohibit adults from cultivating any cannabis plants on their own property. This stands in sharp contrast to the approach proposed by our government, which would allow adults to grow up to four cannabis plants on their property for personal use. 
First, let me remind members of the House that our proposed legislation was informed by the sound and extensive advice of the task force on cannabis legalization and regulation, which was chaired by the Hon. Anne McLellan. The task force consulted extensively with Canadians across Canada on how best to approach the legalization and regulation of cannabis. The members heard from youth, cannabis consumers, industry, indigenous communities, provincial and territorial governments, law enforcement, municipalities, regulators in other jurisdictions, public health and safety experts, and researchers, and the list goes on. Overall, the carefully weighed and diverse range of perspectives expressed during these extensive consultations suggested that small amounts of cannabis for personal use can be safely and responsibly grown at home by adults. 
The proposed new framework for cannabis, which permits a small number of plants to be cultivated by adults on their own property, is consistent with the approach recommended by the task force. There is no doubt that our government's proposed approach, allowing a small number of cannabis plants to be cultivated at home, is balanced and supports the objectives of Bill C-45. 
One of those objectives is to avoid criminalizing Canadians for minor offences related to cannabis. The current approach to cannabis has resulted in thousands of Canadians being charged, convicted, and sent to jail for possessing small amounts of cannabis, which indeed is counterproductive. Should the motion moved by the member for Sarnia—Lambton be adopted, Canadians would continue to be exposed to criminal charges for minor, non-violent offences. This would create an unnecessary burden on the criminal justice system, which is one of the reasons these motions should not be supported. We all know that criminal records can result in lifelong consequences by, for example, limiting employment opportunities. 
Another key objective of the bill is to reduce illegal activities in relation to cannabis. Significant profits are generated by the illegal cannabis market every year, and some of this profit ends up in the hands of organized crime. Allowing adults to legally cultivate a small number of cannabis plants on their property would represent an alternative to the illegal market and should not be prohibited completely. Completely prohibiting personal cultivation, as proposed by the member for Sarnia—Lambton, may undermine the government's ability to displace the illegal market and reduce criminal activities. 
Setting a limit on the number of plants an adult may grow is a reasonable way to distinguish between responsible adults who wish to grow a limited number of cannabis plants at home and cannabis cultivated to supply and drive the illegal market. This is why other jurisdictions have taken a similar path. 
As the federal framework has also been informed by international experience and best practices, I would note that in jurisdictions where cannabis is legal and strictly regulated, only one, Washington state, has maintained a prohibition on personal cultivation. Other jurisdictions, including Colorado, Oregon, and California, set provisions that restrict the number of plants that can be grown, such as the ones included in Bill C-45. 
Permitting personal cultivation in limited amounts is consistent with our government's approach to allowing Canadians access to a legal source of cannabis while setting a clear threshold to help law enforcement identify criminal organizations that are supporting an illegal market. 
To be clear, permitting personal cultivation of a limited number of plants would not mean open season for cannabis. On the contrary, the selling of home cultivated cannabis would still be a criminal offence, and growing more than four plants would be prohibited and prosecutable.
Finally, it is important to clarify that under the proposed framework, the provinces, territories, and municipalities would have the flexibility to impose further restrictions related to personal cultivation, beyond what is found in Bill C-45. This is an important point, as our government believes that they would be in a better position to assess the necessity and feasibility of such additional restrictions and their enforcement.
Through our government's proposed approach, Canadians would no longer run the risk of having a criminal record for possessing, sharing, or growing small amounts of cannabis. Canada is more than ready for a new approach, one that includes the ability of Canadians to grow small amounts of cannabis plants at home for personal use.
Again, the motion moved by the member for Sarnia—Lambton goes against the key objectives of the bill. Therefore, we recommend that all members of this House vote it down. It would also undermine our government's efforts to displace the illegal market and reduce criminal activities around cannabis. I am confident that the new legal framework we are proposing, including the current provisions of the bill that would allow personal cultivation of a small number of plants at home, is the best path forward for all Canadians.
Marilyn Gladu: Madam Speaker, I sat through all the testimony at the health committee. I noted that in his speech, the member talked about Washington state. In fact, Washington state did not allow home grow, and we see that it had the best outcomes in terms of reducing organized crime, which is down to less than 20%, and in making it difficult for people under the age of 21 to actually get hold of cannabis, which is actually the goal of this legislation.
The government did not listen to the provinces and has removed the height requirement for the four plants. That means that if people watch the YouTube video, they could roll chicken wire across the whole inside of a house and grow four trees and a huge amount of marijuana.
Why did the member not listen to Washington state, Quebec, and New Brunswick, which clearly see that home grow is a problem?
Marco Mendicino: Madam Speaker, we did listen. Just to be clear, no fewer than 86 speakers in this House have contributed to this debate. At committee, eight meetings were held, nearly 100 witnesses heard, and more than 115 briefs submitted and considered by the committee. Through its deliberations, the committee proposed a number of amendments, which are going to continue to be debated both in this House and in the other place.
When it comes to other jurisdictions, as I pointed out in my remarks, Washington was the only state. However, there are a number of other jurisdictions in the United States that have indeed sanctioned personal cultivation, because they, like us, understand that striking the right balance between personal use, which should not be criminalized, and keeping cannabis out of the illicit markets and out of the hands of our youth, is the best path forward.
Don Davies: Madam Speaker, I had the good fortune of sitting on the health committee as we studied this bill. Broadly speaking, the New Democrats are in favour of legalization and want to work productively with the government to provide the best possible legislation we can have in this country. However, without any doubt, there are serious gaps and flaws in this legislation that, for some reason, the government does not want to address in its rush to have this legislation passed by an arbitrary date of July 1, 2018. For instance, one of the holes in this bill is that it would allow provinces to opt out of the home grow provisions and opt out of the 30-gram possession limit. As we have already seen, Quebec has indicated that it will not allow any home growing whatsoever. We are going to have a patchwork of marijuana regulations across this country.
My hon. colleague talks about the need to rush this bill so that we can get cannabis out of the hands of criminals, yet the Liberal government says the exact opposite when it comes to edibles. It says that it cannot regulate edibles because it is not ready for that. 
There is no provision to ensure that small craft growers in this country will be licensed. The excise tax the government has brought in and imposed on the provinces has created a huge uproar in the provinces, because they will have to bear the lion's share of the burden of enforcement and the health care effects of this legislation, but the government is saying that it only wants to give 50%.
Why the rush? Why not take an extra three or six months, or even make it July 1, 2019, so that the government could keep its promise to legalize cannabis this term, but we could actually take the time to make sure we have excellent cannabis legislation?
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): I want to remind the member that there are only five minutes for questions and comments. 
All members should be able to draft their question or comment within one minute.
The hon. parliamentary secretary.
Marco Mendicino: Madam Speaker, just to be clear, there has been no rush. This has been a stated objective of this government since the time of the election campaign. We have been speaking and debating about it thoughtfully, methodically, for over two years, and that debate has been informed by the work of the Hon. Anne McLellan who chaired an independent task force, stripping it from any politics. 
Although my hon. colleagues want to heckle, they have to take a look at that work and view it with objective eyes. Those objective eyes will tell members that much work has gone into it on the issue of personal cultivation and decriminalization. We do not want to see our youth criminalized, not for possession of small amounts, when we know that will have a dramatic impact on their ability to get jobs and travel abroad. Therefore, the bill, which is informed by the independent task force and was amply supported by 30,000 submissions from across the country, attempts to strike that balance, and it will do so. 
I encourage all members to vote this motion down.
Mrs. Stephanie Kusie (Calgary Midnapore, CPC): Madam Speaker, today we are discussing Bill C-45, an act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other acts.
The intention of Bill C-45 is to legalize marijuana. This bill has numerous objectives; however, unfortunately, many of those pertaining to public health and public safety will not be achieved. This bill fails to protect the health of young persons by restricting their access to cannabis, fails to deter illicit activities in relation to cannabis, and fails to reduce the burden on the criminal justice system.
With the Liberal government's rushed deadline, law enforcement will not have the time or resources to train or prepare for the legalization of marijuana. Doctors are extremely concerned about the well-being of youth if this legislation is passed, as marijuana can be an extremely harmful substance. Numerous municipal and provincial governments will also not have the time or resources to respond to the tremendous impact that Bill C-45 will have on all Canadian communities.
More than 68,000 police officers in Canada will need specific training in the wake of this monumental legislation, and a few months is not a realistic timeline. As a result, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police has asked the government to extend this deadline. If police are not prepared to deal with the legalization through adequate training, this could lead to poor decisions resulting in bad case law for any new legislation.
We want our law enforcement to have the ability to properly uphold the law. Police will require final legislation from all the levels of government before being able to begin their preparations. The government needs to provide police with a clear direction regarding both funding and training.
The bill is also of grave concern for anyone on Canadian roads, as law enforcement agencies are also lacking the resources to deal with marijuana-impaired driving. There are no current reliable roadside testing methods to measure marijuana impairment as there are presently with alcohol. This is extremely challenging from a public safety perspective.
One of the purposes of this legislation is to ease the burden on law enforcement, but it is likely it will in fact do the opposite. Although there may be fewer charges of simple possession, those efforts will be replaced by those needed for ticketing. There are also severe concerns with home growing and allowing the possession of up to four plants. This will be extremely difficult to enforce. Jurisdictions such as Colorado in the United States that have already legalized marijuana have seen tremendous difficulties with this, especially with individuals selling their homegrown marijuana for a lower price than what is legally regulated. This is problematic as it will not incentivize the elimination of a black market.
Some elements of plain packaging could further hinder the enforcement of the black market as it will be very difficult for law enforcement to distinguish between legal and illegal marijuana products.
Youth access to marijuana is another grave concern. It has been medically confirmed that there are severe long-term effects from marijuana use by youth, such as cognitive delays and mental health issues. All of these are likely to affect their goals in school, as well as future careers.
Smoking marijuana doubles the risk of developing schizophrenia, which is especially worrying for those who are already at a greater risk. These risks do not just stop at the age of 18, when one becomes an adult, but rather can be experienced up to the age of 25. There needs to be increased awareness of these risks for those 25 and under, not just those under the legal age.
Research suggests that youth typically begin use in a social setting and do not recognize that as harmful. Youth also perceive the risks of marijuana impairment when driving to be minimal. The government should not be dismissive of the evidence we have seen in Colorado after it legalized marijuana. The state experienced drastic increases in deaths caused by marijuana-impaired driving. It is crucial for youth to be informed of the facts of these dangerous realities, and not be relying on myths and word of mouth.
Having homegrown marijuana is also a substantial risk to youth, as it is easily accessible through the home. Despite provisions to restrict youth access, marijuana use by youth was frequent, and most of the marijuana obtained was originally bought from legal sources. This is particularly concerning in relation to the production of edibles. Although they have been excluded from this bill, they are likely to be produced privately by individuals or even sold on the black market. With marijuana more easily accessible through legalization, edibles will be more prevalent. When marijuana is put in food, children may mistake it for delicious treats, which can be extremely dangerous.
I would like to note that Quebec's legislation for marijuana will forbid homegrown cannabis for personal use, for likely just those reasons. The Province of New Brunswick is also addressing the dangers of homegrown marijuana by making individuals lock up their plants. Provinces and municipalities are creating legislation in anticipation of Bill C-45, but it is evident that they do not have the resources or infrastructure to deal with its implementation by July 1, 2018. This is why the Province of Quebec also recently asked the federal government to extend the deadline to 2019.
There are a number of indirect results of legalizing marijuana, and municipalities will need to be prepared to deal with additional medical costs due to more emergency room visits, as well as poison centre calls. Areas that previously legalized marijuana also saw significant increases in homelessness, as well as crime, as a direct result. We should not be rushing this bill through, but rather, taking our time so we can learn from those who have already legalized this substance, so we do not make the same mistakes. We need more time to fully implement this legislation and minimize the risks to public safety. 
There are also significant international ramifications from implementing this bill. Canada will not be complying with three United Nations treaties and may cause disputes with our southern neighbour, the United States. Officials at United States border crossings have asked individuals whether they have consumed marijuana and, if yes, individuals have been denied entry. This can be very problematic when marijuana is considered legal and individuals are being denied entry into the U.S as a result of its use. This issue remains unresolved. 
This bill is extremely worrisome as it contains some major oversights. The Standing Committee on Health heard numerous witnesses in relation to Bill C-45, and the government failed in many areas to implement their recommendations. There are concerns from reputable organizations, such as the Canadian Medical Association and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. 
If my colleagues across the floor were concerned about the well-being of Canadians, they would not be putting this bill forward. I ask my colleagues in the House to stand up for the public safety of all Canadians and vote against this bill.
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith: Madam Speaker, about 12% of Canadians self-report using cannabis every year, but around 80% of Canadians say they use alcohol; 4.4 million Canadians are at risk for chronic health effects as a result of alcohol use; 3.1 million Canadians are at risk of immediate injury and harm; and 3,000 Canadians are born every year with fetal alcohol spectrum disorders. 
Does my colleague think we should have rules to prevent people from brewing their own beer and wine at home, and does she think we should lock up our alcohol in the same way New Brunswick has passed laws in relation to locking up cannabis?
Stephanie Kusie: Madam Speaker, what we are seeing here is what we have seen in the entirety of legislation proposed by the Liberal government, and that is an attempt to blur the issues. It is an attempt to confuse things and create problematic, complicated, unclear systems and processes. I have seen this a lot in my home province of Alberta regarding the natural resources sector, and this question is just another example of that: trying to blur the issues and have one thing one way and another thing not the same. This question, to me, absolutely tries to complicate the issues and have unclear systems, processes, and legislation, something we have seen from the Liberal government for the entirety of its term. 
Pierre Nantel: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. She has highlighted the concerns of people who know this issue and work with youth, drivers, and workplaces. She is quite right to raise all these concerns.
It is very obvious that the government is obsessed with its bogus election promise. There are other priorities in life, and the Liberals are downloading this matter onto the provinces without giving them financial resources and, even worse, they have told them that the federal government and the provinces will be splitting the profits. They have some gall.
I would like to hear what she has to say about that.
Stephanie Kusie: Madam Speaker, that is exactly what I mean. We need more time to prepare. Every province needs more time to prepare. They are not ready to respond to this legislation. That really bothers me. My colleague's comments have a lot of merit. That is another reason why I am opposing this bill.
Ms. Joyce Murray (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I have a very short question. I wonder if my colleague across the aisle really believes that the current situation is better, where criminal gangs regulate, control, push, promote, and sell cannabis products, or if the federal government regulates, controls, educates, and prevents. That is the government's plan. 
Stephanie Kusie: Madam Speaker, I do not believe that in opposing this legislation we are saying that these options are better. What we are saying is that we need more time to effectively and properly evaluate this legislation, more time to allow our provincial and municipal counterparts to prepare, and more time to prepare with respect to the international treaties, which I have made reference to.
Going back to the first question posed to me, I will also point out that it is very unfair that the current Liberal government picks and chooses what is best for it. For example, with respect to the international treaty for the marketing of firearms, the Liberals want to comply with the United Nations treaty because it goes along with their ideological agenda, whereas complying with the three treaties regarding the marijuana legislation is not convenient for them because these do not conform to their ideology. 
I absolutely do not want to see the black market gangs running an illegal market for cannabis. What I would like to see is more time to effectively create a proper plan for all levels of government to respond in the best manner possible for the health and safety of all Canadians.
Joyce Murray: Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak strongly in support of Bill C-45 through which our government is ending the failed approach of criminalizing cannabis. This is an opportunity to protect our youth, to take profits out of the hands of criminals, and to treat drug use as the public health issue it actually is.
I have actively worked to advance this policy since hosting the Liberal caucus in discussions back in the fall of 2011 about the potential legalization of cannabis, so I am proud to stand in the House and see this policy come to fruition.
I would like to start my comments today by giving some thanks to organizations that have been advocating for this very practical and positive new policy. I would first like to thank Dr. Evan Wood, an emergency room physician, who led a coalition called Stop the Violence BC, when he saw the gang and gun violence on the streets of Metro Vancouver, including in an award-winning restaurant in Vancouver Quadra, where two people were injured by a gang shootout around the drug trade.
I would like to thank Brett Harvey and Adam Scorgie, who created a documentary called The Union: The Business Behind Getting High, which documented the role of organized crime in controlling the cannabis trade. Years ago, I had the privilege of hosting them and their film in Ottawa, where I opened up an event to all members of Parliament and senators of all parties to learn about why we needed to move beyond our failed policy, which we are actually moving beyond today.
I want to thank all of the sound drug policy advocates, like Donald MacPherson of the Canadian Drug Policy Coalition, who brought forward evidence as to why this shift was needed, and the many other health care professionals, criminal justice professionals, and policing professionals who have pushed for this change in our country.
Lastly, I would like to thank our Prime Minister for including this in our platform, and the health minister and the justice minister for delivering on this mandate, as well as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health for his leadership, and all members of the Standing Committee on Health for doing good work toward this change that we have positioned our country for over two years.
This week we were reminded once again of the importance of this discussion by the RCMP's seizure of 64 pounds of cannabis and 94 mature cannabis plants from the Hells Angels in Kelowna. This is the reality of our current system: organized crime produces, distributes, and sells the cannabis, and uses it to fund its other criminal ventures. It is Hells Angels and other criminals who regulate and control the product and what is actually in it, and how to sell more of it to our youth. It is criminal gangs who recruit young people to be part of this terrible criminal enterprise, so it is far better that the government regulate and control cannabis. That is what Bill C-45 is all about.
The bill before the House of Commons today was developed on the basis of the excellent work of the task force on cannabis legalization and regulation, which conducted an in-depth study of the various implications of the legislation and the strict regulation of cannabis.
Mrs. Sylvie Boucher: The provinces need more time.
Joyce Murray: The member opposite says they need more time, but there has actually been a lengthy thoughtful process on this already and it is time to move. The members opposite who are yelling at me right now are just trying to stop this—
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): Order. If the member for Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix has something to say, she must wait until the time for questions and comments. She can rise at that time to ask her question. I am sure she would like to be shown the same respect if she were the one giving a speech.
Joyce Murray: Madam Speaker, adults who are found in possession of a small amount of cannabis, up to a maximum of 30 grams, will no longer be treated like criminals. Instead, Bill C-45 will give responsible adult consumers a way to legally obtain this substance, which will be strictly regulated in order to meet the high national safety and quality standards.
This new approach will help reduce the disproportionate burden imposed on the 18,000 individuals who were charged with possession of cannabis in 2016. We know a simple possession charge can have life-long impacts on a person's life prospects. Bill C-45 will reduce this travesty. It will also reduce the burden on the criminal justice system. 
Our government believes that law enforcement and the courts should devote their resources to criminal activities that are truly detrimental to society, as well as to education and prevention in the case of public health issues like cannabis use. 
The expert witnesses who appeared before the Standing Committee on Health agreed with our government's proposed approach. For example, Karey Shuhendler, from the Canadian Nurses Association, stated: 
 Bill C-45 promotes the removal of harms associated with the prohibition model, while recognizing the need to protect vulnerable populations, including youth. 
Under our current regime, Canadian youth have one of the highest rates of cannabis use in the world. In 2015, 21% of youth aged 15-19 reported using cannabis in the past year. Some Vancouver Quadra citizens have expressed concerns that legalization of cannabis will increase its use by young people. I think the evidence will show that use will decrease over time with the prevention and education programs put in place by the government.
Let us be clear that many youth are using cannabis now under a system controlled by criminal gangs. That is why the bill includes strict controls and penalties to protect young people, and measures to deter and punish adults who provide cannabis to under-aged Canadians. Deterring the illegal market is necessary to protect Canadian youth.
 Experts such as Dr. Christina Grant, from the Canadian Paediatric Society, have cautioned that too high an age limit will preserve an illegal market that provides a supply of illegal, unregulated, and unsafe cannabis to Canadians between the ages of 20 and 24. These are the young people who currently have the highest rates of consumption among Canadians and among their peers from other developed countries.
It is also important to keep in mind that the bill gives the provinces and territories the flexibility to establish additional restrictions that can go even further than those set out in the federal framework, depending on their own specific needs and circumstances.
This includes raising the national minimum age if a province or territory so choses.
Beyond the proposed minimum age restriction and severe penalties for selling cannabis to youth, Bill C-45 proposes a number of additional controls to protect young Canadians. For example, the bill includes provisions that would prohibit the sale of cannabis and cannabis products that are considered appealing to youth. It would ban the advertising and promotion of cannabis, except in limited and very restricted circumstances. It would also set out requirements for packaging and labelling to ensure they are not appealing to youth. 
Also, as various expert witnesses who testified before the Standing Committee on Health reminded us, these measures need to be supported by significant and effective public education to explain the risks and harms associated with cannabis consumption, especially for youth. Our government fully agrees with these experts and we have already started a national public awareness and education campaign, in collaboration with the provinces and territories. This campaign will be augmented by the additional $36.4 million announced recently.
Finally, in light of the tragedy of the current opioid crisis, I would like to note how an evidence-based public health approach to drug use can save lives. We know that cannabis use for medical purposes like pain relief is safer and less addictive than opioids. In the United States, the legalization of medical cannabis in many states has resulted in a 25% drop in opioid-related deaths compared to states where medical cannabis remained illegal. In Canada the opioid crisis took at least 2,458 Canadian lives in 2016 and it is only growing worse. British Columbia and Vancouver have a disproportionate share. However, I am optimistic that those tragedies will be reduced by the legalization of cannabis.
To sum up, this is a thoughtful and comprehensive piece of legislation that has been designed to protect the health and safety of Canadians while saving lives. 
Mr. Michael Cooper (St. Albert—Edmonton, CPC): Madam Speaker, one of the issues and concerns that has been raised about legalization of marijuana is drug-impaired driving. Since legalization in states such as Colorado and Washington, deaths, injuries, and carnage on the roads have increased. Law enforcement officials have made it clear that they will not be ready by July 1, 2018. One of the reasons for this is that there is not even an approved screening device to test for THC, let alone questions about how scientific per se limits are, in that there is no clear correlation between drug impairment and THC in the body.
Could the parliamentary secretary explain how the government can honestly say that Canada will be ready on July 1, 2018, when we still do not even have an approved screening device for drug-impaired driving?
Joyce Murray: Madam Speaker, first, I share the concern for any impaired driving and the potential for the harm that does. Second, cannabis is widely used already, only illegally. It is not being regulated with respect to its impact on driving satisfactorily. The bill and the framework are focused on health and safety as well as on bringing forward the technologies for and the research on how to protect and reduce the problem of impaired driving.
Mr. Alistair MacGregor (Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, NDP): Madam Speaker, I have a quick comment on the language the parliamentary secretary used in her speech about the involvement of gangs in the cannabis industry. I would caution her on using some of that inflammatory and fearmongering language. I would also encourage her to read a report by Professor Michael DeVillaer. He has done extensive research on this topic. He found that by far most people involved in the illicit cannabis market would never ever have contact with a violent criminal or any of the violence associated with the industry. Many people grow it to supplement their incomes. Therefore, it resembles much more of a stratified industry.
My colleague from Vancouver Kingsway has said that this is not really a legalization bill, that it makes it less illegal. The bill sets up a whole new framework with a lot more prohibitions than currently exist. If, under clause 7, the Liberal government has the purpose of reducing the burden on the criminal justice system in relation to cannabis, yet is setting up all these new prohibitions, does the member honestly think that in light of the Jordan decision and after the bill is passed that our criminal justice system will be used less than it is currently?
Joyce Murray: Madam Speaker, this is the kind of question that leads to good debate in the House, so I thank my hon. colleague.
 Being from metro Vancouver, a privilege which my colleague across the aisle does not share, I am very aware of how much violence on the streets has been tied to drug crime and organized crime. That is why we had a coalition of literally dozens of professionals, including medical, police, criminology, and justice, called “Stop the Violence BC”. May it be a stratified criminal activity now, as he has mentions, but there was a strong element of organized crime that created fear on the streets and deaths of innocent bystanders. That has to stop.
The prohibitions are very important to protect younger Canadians, those below the minimum threshold, from being exposed to the sale of cannabis illegally. That is an important part of this whole framework. It is about health, safety, and especially the protection of our youth.
Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, CPC): Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-45 on the legalization of marijuana.
Does the Prime Minister really think that legalizing marijuana will protect Canadian youth and my 12- and 14-year-old children? When I hear him say that sort I thing, I cannot help but think that he lacks judgment or that he is being insincere. What I find even more troubling is that the member for Scarborough Southwest, a former long-serving police officer, also believes that organized crime is simply going to disappear as soon as Parliament passes Bill C-45. These men are living in a world of make-believe, where botched, simplistic bills can be used to magically solve extremely complex problems and where heroes can simply sprinkle some fairy dust and make organized crime disappear. Problem solved.
Here in the House, we have to forget that world of make-believe and deal with the real world like grown-ups. We have to make sure that our actions produce real results, keep Canadians safer, and protect young people from a life of drugs. Bill C-45 only complicates the drug-use problem in Canada. No, legalizing marijuana will not make it harder for our children to get their hands on drugs. Yes, organized crime will find ways around laws it has no intention of obeying. No, police officers cannot use fairy dust to fight drug-related crime, violence, and death.
The Liberals say that Bill C-45 will regulate the industry. What a joke. Once Bill C-45 comes into force, the government will have to come up with a retail pricing strategy. How is organized crime likely to respond? Are criminals going to step back and do nothing? I have a feeling criminals already have a plan to deal with this new reality. When the government raises tobacco taxes, organized crime adjusts its prices accordingly. The market is constantly adjusting. History has shown that to be the case every time, and marijuana will be no exception. 
Also, young people are more easily drawn to the black market's low prices because they do not have the same means as adults. They cannot afford to pay higher prices. If he wants, the Prime Minister will be able to buy marijuana at any price, but our young people cannot. They will have to choose between the government's price and the criminals' price. 
During the last election, the Prime Minister said that he wanted to legalize marijuana to keep it out of the hands of young people, but Bill C-45 shows us that youth 18 and over will be able to buy cannabis. I have some figures I would like to share, and I hope to make things clear.
Bill C-45 says that those 18 and over will be allowed to buy cannabis. However, in Colorado, you have to be at least 21. That should be the minimum. Another problem is that young people will still be allowed to carry marijuana. This means that people will have to be 18 to buy it, but they can have it on them at age 12. That does not make any sense. 
In addition, minors aged 16 and 17 are often friends with people who are 18. They are less likely to be friends with people aged 21 and older. Thus, an 18 year old, who has reached the age of majority and can legally purchase cannabis, can give it to his or her 16- and 17-year-old friends. I am not the one saying so. All the witnesses, especially those from the medical community, are saying that the minimum age should be at least 21 years.
I am thinking of my kids, who are 12 and 14. Under this bill, they will be allowed to possess up to five grams of marijuana. To be sure that everyone understands clearly, that is the equivalent of 10 to 15 joints. If my 14-year-old son is caught with 10 joints in his pocket, that will be completely legal. He would not be able to purchase it, but he would be allowed to have it in his possession. That is one of the gross inconsistencies of Bill C-45.
In addition, under this bill, youth aged 12 to 17 will be allowed to distribute it among themselves. I would like to see Bill C-45 prohibit young people from possessing marijuana altogether.
Young people should not have any opportunity to get their hands on drugs. 
There are also questions about the various cannabis-based products and the as yet undefined licensing strategies. Rental property owners are having problems as well, because the legislation currently allows up to four plants per home, and the height is not regulated at present.
Four healthy, well-fertilized plants up to eight feet tall can yield up to 600 grams of home-grown marijuana. Incidentally, most of the witnesses were against the idea of allowing plants to be grown at home. Medical groups, law enforcement, and everyone else said home growing should not be permitted.
I am very proud of the Province of Quebec right now. The Quebec government has drafted its own law based on what the federal government had proposed, and it has decided to ban home growing. To the Quebec government, I say well done.
Another problem is that police forces are not getting any answers to their questions. They want to know how they are supposed to properly enforce traffic laws starting July 1, 2018. 
Furthermore, how will those provinces that do allow plants to be grown in houses and apartments monitor what people are doing? How will they check every apartment in Canada to make sure there are only four plants, not five, six, seven, or eight? 
A lot of questions remain unanswered. This government is quick to ram Bill C-45 down our throats by claiming that it is a national priority. In Canada, there is nothing more important than legalizing marijuana. That is just great.
Police officers are also telling us about other problems that will arise with plants in homes: odour, the number of plants, the height of plants and the nuisance that could be created. Once again, there are many unanswered questions about this bill. 
What will happen with plants at home? Young people will be able to make joints with these plants, and then they are going to take these joints and visit their buddies. The joints will be sold, and then resold, creating a criminal network from plants legally grown at home. Young people will be able to sell pot to their friends. The black market will not shut down. It will be legal at home, but illegal in the streets. It is just a lot of nonsense, and I have not even touched on insurance problems resulting from having plants in homes.
There will also be problems at the border. We saw that recently with the serious problem of illegal immigrants at our borders. The RCMP and the Canada Border Services Agency are devoting much of their resources to the borders. Now the government wants to legalize marijuana and border services officers are wondering what they are supposed to do.
Are the officers supposed to arrest Americans who come to the border with marijuana? Do we tell the American authorities? It is illegal on the other side of the border. If Americans show up here with their pot thinking they can come to Canada to smoke their joints, are we to report them to the American authorities and leave them on the other side of the border? Those types of questions still remain unanswered. If people go on vacation thinking they can bring their own pot with them across the border, they are mistaken. All of these questions are left unanswered.
The Liberals want us to vote in favour of this bill. This is amateur hour. If the Parliament of Canada, the House of Commons, votes in legislation like this, we will truly be a bunch of rank amateurs. Those of superior rank are often referred to as pros, but here, we are dealing with rank amateurs who will never make it to the big leagues.
[Intervention]
An hon. members:  They are called Liberals.
Pierre Paul-Hus:  As I see it, the Liberals are turning our country into a frat house, a kind of campus club where anything goes. They would have us believe that these are just innocent games, not serious at all.
Still, for the sake of my children, I will vote against this bill. 
Ms. Linda Lapointe (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned that he is from Quebec. My riding is in Quebec too.
His kids are 12 and 14. I have four children. They are 25, 23, 21, and 18. High-schoolers can easily get marijuana. Kids know where to find it. The current system is not working.
Consultations were held in my riding. Unlike in the rest of Canada, where 21% of kids under 18 have used marijuana, in Quebec that number is 50%. We cannot do nothing. We need to provide a legal framework for marijuana, and that is the purpose of this bill.
I would suggest to my colleagues that they ask their children if they have ever had access to marijuana. They will find that they have.
Pierre Paul-Hus: Mr. Speaker, we know that marijuana is accessible. However, if the government legalizes it, it will not only be accessible, but it will also be available for purchase in liquor stores.
We know that pot is a problem. However, legalizing it is like turning a blind eye to that problem and trivializing it. It is like saying that we were unable to do anything about the problem and we cannot allocate any resources to dealing with it. Essentially it is like saying that it is okay to buy cannabis, that there is no problem, and that it is no longer dangerous. The real problem is that the government is turning a blind eye and legalizing cannabis. That is what I think, and I have been very clear about it. The members on the other side of the House can delude themselves all they want, but our position is clear.
There has been talk of enforcing prohibitions. The government has said that enforcing prohibitions does not work and so it is going to legalize cannabis. The Liberals decided to invest $270 million to give police the equipment they need to enforce the law. The provinces are asking for millions and millions of dollars to acquire the enforcement tools they need to control this soon-to-be legal substance.
Why not give the police these tools while cannabis is illegal? Let us do that. Let us arrest people and put them in prison for using drugs. The government's approach is illogical. At some point, people start deluding themselves. The reality is that marijuana is a drug.
We believe that marijuana should not be legalized and made accessible to everyone.
Don Davies: Mr. Speaker, one of the duties of the democratic system is that Canadians send representatives to the House of Commons to debate the issues of the day. We have differences of opinions on a number of important issues and they are all worthy of respect. I do not think it is a surprise to point out to my colleague that the New Democrats do not share the Conservatives' view on the criminalization of drugs.
Does my hon. colleague think that the continued criminalization of cannabis is a policy that should be pursued, even if it results in young Canadians, marginalized Canadians, poor Canadians getting criminal records for simply possessing small amounts of cannabis for personal use? Is it his position that we should continue that policy so Canadians get criminal records for imbibing that substance? 
Pierre Paul-Hus: I thank my colleague for the question. Indeed, the Conservatives and the NDP see things differently.
However, I can say to my colleague that at the Conservative Party convention in Vancouver two years ago, the Conservatives voted in favour of decriminalizing marijuana possession. That way no one would get a criminal record for simple possession. It is now part of our platform. We agreed with that and we are open to the idea. 
However, there is a big difference between fully legalizing marijuana by creating a marketing system and decriminalizing marijuana by removing the criminal aspect for young people or people who get caught. It is totally different. I think that Canadians have not seen the difference between legalization and decriminalization.
Mr. Bernard Généreux (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I come from Quebec as well. In the coming days, I will have a chance to present a petition from Cercles de fermières with 9,600 signatures on it.
Cercles de fermières is a group of women from across Quebec who work hard and are deeply involved in their community. These women are truly scared and concerned that legalizing marijuana will become a scourge in Quebec.
I am sure that Cercles de fermières has a group in my colleague's riding. They are not the only group to criticize this bill, but the Liberals do not want to listen to anyone.
I would like my colleague to tell us who else in his riding, other than Cercles de fermières, has criticized this bill.
Pierre Paul-Hus: Mr. Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague for his question.
We have women in agriculture associations, and in addition we have groups of athletes, such as hockey teams, and all the people who work with youth. None of those groups understand the government's position on this issue. 
Seniors are not the only ones who are worried. Everyone in the world of sport is worried, and in the Quebec City region, even police officers and chiefs of police have no idea what the Prime Minister is trying to accomplish. 
Linda Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague.
 It is my honour today to speak to Bill C-45, our government's bill to legalize and strictly regulate cannabis consumption in Canada. 
 The future cannabis act represents a new approach to cannabis, one that puts public health and public safety at the forefront and will better protect young Canadians. 
The current approach to cannabis does not work. It has allowed criminals and organized crime to profit while also failing to keep cannabis out of the hands of Canadian youth. In many cases, it is easier for our kids to buy cannabis than cigarettes. Canadians continue to use cannabis at some of the highest rates in the world. It is the most commonly used illicit drug among young Canadians.
In 2015, 21% of youth aged 15 to 19 reported using cannabis in the past year. That is one out of five young people in this country. In the Laurentian region, it is almost 50%.
 Too many young people see cannabis as a benign substance. They are often ill-informed about the harm it can do, and they do not realize that early use of cannabis increases susceptibility to long-term effects. Youth are especially vulnerable to the effects of cannabis on brain development and function. This is because the THC in cannabis affects the same biological system in the brain that directs brain development.
At the same time, too many young people today are entering the criminal justice system for possessing small amounts of cannabis, potentially impacting their long-term opportunities. Clearly, there has to be a better way of educating and protecting our young people.
Given these facts, I would like to focus my comments today on the benefits of this legislation for youth. This is one of our government's primary objectives for Bill C-45, to protect youth by restricting their access to cannabis.
 I would first like to note that this legislation is just one piece of the overall approach to addressing cannabis use by youth. Our government's commitment to keeping cannabis out of the hands of children comprises several complementary measures to protect their health, keep them safe, and ensure their well-being. 
Our government is trying to reduce cannabis use by youth, to restrict their ability to obtain the product, to provide them with better information on its harms to health and its risks, and to keep them out of the criminal justice system for possessing even small amounts of cannabis.
This approach requires legislative and regulatory measures, and support for public education and awareness. To that end, our government has begun a public education campaign with a focus on youth and their parents to better inform them about cannabis, its harm and risks to health.
 Considering all of these measures combined, I am confident that our government's overall approach will be effective in better protecting our youth from the potential harm of this mind-altering substance.
I would like to explain the specific measures in the cannabis bill that would help safeguard our youth. As a society we have learned from the health and safety controls that have been put in place for other potentially harmful substances, such as cigarettes, alcohol, and prescription medication.
Bill C-45 uses these best practices as the starting point, and contains a number of measures that are designed to protect youth.
At the outset, Bill C-45 prohibits the sale of cannabis to anyone under the age of 18 and prohibits adults from giving cannabis to anyone under 18. It also creates an offence and penalty for anyone caught using a young person to commit a cannabis-related offence. Any adult found guilty of engaging in these activities could face a jail term of up to 14 years.
To avoid the kind of enticements to use cannabis that we have seen in the past with cigarettes, Bill C-45 would prohibit any form of cannabis designed to appeal to youth. This means that things like cannabis-infused gummi bears or lollipops would be illegal.
To further discourage youth from using cannabis, cannabis producers or retailers would be prohibited from using any kind of packaging or labelling that might be appealing to youth, or to use any kind of endorsement, lifestyle promotion, or cartoon animal to promote their product. The promotion or advertising of cannabis products will not be permitted in any place or in any media that could be accessed by youth, such as grocery stores, movie theatres, or on public transportation, just to name a few examples.
 To further reduce the chance that youth might be able to access the product illegally, cannabis will not be sold in any kind of vending machine. Bill C-45 also includes authority to make regulations that could require cannabis to be sold in child-resistant packaging, to protect our youngest ones from accidentally consuming this product.
Taken together, these measures constitute a comprehensive approach to protecting the health and safety of our youth.
In addition to protecting public health and safety, one of our government's goals is to avoid criminalizing Canadians for relatively minor offences. 
Having a criminal record for simple possession of small amounts of cannabis can have significant consequences. Having a record can seriously impact opportunities for employment, housing, volunteerism, and travel. The question we have to ask ourselves is do we want to continue to saddle Canadians with these burdens for the possession of small amounts of cannabis? Our government's response is an emphatic no.
The proposed legislation sets out a 30-gram possession limit for dried cannabis in public for adults aged 18 and over. As I stated earlier, it would also establish offences and strict penalties for adults who give or try to sell cannabis to a youth, or who use a young person to commit a cannabis-related offence.
Under Bill C-45, youth would not face criminal prosecution for possessing or sharing very small amounts of cannabis. Any activities by youth involving more than small amounts of cannabis, defined as over five grams, would be addressed under the provisions of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.
Our government will be working with the provinces and territories to support the development of legislation in each jurisdiction that would allow law enforcement to confiscate any amount of cannabis found in the possession of a young person. This would allow authorities to take away any amount of cannabis they may have in their possession.
Let me be clear, the proposed approach addressing youth possession of cannabis does not mean that such behaviour is encouraged or acceptable. It is not. Rather, it recognizes that a more balanced approach that uses a range of tools, and does not rely on the criminal justice system, would provide a better way to reduce cannabis consumption among youth.
This approach is consistent with the findings of the Task Force on Cannabis Legalization and Regulation. The task force's final report noted that cannabis use among youth could be better addressed through non-criminal approaches that discourage youth from possessing or consuming cannabis. I believe this strikes the right balance between avoiding the criminalization of youth for the possession of small amounts and ensuring that cannabis remains tightly regulated and controlled.
In conclusion, our government has put the health, safety, and well-being of youth at the core of this proposed legislation.
I am convinced that, through this balanced approach, our government will be able to help Canadians access recreational marijuana in a way that is safe and regulated and that will take this substance out of the hands of our children.
Mr. Mark Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to my colleague across the way. The first point I want to bring to her attention is that she said her government does not want youth to have a criminal record if they have possession. I think we will find unanimous support for that position, but the question is how do we get there?
The Conservative Party believes marijuana possession should be decriminalized so it can be taken out of the hands of children without making them have a criminal record. Right now, it can be confiscated if found in the hands of children. Decriminalizing it would continue that, where it could be removed out of the hands of children.
We are having difficulty with this so-called balanced approach. Approximately 20% of children now have it in their possession, and maybe even more actually use it, but right now it can be confiscated. The member's solution is that 100% of children aged 12 to 18 could have up to 15 marijuana cigarettes in their possession and it could not be confiscated. By moving from 20% to 100% being able to have possession does not seem logical.
Could the member try to explain how what is illogical is now supposed to be balanced?
Linda Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.
I am going to repeat some of the points that I made earlier. In the past year, 21% of Canadian youth under the age of 18 had access to marijuana. In the Laurentian region, which is north of Montreal and home to my riding, that number was 50%. Right now, cannabis is illegal. Children should not have access to it.
Under the legalization framework, we are proposing that cannabis be made inaccessible to children under the age of 18 and that any adult aged 18 and over who gives or sells this drug to children under the age of 18 would face a penalty of up to 14 years in prison.
The existing approach is not working. Young people under 18 already have access to cannabis. That is what we have to stop.
Pierre Nantel: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Rivière-des-Mille-Îles for her speech.
If I am not mistaken, to date, she has proven herself to be a very practical person who is in touch with the people around her in her riding. The fact that she comes from the retail industry confirms that impression.
However, I cannot resist asking her whether she simply cannot hear the provinces from her seat. They are saying that this is moving too quickly, and they want to know why it is so urgent that this measure be put in place by July 2018. The first nations have also said that this is moving too quickly.
I cannot believe that she would support an approach that is so paternalistic toward the provinces and the first nations.
Linda Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his question.
I do indeed come from the retail sector. Retail stores are forbidden from selling cigarettes to children under the age of 18. Selling cigarettes through legal channels means it is harder for youth to buy cigarettes than any other drug. That is a fact. That is why it is important to make sure cannabis is sold through legal channels and is unavailable to children under the age of 18.
You mentioned the speed at which we are moving. We held a consultation in my riding in September, and Dr. Goyer, director of public health in the Laurentian region, was there. He said it is important to regulate and legalize cannabis as soon as possible because youth already have access to it.
Alistair MacGregor: Mr. Speaker, I last rose in this House to speak to Bill C-45 back in May. I began my remarks then by speaking favourably of the government for taking an important first step in the move toward rectifying the failed crime-and-punishment approach that we have held in this country since the 1920s. It is quite obvious from all of the literature and evidence in the history of our country and indeed around the world that the war on drugs has been a complete and utter failure. The billions of dollars that have been spent and the countless lives that have been lost in that approach speak volumes about this failed approach. I believe that our resources as a country can be spent on a different approach, especially when the results have absolutely nothing to do with the objectives that were set out. We have a country where our youth are among the highest users of cannabis, despite decades of an approach where the use of cannabis and the trading of cannabis were criminalized. 
Since that time in May, much has transpired with this bill through the committee stage in the Standing Committee on Health, and there was an enormous amount of witness testimony packed into a very short amount of time. We were optimistic that there were opportunities that could have been used to improve the bill that the government had introduced, but sadly that did not happen.
While the government introduced this legislation in a clumsy attempt to keep an election promise, it is now shutting down debate at report stage and limiting our debate at third reading on this very important and revolutionary change to Canada's drug laws. The Liberals are in a sense disenfranchising us as parliamentarians from doing our due diligence on this bill, from speaking for our constituents in this the people's House, and all for the reason of meeting some arbitrary deadline of July of next year. The government members know the government has a four-year mandate. The Liberals are going to be in power until October 2019, and yet they have set the date of July 2018 to get the bill passed into law. It just feels like a very slapdash approach to the whole thing, where we are not taking the time to get it right, because there is obvious room for improvement. While we do support the bill in principle and we have a lot of witness testimony to go on, it is clear that much could have been done to improve the legislation.
 I would like to continue by focusing my remarks on a few key areas where I see the serious shortcomings in the bill at this stage.
I have to recognize the outstanding work of my colleague the member for Vancouver Kingsway, on the Standing Committee for Health. As our health critic, he did yeoman's work on that committee and was responsible on behalf of the NDP for bringing forward 38 amendments to the bill, which would have gone a long way toward improving it. Unfortunately, every single one of those proposed amendments was rejected by the Liberal majority on the committee. Amendments that were brought forward included a proposal to remove the 30-gram possession limit for adults. In his speech, the member for Vancouver Kingsway noted that any adults in the room could go to a liquor store and purchase enough alcohol to kill themselves. That is a legal thing, yet we are proposing an arbitrary 30-gram limit on cannabis, and if people step outside of that limit they would meet with the criminal justice system.
The member proposed decriminalizing the penalty section to bring it more in line with the Tobacco Act. Regarding the removal of the 100-centimetre plant height restriction, the member proposed that first but the Liberals decided they were going to vote against it so their own amendment to get rid of the 100-centimetre plant height restriction would pass and they could get all the credit for it. The member was also looking to allow the provinces to have the capacity to create their own licensing framework so that small producers and craft growers could exist within the government's legalization scheme. I certainly hope that, when the government members draft the regulations under the bill, they pay attention to the existing reality, especially in my home province of British Columbia. We have a number of dispensaries that are opening everywhere. This is just the reality on the ground. If the bill and the government fail to take notice of that reality, not much would be done to counter it. 
It is very much a legal grey area that exists on Vancouver Island and, indeed, most of British Columbia. I certainly hope that there is room made so that this industry is not solely dominated by big weed producers that have an undue amount of influence on the government through their lobbying activities.
The other thing my colleague moved is to allow for the legalization of the sale of edibles. Government members have been very fond of quoting the Hon. Anne McLellan as the head of the task force. I would like to read into the record some of her testimony at the Standing Committee on Health. She stated:
 Obviously, if you're concerned about public health.... 
 If you want to move from the illicit market into a regulated legal market, then you have to offer the quality and choice that the illicit market can provide. It's fair to say that we heard that over and over again from a wide variety of people we talked to. There are public health reasons and public safety reasons why you would want to authorize or allow edibles in various forms. 
That was said by none other than the chair of the task force.
The government claims that this bill is going to legalize cannabis, but I contend that this bill would merely make cannabis less illegal. In fact, more prohibitions would exist when this bill comes into law than currently exist under the Criminal Code or the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. It is a bit of a misnomer to say that we are legalizing cannabis, because it is going to be very tightly regulated, and if someone were to step outside of the boundaries or the confines of this law, the punishments are quite severe. For example, a Canadian in possession of 31 grams would be a criminal, a person in possession of five cannabis plants would be a criminal, and an 18-year-old kid sharing a joint with a 17-year-old best friend would be a criminal.
The penalties associated with some of these offences under this “legalized regime” are extremely harsh, and I look no further than the 14 years that are provided for under clause 9 of the bill. I will read into the record the testimony at the Standing Committee on Health from John Conroy, the lead counsel in Allard v. Canada. He stated: 
 ...having this maximum of 14 years, hybridized by indictment, and so on, is frankly totally unrealistic in terms of what goes on on the ground. Even in the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, which is not known to be the most liberal court in the country, the range for trafficking, for example, is 12 to 18 months. Most sentences are up to two years. For tobacco and alcohol, all your maximums are two and three years. 
Therefore, this 14-year provision is completely unrealistic and flies in the face of the government's stated aim to reduce the burden on our criminal justice system, especially when we would be operating under the constraints imposed by the Jordan decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. 
The Criminal Code is going to be designed to regulate gardening. There was some very colourful testimony from defence lawyer Michael Spratt in that regard. When this bill comes into force, the criminal regime would still be quite onerous on our criminal justice system. 
The government likes to say it operates in the spirit of being open, accountable, and transparent, but now we are operating under time allocation. I do not believe many members have had the chance to voice their concerns, all the while marching toward this arbitrary deadline of July 2018. We are doing a disservice to Canadians and our constituents who sent us to this House to make sure that the bill we pass is the very best possible.
We know the legalization regime is coming, but we owe it to Canadians to make sure it is done in the best way possible and recognize the government's stated objectives in this very bill. Clause 7 states that it would “deter illicit activities in relation to cannabis through appropriate sanctions and enforcement measures” and “reduce the burden on the criminal justice system in relation to cannabis”. Those are two stated objectives in clause 7, and there are very valid questions as to whether this bill would actually accomplish that. I do not believe we are able to fully explore those with a rushed committee process and a rushed process in this House. This is a revolutionary step to Canada's drug laws, so that is a disservice.
I will end by offering my qualified support for this bill, recognizing that a much better job could have been done, and when New Democrats form government in 2019, we will be looking to improve it.
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, the member appears to be saying that he is supporting the legislation. I believe that is a good thing. The primary reasons for moving on this file are safety, taking millions of dollars out of the hands of criminals, and dealing with cannabis usage among young people. For those three reasons in particular, and there are many more, I believe this is good, solid legislation to move forward with. My colleague has already made reference to those three reasons, but I wonder if he would like to expand on any one of them.
Alistair MacGregor: Mr. Speaker, yes, absolutely. I mentioned in my speech that we have very high use among our youth right now. If the law, as it is currently written, is not doing the job, and is indeed a failed approach, after having spent all this money and using considerable police and justice resources to not even meet the objectives set out in our current drug laws, obviously it is time for a change.
I come from a region of Canada where the approach to marijuana is quite liberal. People already regard it as a semi-legal substance. That is the reality on the ground. Therefore, it is time for our drug laws to change to acknowledge that fact.
With respect to children, a lot of the debate on this bill has been slightly misguided, particularly with respect to the sections that deal with youth aged 12 to 18. The way I read the bill, it is very much designed to take kids out of the criminal justice system by specifying an amount they could be in possession of without burdening our criminal justice system. I truly believe that the social harm imposed by a criminal sentence does far more harm to a person's future than any possible use of the drug could itself.
Marilyn Gladu: Mr. Speaker, one of the things my colleague did not talk about in his speech was young people and whether they want to work globally, because the fact remains that in the United States, in addition to numerous other countries, marijuana is illegal.
 In my border town community, they are starting to ask whether people crossing the border have ever smoked marijuana, and if they say yes, they are not allowed. That will be true as well for other countries. No one is talking about this. It seems to me, with the government having had this on its list for two years, that it should have been part of a public awareness and education campaign to let young people know not only of the harms of smoking but of the damage to their career potential. I wonder if the member could comment on that.
Alistair MacGregor: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Sarnia—Lambton for that question, because I think it points to a gaping hole in the government's approach to cannabis legalization.
 The public safety minister appeared at committee and encouraged Canadians who go through the United States' border to be forthright about what they have done, knowing full well that a positive answer on cannabis use may deny a person entry into the United States. The government has to tackle the fact that we are neighbours to a country that views cannabis in a very different light. 
If we are going to legalize this drug to make it available to responsible adults, and we expect them to be forthright at the border, what is that going to do to the free movement of people and goods between our two countries, which is so vital to both of our economies? So far, I have not heard a satisfactory answer to that. I believe it is a major contradiction the government needs to address. I certainly hope the various ministers are taking this up at the highest levels in Washington to ensure that we reach some sort of agreement. Right now, the only way I see Canadians possibly surviving this is by lying, because if they tell the truth, they will be prevented from crossing the border, and it will have a major effect on us. 
I hope the government addresses that problem. I hope it provides a reasonable answer on what will be done to solve this very serious problem.
Mr. Mark Holland (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak to this bill. 
I want to start by thanking the committee for its work. Committee members heard from more than 100 witnesses and went through a very detailed clause-by-clause process. It was a very deliberative process, which I think was very instructive. I also want to thank the committee for the amendments, particularly on edibles, which build on some of the understanding and learning from the process of legalization we saw in Washington and Oregon. Of course, this work built upon the work of the expert task force, which had 1,500 meetings with individuals and took submissions from across the country to make sure that there was an exhaustive consultation process before the bill was ever introduced.
 It is important to note that while this bill is certainly transformational, it is also transitional. We are going to have an opportunity, with a full review after three years, to take a look at the impact of the legislation and how it is working. The work that was done before by the expert task force and the work that was done by the committee was incredibly helpful, not only for this process but for the review that will be taking place in three years' time.
Some have asked why we do not just defer this or keep putting it off and have even more consultation. There is an imperative reality, which is that Canada has the highest use of cannabis anywhere on the planet. For young people, the cohort we are most concerned about and that is most talked about in this place, that is north of 20%. In fact, it is double that of tobacco, which is, of course, a legal substance. It is much easier for a young person to get hold of cannabis than it is a cigarette or alcohol. That is, of course, because drug dealers, people who are operating in the shade of criminality, do not really care who they sell to. They are not worried about being fined for selling to someone who is too young. The reality is that it is far too easy. Having three teenagers myself, they tell me stories about how prevalent it is and how easy it is, if they were to so choose. I am lucky that they have not, but it is around them. 
On the one hand, we hear from the Conservatives, who talk about doing nothing and sticking with this appalling record on cannabis. They say do not do anything, just be an ostrich and pretend there is no problem. On the other hand, we hear from NDP members who say that this bill would not really legalize it, and we should open it up far more. I think that demonstrates the responsible tone we are taking in this debate, which is that we should learn from the lessons on other controlled substances, such as tobacco and alcohol. Let us learn from other jurisdictions that have legalized cannabis and make sure that we bring forward the most effective regime possible, given the evidence.
 I look specifically at tobacco, because I think it is very instructive to the case we have here now. Tobacco prevalence rates among young people exceeded 50%, and that was not more than a few decades ago. We had a massive public health crisis on our hands. That high rate of prevalence among young people was going to lead to unbelievable chronic disease and illness. Therefore, working with the not-for-profit sector, with Heart and Stroke, cancer, and other not-for-profits, they began a process of de-normalization and making sure that young people understood the health effects. Of course, it was not only de-normalization of tobacco but of the companies that were profiting from it.
 Through those denormalization campaigns, and through a variety of both federal and provincial measures to restrict and control tobacco, we are where we are today, with some of the lowest rates of tobacco use among young people in the world. Those rates are now into the single digits. We need to drive them still lower, but it is instructive to come from over 50% to below 10%. It is the kind of instructive example I think we should be focusing on when we are talking about cannabis, particularly when the existing policies have so dramatically failed us.
We can look at what has happened in Washington and Oregon. While arrests are way down, the Drug Policy Alliance report of late 2016 basically shows a flatlining of cannabis use among young people, and they have seen traffic fatalities come down, but it is at the same rate as it is in other states.
 I think we have to do much more than what we are doing. There are a few specific things tied to this bill that I think are important to recognize. 
The government has announced that there will be up to $274 million to support law enforcement and border efforts to enforce cannabis legislation and regulation and to deter drug-impaired driving. On the latter, it will commit up to $161 million of that funding to train front-line officers, build law enforcement capacity, and raise public awareness. This is important. When the members opposite talk about the dangers of driving while high, they are 100% right. What they are wrong about is that it has already happened, but law enforcement officers are simply not given the tools, dollars, or equipment to deal with the problem today. 
I remind members that one in five of our young people, unfortunately, are engaging in cannabis. The reality is that by arming the front-line officers with the equipment, dollars, and training they need to make sure that we go after this problem, we have a material opportunity to reduce the prevalence of those individuals who would drive high. 
We have committed a further $113.5 million over five years to make sure that organized crime does not infiltrate the legalized system and to keep cannabis from crossing our borders. That goes to the point of keeping cannabis proceeds out of the hands of criminals. Cannabis has been a major driver of criminality by feeding criminal organizations, giving them dollars to do nefarious things in our country. We have spent untold billions of dollars on policing to try to deal with cannabis use.
 Further, in budget 2017, an additional $9.6 million was committed for public education and awareness to inform Canadians, particularly young people, about the risks of cannabis use. On that we have a guiding light. In this regard, the efforts that were engaged in for tobacco were incredibly effective at de-normalizing tobacco and reducing the prevalence of its use by young people. I think if we could get to the point where we see cannabis prevalence reduced to the same level as tobacco, that would be seen as a major success. Certainly, we would see a reversal of the decades of increased use of cannabis.
As the executive director of the Heart and Stroke Foundation, I had the opportunity to intimately look at how that system worked and to work with professionals to deal with substance abuse. It is a realistic approach to a very intricate and complicated problem.
The other point I want to make is specifically with regard to youth. We know that cannabis is at its most dangerous for youth. That is why I reject the comments of the NDP that we should open this up broadly without controlling it tightly, because we know that for a young mind, cannabis is particularly devastating. We want to make sure that we turn around those high rates. That means that we can focus our law enforcement efforts on going after those individuals who would sell to young people. Instead of trying to go after the entire population, which has been an abject failure, we can focus those resources on having a zero tolerance policy for those who are 18 and younger, when we know that those are the individuals who are medically the most vulnerable from the use of cannabis
That is why we are focusing on public education and making sure that there are strict penalties for those who would trade in cannabis to young people. That is why we are starting where I wish we had started with tobacco, by controlling how it is promoted, making sure we have plain packaging from day one, and making sure we do not have promotional campaigns that loop into children. It is sad to see in the third world that tobacco companies are still engaging in those practices of trying to addict young people to their substance, when they know that it will kill them. The only outcome of using tobacco is death. We do not want to make the mistakes of tobacco, so we are starting with those proper controls up front.
Many partners agree, whether it is the substance abuse workers, nurses, pharmacists, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, academics, or a variety of experts. The past approach did not work. We need a new approach. This legislation, which is rooted in science and evidence, is our best path forward. I am proud to support the bill on that basis.
Marilyn Gladu: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talked about how the government is taking a very cautious approach on the edibles side, but really, it is not, because it is allowing home grow. People could have thousands of grams in their houses that could be baked into brownies, with no quality control of potency whatsoever. Why does he think that would protect young children?
Mark Holland: Mr. Speaker, clearly, we want to bring forward a regime that is realistic. What we found through the expert task force is that banning people from growing any plants at all is simply unrealistic, that individuals are going to engage in that. We want to make sure that those plants are for personal consumption and not for selling to others. It is very easy to control the sale of cannabis to children on that basis. It is no different from someone deciding they are going to brew alcohol in their own home for their own use. We have an expectation that they will not sell to children, and if they do, or if they allow their children to consume it, then that would obviously be an issue for law enforcement. That is the broader point. 
By ensuring that we are focused on going after those who trade in drugs to young people, we can focus our law enforcement efforts on protecting young people and ensuring that the places that are selling cannabis are doing so in a controlled and regulated environment, wherein they will face stiff penalties otherwise. In contrast, a criminal just does not care.
Mr. Wayne Stetski (Kootenay—Columbia, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in my riding of Kootenay—Columbia, there are currently mixed views on the legalization of recreational use of marijuana. One of the things we certainly want to see happen with legalization is an opportunity for our growers to be part of the economy of the future. As a result, about 120 people have gotten together to form a co-operative. They want to grow marijuana outdoors in the sunshine under very tightly controlled circumstances and be part of the future with legalized recreational use of marijuana. I would be interested in the member's views on this kind of approach to the future. 
Mark Holland: Mr. Speaker, it certainly is true that more individuals are looking at a controlled, legalized regime and are asking how they can legally produce marijuana. I know that the former Conservative cabinet minister Julian Fantino is heading up one such organization looking at growing cannabis.
 I would encourage those individuals who are looking at growing it to look at the legislation and work with the provinces in particular, because they will control a lot of the regulations, and also have conversations with us about how they can develop those businesses in a way that conforms with federal law. If the member wants to have a direct conversation about that, I would be happy to offer my help directly. 
Mr. Omar Alghabra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs (Consular Affairs), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we know that one of the reasons teenagers have easy access to cannabis today is its prevalence in the black market and the fact that organized crime is using these revenues to fund gang activities. The Conservatives are talking about decriminalizing it. Could the hon. member speak about the idea of decriminalizing demand while maintaining supply, or allowing the black market to continue to sell to teenagers and also fund gang activities? 
Mark Holland: Mr. Speaker, one of the biggest problems we have while decriminalizing cannabis, and one of the reasons we are saying that we cannot ease off the laws right now, is that 100% of the proceeds go to the black market, to thugs and gangs, and people involved in activities that destroy communities. It would be abhorrent to allow those individuals to continue to have revenues to decimate our communities. The reality is that a massive part of the problem today is that these organizations rely on cannabis revenues to fuel their gang-related activities. We want to take that away.
Yes, of course we do not want young people using cannabis. We want to reduce its prevalence, but if individuals are using it, we do not want that money to go to organized crime. 
Peter Kent: Mr. Speaker, of all the ill-considered, unsound, and wacky campaign promises made by the Liberals in the 2015 election campaign, several dozen of which the Liberal government has broken, Bill C-45 most deserves to be broken, or at least seriously postponed.
The House may recall that when the legislation was first introduced, the Liberals assembled five ministers, whom they trotted out and sat down at the table at the press theatre just across Wellington Street, to defend the proposed marijuana legislation. There were the Minister of National Revenue, the Minister of Public Safety, the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Health, and the government's front guy for recreational marijuana, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice. 
This was not a celebratory unveiling of new legislation. It looked like middle school detention time. There was not a smile among the group. The “marijuana five” sat grimly during the almost hour-long news conference and not one of the ministers spoke the word “marijuana”. They contorted themselves and their talking points into more coils than a hookah pipe, talking of their concerns about vulnerable kids, of the risks and dangers of the product they were about to make recreational, of any attempt to engage in a price war with organized crime, and repeatedly emphasized that they were not actually advocating marijuana consumption. As I said, not one of the “marijuana five” managed to actually speak the word. Instead, they stuck to the Latin, “cannabis”.
Since then it has all been downhill, and here we are with the Liberals cutting short an essential and important debate for all Canadians to hear by using the legislative guillotine of their Liberal majority.
The parliamentary secretary has reminded the House many times that in his words, “we all care about our kids. We care about their health, their safety, and their outcomes.” The PS has reminded us that he spent most of his adult life fighting crime, that crime and violence can be reduced in society through smart action. 
We in the official opposition absolutely recognize the member's service and certainly agree that we all care for Canadian children and that crime and violence can be reduced in Canadian society through smart action, but we strenuously disagree that the Liberals have approached this matter in any way that could remotely be characterized as smart.
The Liberals have rushed to crank out Bill C-45, but in doing so have downloaded almost all of the real responsibilities and costs to the provinces and municipalities. From top to bottom, we have heard serious and worthy concerns from the medical community, from law enforcement, from small town and big city councils, and from provincial legislatures that the Liberals' rush to legalize recreational cannabis by July 2018 is simply going too far, far too fast. It is far too fast for effective education of consumers, young and old. It is far too fast for thorough and rational training of law enforcement officers and agencies. It is far too fast to think through the matters of home-grown marijuana and the volumes that will be produced, access by young children to it, and a variety of landlord-tenant issues.
The proposed federal law allows for four plants per home. In testimony at the health committee, witnesses calculated that four plants of 100 centimetres in height could produce up to 600 grams of marijuana, yet that height limit has now been removed from the bill. No one on the government side has explained how 600 grams fits with the maximum possession limit of 30 grams.
The health committee also heard in evidence from the United States that whereas Colorado allows home grown marijuana, Washington State does not, the exception being for frail medical consumers. The rather stark results are that in Washington state, where no home grown marijuana was allowed, organized crime's share of the marijuana market was reduced to less than 20% in less than three years. In Colorado, where home grown marijuana was allowed, organized crime jumped into the game and continues to flourish.
We learned last week that some provinces will heed the lessons from those two states and some will not. Quebec's draft legislation will outlaw home grown marijuana, with a purchase and consumption age of 18. However, there are other disparities in the area of distribution. Ontario says that it will only allow distribution through its liquor control board, as will Quebec, but Alberta is going to go the free enterprise, retail route, regulated by provincial regulation, but with no set limit on the number of private stores.
Coming back to testimony from south of the border, we also learned from Colorado that there has been a 32% increase in drug-impaired driving, which brings us to the repeated concerns, expressed both individually and collectively, of the Canadian chiefs of police. These chiefs of police say there is no possible way, zero chance, they will be ready to enforce new laws for the legalization of recreational marijuana by next July, or any month soon thereafter. They have pleaded for more time to properly train officers about the new laws, about the science, and the details of what is allowed and what is not. They want more time to certify an adequate number of officers to conduct roadside drug-impaired driving testing. 
They have also asked, along with a variety of other groups, for more time for public education. Without a delay, the chiefs of police warn that there will be a gap between actual legalization and what the Liberals originally, grandiloquently proclaimed would be “Canada cannabis day”, before they backed off to a now vague commitment of sometime in July. There is a gap between actual legalization and the ability of the police to properly enforce the spectrum of new laws and regulations. That gap, the police chiefs warn, will give organized crime an opportunity to exploit these new laws and, as Ontario Provincial Police Deputy Commissioner Rick Barnum warned, for organized crime to flourish.
The Liberals claim they will squeeze organized crime out of the marijuana market through predatory pricing, undercutting street prices. The Liberal Government of Ontario is talking about a $10 a gram price, with sales tax on top of that, of course. The federal Liberal government is talking about another tax, a $1 a gram federal levy.
The street dealers, the distributors for organized crime, are laughing out loud about prices in the $8 to $12 a gram range putting them out of business. On radio talk shows in Toronto the last couple of weeks, it was clear that both sellers and buyers in the market today believe that the illicit market will continue to exist, and quite possibly grow. A year ago a marijuana dealer in Seattle in Washington state was selling marijuana for less than $5 Canadian a gram. 
Coming back for just a moment to the Liberal government's proposed $1 a gram levy, to be split, it says, 50-50 with the provinces, that is a non-starter. We know it is a non-starter with the provinces, and certainly the municipalities, who are carrying the lion's share of the costs and responsibilities of bringing the Liberals' wacky campaign promise to a too-early reality.
As I said at the beginning of my remarks, of all the ill-considered promises made by these Liberals during the 2015 election campaign, several dozen of which they have reluctantly but realistically broken, Bill C-45 most deserves to be broken, or at least seriously postponed.
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have the mindset of the status quo, as if the status quo were in the best interests of Canadians. The member who just spoke highlighted just how much the Conservative Party continues to be out of touch with Canadians by not realizing the need for government to take action.
We have the highest consumption of cannabis, or marijuana as my colleague across the way likes to refer to it as, by youth. We have criminal activities in our communities today, including in Winnipeg North, the area I represent. We have gang members and others selling marijuana or cannabis to 12 year olds, 14 year olds, and so forth.
We want to see the hundreds of millions of dollars taken away from the criminal element. We want to make it tougher for young people to have access to marijuana.
The Conservatives seem to be determined to stay in the past and not to take any action whatsoever. We have now heard some of the more progressive members say that we should at least slow down.
When can we anticipate the Conservatives coming to the realization that at times government needs to protect our children, and that this is one of the ways we can actually do that?
Peter Kent: Mr. Speaker, if I might use the word “wacky” one time again, that is an outrageous question. We, on this side of the House, certainly the official opposition and the NDP, recognize the inevitable. This Liberal majority, rushing through using the guillotine legislative tool today to cut short debate, is going to pass Bill C-45. The Liberals are determined to force it on Canadians, Canadian communities, police forces, and society, and are doing it far too soon.
 The Liberals talk about not rushing and having had exhaustive consultation, but they are not listening to Canadians. They are not listening to the advice of the police forces, medical associations, and of small towns and large cities. Talk about being out of touch. The Liberal government is on a misguided crusade to impose the Prime Minister's ill-considered off the wall campaign promise made in 2015, whatever the cost to Canadian society.
Pierre Nantel: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech. I want to ask him a question that just sprang to mind.
 Does he think the member for Winnipeg North is aware that his parliamentary work is being influenced by spin doctors?
Peter Kent: Mr. Speaker, I might be a little more gentle than my colleague suggests, but the entire Liberal government, the frontbench, all those ministers who were wheeled out to defend the proposed legislation certainly would not smile with expectations of great things for Canadian society, but they constantly express their concern. They think they can use predatory pricing to undercut organized crime. That is not real; it is absolutely unrealistic. We have seen it in American situations and we know it will happen here. Organized crime will use predatory pricing.
We have seen the inability to enforce the illegal tobacco laws in Canada. Schools in my riding of Thornhill in Toronto deal out of the back of trunks of cars in front of the schools. The police enforcement has been absolutely insufficient because the burden of prosecution is simply too great. I fear we are going to see exactly the same thing when organized crime rises to the bait and exploits the loopholes the Liberals are leaving by rushing to implement Bill C-45 far too soon.
Mr. David Yurdiga (Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, CPC): Mr. Speaker, my colleague's speech was very informative. The issue I have right now is that we are potentially allowing 12 year olds to possess five grams. If we transfer the same rules for the marijuana bill to alcohol, we would be saying it is okay for children as young as 12 to possess two ounces of alcohol. I just do not understand this. This is not protecting our children. It is actually downgrading our society to a level I have never seen. This is not good news.
Peter Kent: Mr. Speaker, it is certainly an area of concern. It has been addressed in debate, and it certainly was addressed at committee. There is that contradiction between the capability of a home grow with four plants, producing up to 600 grams of marijuana product, when the legal possession limit is 30 grams. The government says that it will prosecute anybody selling that or giving it away to children. The fact is that these plants will be in the home. Kids today will learn from one another. When it is legal, despite the allowable age to consume, kids will harvest the leaves and experiment. What we are doing is virtually the same as putting fentanyl on a shelf within reach of kids. Having plants in homes is just as wacky, just as unacceptable, and just as dangerous for Canadian society.
Mr. David Lametti (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak in support of Bill C-45, the cannabis act.
 Protecting the health and safety of the public is a key priority for all orders of government in Canada. In fact, that is why we introduced Bill C-45. Its goal is to create a strict national framework for controlling the production, distribution, sale, and possession of cannabis in Canada.
Bill C-45 would legalize access to cannabis, but only for adults, and would allow a limited amount to be grown at home or purchased through an appropriate retail framework, to make sure it is sourced from a well-regulated industry.
The bill would establish controls to protect youth, including prohibitions on selling and providing cannabis to anyone under the age of 18 and restrictions on marketing and promotional activities directed at young people.
Commercial growers and manufacturers of cannabis would require a federal licence and be subject to strict oversight to control product safety and quality.
While Bill C-45 would use the federal criminal law power to create a strict framework to control and regulate the production, distribution, sale, and possession of cannabis, the effective oversight and control of cannabis cannot be achieved without working with our partners in the provinces, territories, and municipalities.
From the outset, our government has been clear that the control and regulation of cannabis requires a pan-Canadian approach, involving all orders of government, at all stages of development and implementation.
This is reflected in the important role that our provincial and territorial partners have played in the work of the task force on cannabis legalization and regulation. This task force was established in June 2016, with a mandate to provide advice to the federal government on how to legalize, strictly regulate, and restrict access to cannabis.
Input from the provinces and territories was essential for the successful work of the task force. The provinces and the territories nominated experts to serve on the task force and make suggestions as to who should be consulted. They met with the task force and shared their views on cannabis legalization and regulation, and on how to best achieve our shared objectives of better protecting health and safety.
It should not come as a surprise that the views of the provinces and territories helped shape, to a great extent, some of the important provisions of Bill C-45. Like the task force report, Bill C-45 proposes a shared framework for the control and regulation of cannabis based on ongoing federal, provincial, and territorial collaboration.
The bill sets out clear controls and standards around cannabis, but provides the flexibility for each government to work within its own jurisdictional authority and experience. Each aspect of the framework would be implemented by those best placed to do so. 
At this time, I would like to explain how the different levels of government would share their various roles and responsibilities, beginning with the federal role.
Under the proposed cannabis law, the federal government would be responsible for establishing and implementing a national framework for the regulation of cannabis production, establishing health and safety standards, and creating criminal prohibitions.
This would include: establishing restrictions on adult access to cannabis and establishing serious criminal penalties for those operating outside the legal system; creating rules to limit how cannabis or cannabis accessories can be promoted, packaged, labelled, and displayed that are in line with the rules that are in place for tobacco products; instituting a federal licensing regime for cannabis production that draws on lessons learned from the current system for access to cannabis for medical purposes; establishing industry-wide rules and standards, for example, serving sizes or potency, as well as the tracking of cannabis from seed to sale to prevent diversion to the illicit market; creating minimum federal conditions to provide a national framework to protect public health and public safety; and enforcing cannabis importation and exportation prohibitions at the border, except when legally authorized.
At the same time, Bill C-45 recognizes that provinces and territories, as well as municipalities, have an important role to play in the new system. Similar to provincial and territorial oversight over the distribution and sale of alcohol, the proposed legislation would recognize provincial and territorial legislative regimes that would oversee and regulate the distribution and retail sale of cannabis in their respective jurisdictions.
The legislative measures would also take into account the fact that the provinces and territories, together with municipalities, have the authority to adapt certain rules to their own jurisdictions and to enforce them with a variety of tools, including tickets.
As per the recommendations of the working group, the provinces and territories, together with municipalities, could establish rules governing the location of facilities for the production, distribution, and sale of cannabis in a community, and locations where cannabis can be consumed in public.
Provinces and territories could also set additional regulatory requirements to address issues of local concern. For example, provincial and territorial legislatures have the authority to set a higher minimum age for cannabis possession or more restrictive limits on possession for personal cultivation, including the lowering of the number of plants or restricting where they may be cultivated. As a result, Bill C-45 is drafted in such a way that provinces and territories can establish these stricter rules under their own authority.
 Key roles for our municipal counterparts would include setting and enforcing local zoning bylaws, inspecting buildings, and carrying out local enforcement for matters related to minimum age for purchase, personal cultivation, personal possession limits, smoking, and place-of-use restrictions as well as public-nuisance complaints.
As the framework is implemented, I am convinced that our government will be able to work closely with its provincial, territorial, and municipal counterparts.
I am pleased to note that provinces and territories have already begun to prepare for legalization. For example, our partners in Manitoba have already introduced legislation amending provincial traffic safety laws to help police crack down on drivers who are driving while impaired by drugs and to restrict how cannabis can be transported in a vehicle.
 The active involvement of our provincial, territorial, and municipal counterparts will be vital in helping to ensure that young people do not have access to cannabis and that those who sell cannabis outside of the legal framework will face stiff penalties.
Our government has said many times that it will be working with the provinces and territories to raise awareness and educate Canadians on the risks of cannabis use and to monitor the impact of tougher controls around access to cannabis.
In the 2017 budget, the government committed to investing $9.6 million over five years in a public education and awareness campaign and in surveillance activities.
As health is a shared responsibility between the federal, provincial, and territorial governments, provinces and territories complement federal public health programming, including through the management of public health and safety issues and school-based education and counselling.
In partnering with the provinces, territories, municipalities, and local communities, our government has announced that it will invest to provide law enforcement with the necessary equipment and education to ensure road safety. It said that it would also meet with the provinces and territories to continue discussions on how cannabis will be taxed.
Strong collaboration between the federal, provincial, and territorial governments, as much in areas of security and supply chains as in public education, is essential to reaching the goals of strict cannabis regulation, including that of keeping proceeds out of the hands of criminals.
Our government will continue to work tirelessly with all levels of government to realize our common goal of protecting the health and safety of Canadians.
Marilyn Gladu: Mr. Speaker, just today, Doctors of BC is calling for the province of B.C. to not allow home grow. Add that voice to Quebec that will not allow home grow, to New Brunswick that recognizes it is a problem and wants people to lock up their marijuana, and the other 10 provinces and territories that have come with no plan. Therefore, it is clear that they recognize that home grow does not meet the requirements stated in the bill. It does not ensure a quality-controlled supply. It does not get rid of organized crime. It does not unload the criminal justice system. It does not keep it out of the hands of children.
 Why did the government consult broadly and then not listen to any of the provinces?
David Lametti: Mr. Speaker, the criminal law standard, which is within federal jurisdiction, is a heavy apparatus and through our consultations we set the criminal law standard at four plants to allow a certain flexibility to the provinces. The provinces are, within their jurisdiction, able to further regulate on that point. That a number of provinces have chosen to do so or are planning to do so is indicative of a healthy federal system in which both the federal government and the provinces are attuned to the needs of their people and the health of their populations. There is nothing wrong with some variance across the country, as provincial governments determine what to do with that standard.
Anne Minh-Thu Quach: Mr. Speaker, we in the NDP are very troubled by today's time allocation motion on Bill C-45. This is the 25th time allocation motion since the Liberals came to power. The committee has only held eight meetings on Bill C-45, and a proposal from my colleague from Vancouver East was rejected. She had requested two additional hearing days to give young Canadians, authorized producers, and edibles manufacturers time to testify.
The Liberals say they have been open and have listened, but these people did not get a chance to be heard. What is more, the 38 amendments proposed by the NDP were all shot down. Not one of the NDP's amendments to improve this bill was approved. 
How can the Liberals claim to be open and transparent? How can they say they consider every proposal aimed at improving this bill and at making sure youth are sufficiently well-informed to know that drugs must not be taken lightly? The Liberals say they want to protect youth and take drugs out of criminal hands, but many questions are still unanswered. 
Why do the Liberals want to rush the process even more? Quebec and several other provinces have asked for the process to be extended to allow enough time for a comprehensive study. 
What does my colleague opposite have to say about that?
David Lametti: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her question.
We have been working on this for a long time, since taking office, in fact. We have consulted people across the country. We even set up a special committee to study the matter. We have consulted the provinces from the very beginning. We are working with the provinces to find solutions, and their suggestions have been incorporated into the bill.
With this bill, we have sought to strike the right balance. As a government, we sincerely believe we have achieved that. It is time to move forward.
Mr. Kelly McCauley (Edmonton West, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to discuss Bill C-45, the pot legalization bill, or as I call it Phoenix 2.0. Why do I call it that? It is because it is an example of government rushing through a bill to meet some nonsensical, arbitrary deadline, despite warnings from everyone involved that we are not ready. In this case, instead of hurting those solely in the public sector, we are going to be hurting Canadians across all demographics, and especially the young. 
With Phoenix, we had the opposition, the public sector unions, and department chief financial officers saying not to rush forward. With pot legalization, we have police chiefs from across the country, the Alberta Association of Chiefs of Police, the RCMP, and members of the U.S. enforcement agencies saying not to rush forward. Sadly, as with Phoenix, the government seems intent on barrelling ahead, regardless of the warnings. 
The Liberals are desperate to show they can keep a promise after all. “Look at me” the PM will say on July 1, hiking up his pants to show off his socks with marijuana leaves. He is going to spark up the first ceremonial doob on Parliament Hill, and run around taking selfies with those lighting up. No doubt, the clever Liberal marketing machine will say the PM just happened to be running by, shirtless no doubt, and a crowd toking up. Of course, his official photographer will just happen to be there taking some pictures. No doubt they will come up with some clever tag about the PM and hashtag it that he was “photobonging” some group. 
However, there are real consequences to rushing forward when law enforcement is not ready. Let us look at the Liberal policy on pot from its web page, broken down by statement. The first statement is that current laws do not “prevent young people from using marijuana.” The Liberal solution to legalize the substance that is being consumed defies logic, to argue normalizing pot use and making it available everywhere will somehow prevent young people from using it. 
Consider some real-world examples. Colorado went from 13th place to first place overall for pot consumption among its youth, after legalization. Washington State's pot use among students, post-legalization, is 42% higher than the rest of the country. Studies from the U.S. show that the young people have a perception, post-legalization, that pot is harmless and does not cause mental issues. 
Allowing every citizen to legally grow pot, up to four plants worth at that, means by definition there will be more pot. The government has so far neglected to adequately explain how it plans to keep the extra pot off the streets and out of our schools. 
Next it states, “Arresting and prosecuting these offenses is expensive for our criminal justice system. It traps too many Canadians in the criminal justice system for minor, non-violent offenses.” Let us be frank, things have changed since many of us in the House were younger. Police are no longer focusing on arresting kids for having a joint or two, because they are far too busy working on other important issues. 
The police chief of Edmonton stated it clearly. He said that police may use the presence of pot as a cause to search a car or search someone, where they may find guns, opioids, or stolen goods. However, to argue for legalization because too many Canadians are trapped in the criminal system simply does not jive with what the experts are saying.
Next, the Liberals say, “...the proceeds from the illegal drug trade support organized crime and greater threats to public safety, like human trafficking and hard drugs”. Here is a clue for the government. The Hells Angels are already involved in the legal part of marijuana. I quote from the RCMP report to the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. “There is no shortage of organized criminal groups who have applied to produce medical marijuana under Health Canada's new MMPR, including...Hells Angels”. Legalization is not keeping out organized crime. Organized crime is already taking advantage of the legal regime.
The Liberal plan goes on to state, “To ensure that we keep marijuana out of the hands of children, and the profits out of the hands of criminals, we will legalize, regulate, and restrict access to marijuana.” 
In summary, they will keep pot out of the hands of children by legalizing the substance we want to get rid of, legalizing possession for children as young as 12, and making production legal, thus ensuring the supply will skyrocket. At the same time, they say we will keep the profits out of the hands of criminals, even though they have not said how, and they are ignoring the fact that the criminals are already involved in the legal system. The government seems to expect the Hells Angels will just turn over and say, “Well, we had a great run, guys. I guess I'll use my Harley to be an UberEATS driver now”. Maybe the government could offer the Hells Angels some of those reintegration services they are offering returning ISIS fighters. 
Honestly, if people have been buying pot from someone for the past five years, getting a great price, and having it delivered to their door, are they now going to trudge down to the local government-run store, 9 to 5 only, Monday to Friday, of course, and on camera, to buy weed at a higher price? I do not think so. Mind you, Kathleen Wynne would offer them Air Miles points, so there is something.
Continuing on with the Liberal plan, it states we will, “create new, stronger laws to punish more severely those who...operate a motor vehicle while under its influence, and those who sell it outside of the...framework.”
Here is a great one. We have no standards on measuring impairment. The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police recently met and narrowed down the roadside testing devices to two. We have not yet decided on the best one, much less have them in the hands of the police. More importantly, the failure rate on the device is as high as 13%. Let us think about that. Every single person charged will have a lawyer begging to take on his or her trial. What judge is going to say, “Hey, a 13% failure rate, that's pretty good. You're guilty”? None.
If the courts are jammed now, what happens once every one of these offences is taken to court? The government is letting accused rapists and murderers walk free under Jordan's principle because of its absolute ineptness and inability to appoint judges, and we are about to add thousands of new cases.
 We could do blood testing, but that would require the officer to take someone to an emergency room. Our emergency room wait times are legendary as it is. Do we think any nurse or doctor is going to keep someone with a broken arm or a child with a runaway fever waiting just to draw blood for a cop for a weed DUI? 
The costs of these roadside devices are $45 to $90 per use. The training for every one of these operators is about $20,000. How many locations are there to train these officers? There are two in all of North America, in the United States. Edmonton currently has only 24 officers trained out of a force of 1,800. Calgary has fewer, about 10. Maybe the Liberals are hoping that, contrary to decades of experience with drinking and driving, people just will not drive when high. 
Let us again look at the statistics in the U.S. In Washington state, after legalization, DUIs with pot increased from 18% to 39%. In Spokane, youth pot DUIs grew 1700% versus pre-legalization. 
The Liberal plan goes on. Next is those who sell cannabis outside of the regulatory framework. Our police forces are already stretched to the limits. We are not enforcing casual possession right now to focus on hard criminals, yet somehow, by waving a magic wand, we will have people available to go after those who are selling illegal drugs.
We have told the public that they can set up a legal grow op in every house and apartment in town. In Alberta, people are allowed to buy 30 grams of pot per store visit, not per day. That is 75 joints just from one store. How are we going to monitor every single person who can legally buy 75 joints at a time to make sure that they are only those of age, those who are not driving, and those who are not part of a criminal gang? 
Finally, the Liberals have said that they will create a task force with input from experts. The experts in public health say that smoking pot before the age of 25 is damaging to brain development. Law enforcement is similarly clear. The chiefs of police are near unanimous. They have said they are not ready, that we should decriminalize not legalize, and that we should slow down. 
The government simply dumped sales and distribution onto cash-strapped provinces and municipalities, so we will have a patchwork framework across the country. The Liberals have not listened to the task force. 
I realize we are on the road to legalization. However, I implore the government to slow down until our police and communities are ready. It should not put public safety at risk just to meet an arbitrary political deadline.
 I met with Edmonton's chief of police last Friday, and he had a poignant warning. He said that in 20 years we would look back at this as the worst piece of legislation ever tabled in Canada.
 Let us slow it down and do what is right for our youth and our country, not what is right for the Liberal mandate tracker.
Mr. Doug Eyolfson (Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was curious as to the hon. member's mention of the rates of impaired driving due to cannabis in Colorado and Washington. When serving on the health committee, I received correspondence from the attorneys general of both Colorado and Washington that states that they did not have comparable detection methods before and after legalization and that comparable numbers do not exist. It also shows that since legalization, when they first started collecting data under the new regime, they found a decrease of 12% in impaired driving in both states. I would like to know how the hon. member would respond to that.
Kelly McCauley: Mr. Speaker, it came from a 400-page, March 2016 report called, “The Washington State Marijuana Impact Report: Northwest High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area”, as well as a report called, “Colorado's Legalization of Marijuana and the Impact on Public Safety”, which was put together by a coalition of Colorado police agencies. I would suggest that perhaps the members of the health committee and the member across the way read all of that information instead of just hand-picking the information that suits his cause.
Mr. Mel Arnold (North Okanagan—Shuswap, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his eloquent speech. There was a little humour thrown in, but it had some very hard-hitting points. 
We obviously cannot fit all the points into a 10-minute speech. Unfortunately, the government has called for time allocation, and so we are not going to be able to speak fully on this and put forward the concerns we are hearing from our constituents.
It was interesting to hear the member for Edmonton West speak about meeting with the police force in his riding last week. I did the same and met with the staff sergeant in my riding, who expressed great concern. He said they simply could not be ready. Even if the equipment and detection methods were there, he could not afford to send his staff for the training, and could not get replacement staff while he sent staff for training. He said they just could not be ready. 
I would like to hear what the member has to say. Maybe he has a little more time to express more of what he heard last week.
Kelly McCauley: Mr. Speaker, that is a very good point, and it was brought up by Edmonton's police chief. He said they are not ready, and it takes time to send people down to the U.S. for the training. He figures that in Edmonton alone, just one city, it would cost $10 million to train officers for this.
I want to bring up something that came up two weeks ago when we were studying the supplementary estimates. In the supplementary estimates, money was set aside for the RCMP to set up a framework to prevent impaired driving. Keep in mind, just in Edmonton alone for 1,800 officers it would cost $10 million. How much is set aside in the supplementary estimates (C)? It is $5 million for the RCMP, which is enough to send 267 officers from the entire country.
One of the issues of the supplementary estimates (C), for which the parliamentary budget officer has criticized the government, is its slow rate of getting out the money, and he even commented that it is going to take months and months to get all the supplementary estimates (C) spending out. We asked the government when it expected to have that money out. Will it be weeks, as is required, or months? The government's comment back was that the money for the RCMP would be months and months, and that was an aspirational goal, not even a commitment to get the money out the door to get our RCMP trained on impaired driving.
Again, I implore the government to slow down. We realize that the government is going to legalize this, but slow it down and wait until the police are ready.
Mrs. Eva Nassif (Vimy, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention to the hon. member that, as we know, Canada is number one in regard to cannabis consumption already. It cannot be worse than that. 
I would ask the hon. member to inform us about other countries where cannabis is legalized, whether the consumption of cannabis among youth has increased or decreased.
Kelly McCauley: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my speech, I was looking at two states that I know have legalized: Washington and Colorado. In one city in Washington, Spokane, which is a fair sized city of about one million people, impaired driving among youth post-legalization was up by 1,700. For Washington state post-legalization, consumption among students was 43% higher than the rest of the U.S. Numbers for Colorado were similar. The statistics show that if it is made more available, people are going to take it up and smoke it, and that includes all demographics, especially the youth.
Ms. Leona Alleslev (Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, Lib.):  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak in support of Bill C-45,an act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other acts.
As my colleagues have pointed out a number of times, the current approach to cannabis is not working. It has put money in the hands of criminals and organized crime and failed to keep cannabis out of the hands of young Canadians.
The fact that cannabis is a controlled substance has not stopped Canadians from using it. In 2015, approximately 12% of Canadians reported consuming cannabis in the past year. For young adults between the ages of 20 to 24, that rate is more than double at 30%. The vast majority of Canadians are obtaining cannabis products from the illegal market. This cannabis is produced without regard for public health and safety, often in clandestine circumstances, with no oversight over how it is produced, no testing for dangerous or unhealthy contaminants, and no requirements whatsoever with respect to appropriate safeguards, factual and accurate labelling, or child-resistant packaging.
That is why our government is moving to enact this legislation. It would better protect the health and safety of Canadians by providing access to a legal and quality-controlled supply of cannabis, while implementing strict controls to restrict youth access to cannabis.
On the illegal market, cannabis products are often grown, produced, stored, and sold without regard for public health and safety or accountability to the consumer. The products may be contaminated with pesticides, heavy metals, moulds, and bacteria. The source of this cannabis is often obscure or unknown.
The bill would ensure that the production of cannabis in Canada is subject to a high and consistent national standard, in terms of product quality, as is the case under the current regime for the production of cannabis for medical purposes. This means that, under Bill C-45 and the supporting regulations, all producers would be subject to a licensing process that verifies that they have the capacity to meet the product quality-control standards. Producers would also have to conform to standards in terms of the safety and security of their facilities, the vetting of personnel, record keeping, and inventory controls. This would include rigorous requirements for product quality testing, standard operating procedures that must be observed throughout the facility, a sanitation program, and product recall measures to address any product-related issues. 
The proposed framework would require that product quality be controlled through mandatory testing and that a robust compliance and enforcement regime be in place. In fact, Canada already has a world-leading system in place to regulate the production of cannabis for medical purposes, which provides a solid basis upon which to build.
 Let me provide some of those regime requirements. Under the current regime, which has been in place since 2014, Health Canada is responsible for licensing and overseeing cannabis producers. These producers are required to operate within the regulations to provide quality-controlled cannabis to registered patients. There are currently 67 producers that are licensed to produce cannabis for medical purposes. These producers are the only commercial source in Canada of legal, quality-controlled cannabis for medical purposes.
 The regulatory framework sets out a series of strict requirements that must be met to protect the health and safety of Canadians and the integrity of the legal system. For example, licensed producers are required to utilize strict production practices in their facilities, such as having a quality assurance person and a sanitary program.
 Each licensed producer is required to test each and every product lot prior to its sale to the public. This includes tests for metals, mould, bacteria, and other potential contaminants, which can be harmful to public health. If the test results are outside of identified specifications, the product must not be sold.
 Licensed producers are also required to test each lot for THC and CBD potency levels, and the results must be displayed on the labels.
Health Canada also announced recently that it will require all licensed producers to conduct mandatory testing for the presence of unauthorized pesticides in all cannabis products destined for sale.
These standards and controls are backed by a robust compliance and law enforcement regime to ensure that licenced producers fully comply with the rules at all stages of the production process.
Under this system, every licenced producer will undergo multiple unannounced inspections every year in order to verify that they are using the best production practices and following specific rules regarding the use of authorized pesticides. These inspections will also ensure compliance with rules on physical and personnel security, and record keeping. Last year, for example, Health Canada inspectors conducted more than 270 inspections on site and every licenced producer in Canada was inspected on average seven or eight times.
The features described are designed to ensure that any cannabis product released for sale to the public meets a high quality standard, but as in any industry, there may be circumstances in which a product may be released for sale that does not meet the established regulatory standards. Therefore, to address these situations quickly and authoritatively, the regulatory framework requires that licensed producers have a recall system in place to promptly contact clients and remove products that do not meet these high standards. 
In short, Bill C-45 would build on a well-functioning, effective system to help ensure that cannabis that is legally sold in Canada is strictly regulated and quality controlled. In addition to setting controls similar to those existing under the cannabis regime for medical purposes, Bill C-45 would put in place a set of additional measures, tools, and resources to protect the health and safety of Canadians.
Industry might use marketing techniques to increase demand and revenues. We have a responsibility to establish reasonable regulations for these marketing activities to ensure that important public policy objectives, such as protecting the health and well-being of young people, are achieved.
The facts are conclusive. We have seen with tobacco that exposure to advertising, even if it targets adults, has an impact on children. Under the bill, advertising restrictions would apply to cannabis based on lessons learned from our experience with tobacco.
 The proposed legislation and supporting regulations would also ensure that packaging is child resistant, reducing the risk of accidental consumption. They would also set limits for potency and portion size and require factual information to be clearly presented on the product. The oversight and regulation of production at the federal level would provide all Canadians with the assurance that, no matter where cannabis is produced or sold, it would be subject to the same high quality and safety standards and requirements across the country. 
In conclusion, this bill provides a real opportunity for Canada to address health and public safety issues associated with the illegal cannabis market. The proposed framework would establish a robust system that would allow adults to have access to legal and quality-controlled products as a result of a well-regulated framework, compliance, and enforcement. This would place Canada in a better position to protect the public health and safety of its youth and Canadians as a whole.
Marilyn Gladu: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite quite rightly pointed out that we have had a medical marijuana system in Canada for four years. It is a very well regulated and controlled system, with quality control testing and good tracking on the production and distribution of medical marijuana. The health committee heard that Washington state extended its medical marijuana system to recreational marijuana and got the best results in terms of eliminating organized crime and making sure young children, up to the age of 21, cannot get a hold of the drug.
Why did the government not take that experience from Washington, which had the best results, and put that system in place if it is going to legalize it, instead of this haphazard patchwork thing that we have across all provinces and territories?
Leona Alleslev: Mr. Speaker, for medical purposes, we have a world-leading system of regulation, control, and licensing of the sale of cannabis, and we are using this leading edge to ensure that we can expand it to the recreational as well. This is important. We have to address the situation now because it is in the hands of criminals and our youth, and people are using it now. We need this legislation to be able to protect the Canadian public's health and safety, so they know the quality of the product they are getting and that we have regulatory oversight of it.
Mr. Ken Hardie (Fleetwood—Port Kells, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like the hon. member to comment on the fact that, although we are hearing warnings from the other side not to rush, we in fact have emergencies across Canada. We have an opioid crisis that is killing literally thousands of people across our country. I want the member to reflect on the fact that the little character at the foot of the stairs who is selling marijuana to our kids today is not just selling marijuana.
Leona Alleslev: That is at the very core, Mr. Speaker. Fundamentally, we have a crisis. Fundamentally, we have a problem with our youth and organized crime and with the quality and safety of the product, because it is not just marijuana. Often that product is much more than just marijuana.
We do not have the luxury of waiting. We as a federal government have a responsibility to protect public health and safety and to provide a standardized framework across the nation. 
We cannot confuse the execution of this with the standards and regulatory responsibility that we have to Canadians. We will determine the execution of this afterward, but at the same time we do not have the luxury of time. We cannot afford to wait.
Don Davies: It is funny, Mr. Speaker. I hear a lot of Liberals talking about the opioid crisis and the cannabis legislation when in fact the opioid crisis is a legitimate public health emergency and yet, for some reason, they do not consider it enough of an emergency to declare it a public health emergency.
Cannabis is a bit different. While I believe it is imperative to legalize it, there is certainly no emergency to do so. It is not the NDP or the Conservatives who are asking the government to slow the process down; it is the provinces, including Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Quebec, and New Brunswick. Police forces, indigenous communities, and municipalities are also asking the government to slow the process down. We are not talking about defeating the legislation like the Conservatives are doing. New Democrats believe that cannabis should be legalized and we want to work with the government to do so.
My question has to do with pardons, which this legislation does not deal with. Could my hon. colleague tell me if the Liberal government has any plan whatsoever to issue pardons to the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who carry criminal records for possession, an offence that this legislation would no longer make a crime after July 1, 2018?
Leona Alleslev: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-45 is about taking leadership. It is about setting a new standard. It is about taking the next step in Canadian public health and safety. If not now, then when? It is our responsibility to address a public safety and health issue that is in front of us and is affecting our youth. We do not have the luxury of time. Now is the time to address something that is at the core of our safety.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mr. Anthony Rota): Resuming debate, the hon. member for Edmonton Centre. He will have five minutes, and then another five minutes when we return to the bill.
Mr. Randy Boissonnault (Edmonton Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise to speak in the House today in support of Bill C-45, an act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other acts. In my remarks today I would like to focus on why a new approach to cannabis is needed in this country and why we need to act now. 
The evidence is clear. The current approach is simply not working. All that it has managed to achieve is to unduly criminalize Canadians for possessing small amounts of cannabis and to encourage them to engage with criminals in order to consume products of unknown origin, potency, quality, and safety. It has also allowed criminals and organized crime to profit.
What the current model does not do is protect Canadians, especially young people, against the risks and dangers of using cannabis.
Although cannabis has been illegal for decades, the usage rate among young Canadians is one of the highest in the world.
We cannot allow this to continue. A new approach is required as soon as possible to better protect our youth and to make sure that adults have access to products that are quality controlled and have known origins, and so that they no longer run the risk of having a criminal record for possessing or sharing small amounts.
During the hearings at the Standing Committee on Health, Mr. Ian Culbert, the executive director of the Canadian Public Health Association, said: 
 Unfortunately, we don't have the luxury of time, as Canadians are already consuming cannabis at record levels. The individual and societal harms associated with cannabis use are already being felt every day. The proposed legislation and eventual regulation is our best attempt to minimize those harms and protect the well-being of all Canadians. 
Any further delay in implementation would simply perpetuate a system that is already failing to protect the health and safety of Canadians. This is exactly why our government is committed to bringing the proposed legislation into force no later than July 2018. Upon the coming into force of Bill C-45, Canadians who are 18 years of age or older would be able to possess, grow, and purchase limited amounts of cannabis for personal use. This would mean that the possession of small amounts of cannabis would no longer be a criminal offence, and it would prevent profits from going into the pockets of criminal organizations and street gangs. 
The bill would, for the first time, also make it a specific criminal offence to sell cannabis to a minor and would create significant penalties for those who engage young Canadians in cannabis-related offences.
Canada is more than ready for a new approach that will better protect the health and safety of Canadians. As my colleagues are well aware, Canada has already gained valuable experience that will help us create a sound framework for cannabis legalization and regulation. We already have a system in place that provides access to medical marijuana, and that system is recognized as one of the best in the world.
Let me share some more of the features of that system we are building upon. Under the existing health regime that has been in place since 2014, Health Canada is responsible for licensing and overseeing cannabis producers. These producers are required to operate within strict regulations to provide quality-controlled cannabis to registered patients. This rigorous licensing process ensures, for example, that entrants to this market have gone through a thorough security check and that producers have appropriate physical security infrastructure in place.
Canada also has a world-class compliance and enforcement regime intended to ensure that licensed producers fully comply with the rules in place.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Edmonton Centre will have six minutes remaining in his speech when the House next returns to this subject.

Statements By Members
Tax HavensMr. Gabriel Ste-Marie (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, for two weeks now, actor Vincent Graton has been appealing to the Prime Minister. Every day for the past two weeks, Vincent Graton has been asking the Prime Minister to legislate an end to tax havens. He has not received an answer. It has been radio silence, total disregard.
Using tax havens to avoid paying taxes is the ultimate injustice. Banks, multinationals, and white collar criminals are saving billions of dollars, and the rest of us pay the price. Solutions do exist, and we have proposed some, but the Prime Minister refuses to take action. We need to make illegal what is unethical, bring in strict penalties and fines for fraudsters and their accomplices, eliminate the two regulations that make the use of 24 tax havens completely legal, and ratify the OECD framework against the use of tax havens. By refusing to take action, the Liberals are working for white collar crooks and against the middle class. This is no joke. Vincent Graton is speaking out on behalf of the people, and the Prime Minister—
The Speaker: Order. The hon. member for Fundy Royal.
Tourism IndustryMrs. Alaina Lockhart (Fundy Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last year was the best year for tourism in over a decade, with nearly three million international travellers arriving in August alone. Last week, Travel + Leisure magazine announced Canada as the 2017 destination of the year, referencing, “Canada's growing prominence as a global leader, a nation defined by tolerance and hope.” In my riding of Fundy Royal, this summer we warmly welcomed over 300,000 visitors to the Hopewell Rocks and record numbers at Fundy National Park, driving business to local hotels, restaurants, and attractions in communities throughout the riding.
As we head into winter, it is important note that the tourism season is not over. Cold-weather adventures await. People can wax up their skis and head to Poley Mountain, fire up their snowmobiles and head to the Caledonia Highlands, and throw on their snowshoes or lace up their skates and head to the oval in Riverview or to the qplex. The very best way to get through a cold Canadian winter is to find something we like and really get out there and enjoy it.
Big Brothers Big SistersMr. Gordon Brown (Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this past weekend I was on hand to congratulate Big Brothers Big Sisters of Leeds–Grenville for 40 years of mentoring children. Since 1977, the organization has paired adult mentors with children who can greatly benefit from an adult role model.
 Last year, the agency provided direct service to 1,782 children throughout Leeds and Grenville, including the traditional match program, as well as a curriculum-based program in schools and an after-school program where children learn skills such as sewing, woodworking, painting, guitar, cooking, and stained-glass work, just to name a few. The agency has a hot-lunch subsidy, courtesy of the Carolyn Sifton Foundation, and provides school supplies, clothing, and support for families at Christmas. 
Volunteers, who are always needed, are the backbone of the agency, and I am pleased to recognize everyone who has had a hand in helping raise great children in Leeds–Grenville through the Big Brothers Big Sisters.
Benjamin de Forest BaylyMark Holland: Mr. Speaker, every street in Ajax is named after a veteran. During this month of remembrance, I could pick any number of them to highlight their contribution and how much they did for our country. However, I want to focus particularly on one individual, and that is Ajax's first mayor and British army veteran, Benjamin de Forest Bayly, or, as he went by, Pat. 
Pat, like so many Canadians in World War II, was not a soldier first. He was an engineer and was later recruited into the British Security Coordination, achieving the rank of lieutenant-colonel. Pat was assigned to the telecommunications centre, Hydra, an essential project that protected the Allied radio network. Later, he became the assistant director at Canada's secret intelligence installation, Camp-X. Because of the covert nature of that work, Pat never really got recognition for the work he did to promote peace and in doing all he could for his country.
Pat Bayly is unfortunately no longer with us. On behalf of a grateful nation and on behalf of our community, we thank him and remember him.
Indigenous AffairsMs. Linda Duncan (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the government is keen to accept accolades for efforts to combat climate change. Regrettably, it has failed to give equal attention to its duties to transboundary waters and to address injustices suffered by indigenous communities from toxic pollution.
 Canada has been chastised by the U.N. for failing to protect the Peace–Athabasca Delta and the indigenous communities who depend on it for their survival. In approving Site C, the government ignored the pleas of Alberta first nations to first assess the impacts of it on their treaty and constitutional rights. 
Successive governments have turned a deaf ear to these communities seeking studies of the impacts of oil sands emissions on their health, a mandatory duty long vested in the federal minister of health. Despite parliamentary reports recommending regulation of oil sands' toxic emissions, there has been no action. The report by The Lancet identifies pollution as the greatest global threat to life and health and decries governments for their failure to address this injustice. The government has the power and the responsibility to act. Why does it continue to abandon these indigenous communities?
Cultural Awards in the Laurentian RegionMr. David de Burgh Graham (Laurentides—Labelle, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on November 9, the Conseil de la culture des Laurentides hosted the 28th annual Grands prix de la culture des Laurentides. More than half of the finalists were from my riding, Laurentides—Labelle, and I am very proud to say today that seven out of the eight winners are people and organizations from back home. 
I congratulate Jessica Viau, winner of the Jeune relève award, Lortie et Martin, winner of the Art-Affaires award, Théâtre le Patriote, recipient of the Ambassadeur award, Polyvalente Saint-Joseph, winner of the Art-Éducation award, Caroline Dusseault, recipient of the Passion award, Michel Robichaud, winner of the Excellence award, and Jean-François Beauchemin, who was crowned Créateur de l'année dans les Laurentides. 
All these recipients, as well as the hundreds of people involved in my riding, are proof that culture is essential for regions like mine to grow and prosper. Whether it is through dance, theatre, music, literature, or other forms of art, they give the very best of themselves to the people of Laurentides—Labelle, and for that, I thank them. 
Pierre PiloteMr. Bruce Stanton (Simcoe North, CPC): Mr. Speaker, a week ago Sunday, we gathered in Penetanguishene in remembering an amazing man who had made Wyevale and Penetanguishene his home during his last 23 years. He was a hockey great, among the best Canadians to play the sport. He would often comment that his success in the game was from studying others. His humility and attention were always present.
The long-time captain of the Chicago Blackhawks, he won the Stanley Cup in 1961, and three Norris trophies as the NHL's best defenceman. He played on eight all-star teams and was inducted into the Hockey Hall of Fame in 1975.
Pierre Pilote passed away on September 9, at the age of 85. He leaves a loving family, dear friends in Penetanguishene, and thousands of hockey fans across the continent with wonderful memories and hockey moments.
 To his children Denise, Pierre Junior, Renée, David, and their families, I extend our deepest sympathies and pay tribute their dad and papa, Pierre Pilote. 
World Women's Curling Championship.Anthony Rota: Mr. Speaker, it is with a great sense of excitement that my hometown is getting ready to rock the world. Starting March 17, 2018, North Bay, Ontario will put out the welcome mat for the Ford World Women's Curling Championship.
 Over nine days, top-ranked women’s teams from across the globe, including some fresh from the 2018 Winter Olympics in South Korea, will vie for the title.
It will be just the second time that these world championships will have taken place in Ontario.
 I would like to thank the North Bay Granite Club and the City of North Bay for securing this international sporting event for our city. I wish them the best of luck with the final preparations.
I can tell everyone that fans and competitors alike are looking for a rocking good time.
Alaska HighwayHon. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, 75 years ago, the Alaska Highway was officially opened with a ceremony at Soldier's Summit, one of the greatest infrastructure projects in Canadian and American history.
 The Alaska Highway opened with 1,700 kilometres of road from Dawson Creek, B.C. to Delta Junction, Alaska. During the Second World War, the Japanese captured a foothold in Alaska. Through mountains, permafrost, muskegs, swamps, and across numerous rivers, the road was built in less than a year, with determination and a wartime need to connect Alaska to the rest of the continent.
The construction of the Alaska Highway resulted in monumental changes to the way of life in the Yukon. There were serious effects on the welfare of social societies of some indigenous peoples along the route, some of who worked on the project.
 Today it is a lasting symbol of friendship between Canada and the United States as well as a huge tourism draw, as people from all over the world take this iconic drive and witness the breathtaking scenery and abundance of wildlife.
Birthday CongratulationsHon. Michelle Rempel (Calgary Nose Hill, CPC): Mr. Speaker, one March when she was a child, my mother's elementary school teacher gave out paper lambs and lions to colour to celebrate the “in like a lamb and out like a lion" adage. The boys were given lions and the girls lambs. However, my mother told her teacher that she wanted a lion. She was told to behave. Never one to be deterred, she got her lion. 
A few weeks ago, I caught a reflection in a window that stopped me in my tracks. The reflection of my 37-year-old self was that of a woman I saw when I was 13, that of my mother. While we are indeed her spit and image, my sister and I often pause to be grateful for her less superficial qualities that she strives to have reflected in us: fearlessness, ferocity, selflessness, and a moral compass set on justice, the heart of a lioness.
On the occasion of my mother entering her seventh decade, we have deep gratitude for her love and for living her life and redefining an adage. She came in like a lion, and we do not see any change in the forecast. I wish Mama a happy 60th birthday.
Global Pluralism AwardMs. Yasmin Ratansi (Don Valley East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on November 15, three dynamic individuals from three different continents were the recipients of the first Global Pluralism Award. As well, there were honorary recipients from seven additional countries.
 The award recognizes these exemplary world leaders who have responded creatively to the challenges of diversity. They have shown that difference is not a threat but an opportunity that should be embraced.
 The award ceremony was presided by His Highness the Aga Khan and the Right Hon. Beverley McLachlin. The winners were selected by an independent, international jury, chaired by the Right Hon. Joe Clark, former prime minister of Canada. Each recipient is awarded $50,000 to further his or her work in support of pluralism. As the recipients stated, “You have put pluralism on the world stage and given us the momentum to carry out our work.”
 I congratulate them all. 
InfrastructureMr. Michael McLeod (Northwest Territories, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last Wednesday, I was thrilled to drive on the new 137 kilometre road connecting Inuvik to Tuktoyaktuk on the shores of the Arctic Ocean.
 I was joined by the Governor General, the Ministers of Infrastructure and Crown-Indigenous Relations, the GNWT premier and cabinet ministers, and community members to celebrate a project that has been discussed for decades. As a former transportation minister in the Government of the Northwest Territories during the early planning stages, I was especially pleased to be included on this inaugural trip.
 Connecting our country from coast to coast to coast has long been a dream of many Canadians. Now that this first link is complete, it is more important than ever to ensure that all northerners are connected to the same services and opportunities available to those in the south.
I congratulate the residents of Tuk, Inuvik, and the entire lnuvialuit region on this very historic day.
Hindu Heritage MonthMr. Alexander Nuttall (Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this month is Hindu Heritage Month.
 Since the first Hindu immigrants arrived in Canada at the beginning of the 20th century, Hindu Canadians have made significant contributions across various fields such as science, education, medicine, law, politics, business, and many more fields. They have been a positive force in society and have helped shape Canada in being a very multicultural and positive society by integrating traditions and festivals such as Diwali, Durga Puja, and Navaratri. Hindu Canadians have also helped build our country into the greatest place to live, work, and raise families.
 On behalf of the people of Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, I would like to thank and congratulate Hindu Canadians all across Canada on Hindu Heritage Month.
World Children's DayMr. Sean Casey (Charlottetown, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday was World Children's Day. I was honoured to be invited to the United Nations in New York to witness a kid's takeover of the proceedings.
 Children from all over the world gave inspirational presentations to the UN delegates. Canada's representative was Basel AI Rashdan.
 Basel is a 12-year-old Syrian refugee who now proudly calls Canada and, more specific, Charlottetown, home. He attends St. Jean Elementary School, where he is often called “The Little Mayor”. His school projects focus on themes of empathy and fairness.
At the UN, he spoke of his journey from Syria through Jordan to Prince Edward Island in 2015, and how his initial fear and apprehension was, over time, transformed into pride, hope, optimism, and happiness.
 Before he spoke, he received a phone call from the Prime Minister, wishing him good luck. Basel represented Canada well, raising his voice, our voice, for international children's rights today and every day.
I thank to Basel. Canada is very proud of him. 
Panache Awards GalaCarol Hughes: Mr. Speaker, small businesses are the engine of our economy. However, in the north, they are critically important. This week, the Hearst Economic Development Corporation will recognize the contribution of young entrepreneurs at the Panache awards gala. It will also celebrate the 65th anniversary of Ted Wilson's Men's Wear, which is still run by the Wilson family. 
This is just weeks after the chambers of commerce in Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing honoured exceptional businesses.
 In Kapuskasing, the Chamber of Commerce handed out awards to Blooming Bouquet Flowers and Gift Shop, the Kap Royal Theatre, Kap Healthy Kids Community, Alain Murray, Kapuskasing Agri Services, Kevin Prevost and Eastview Chevrolet GMC, Chez Lizette Restaurant, and Cabin Fever Motorsports and Marine. 
Simon and Louise Dubosq, owners of La Boulangerie, won the Hommage award in the life and career category.
The Elliot Lake chamber honoured In Motion Fitness, Jib and Debbie Turner. The Red Briffett Award for Community Involvement went to Peter and Betty Seidel.
I congratulate the winners, nominees, and all our small businesses who keep communities vital and strong.
Navy DayPeter Kent: Mr. Speaker, today is Navy Day, a day dedicated to the men and women of the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Coast Guard, and the exceptional sailor program.
Our senior service traces its roots back to Tudor England, where a standing navy was established long before a standing army and, of course, an air force was still a theoretical Da Vinci dream. 
The Royal Canadian Navy's beginnings date back to 1910, growing quickly during the First World War, and by the end of the Second World War, Canada had the third-largest navy in the world.
The Canadian Coast Guard was formed in 1962, and now boasts a fleet of more than 100 vessels of various purposes and sizes.
Now, challenges do remain with procurement and shipbuilding programs, but today we salute the men and women who have served in war and peace, who serve now in Canadian waters and around the world. We salute their service and the navy's motto: Parati Vero Parati, Ready Aye Ready.
Child PovertyMs. Kate Young (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday was Universal Children's Day. In light of this, I am proud to get up in the House and talk about the work our government has done with the introduction of the Canada child benefit, which will help lift an estimated 300,000 children out of poverty.
 Initiatives like bread not stones, a United Church of Canada project, help raise awareness to reduce child poverty in Canada. We welcome several representatives of this initiative this afternoon. Our guests are honoured to present all MPs with rag dolls that act as powerful symbols of child poverty. I encourage all my colleagues in the House to pick up their doll of hope in their lobby.
 Bread not stones and its event partners, Campaign 2000 and Citizens for Public Justice, urge everyone to keep working for our most vulnerable children until the job is done.

Oral Questions
Canada Revenue AgencyHon. Andrew Scheer (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canadians deserve easy access to accurate information from the Canada Revenue Agency.
However, the Auditor General announced today that CRA call centre agents block nearly half of all the calls they receive.
This Prime Minister is the one who is causing so much confusion and raising taxes for small businesses and middle-class families.
Why then, when Canadians are looking for answers, does the Prime Minister respond with nothing more than a busy signal?
Right Hon. Justin Trudeau (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I know that we are going to have a great discussion today about the Auditor General's report. It is an excellent report that will be very helpful for our government in improving services. We realize that there are things that we could have done better, and we will do better.
However, at the same time, it is important to recognize the fact that the previous government's decision to spend 10 years cutting services, particularly near the end, so that it could balance its budget at any cost, was not without consequences. We are working hard to bring services to Canadians back to the way they should be, and we will continue to do so.
Andrew Scheer: Mr. Speaker, getting in touch with the Prime Minister's Canada Revenue Agency is notoriously difficult. The Auditor General reports that 29 million calls from Canadians went unanswered. Canadians who need advice on their tax situation are blocked, get a busy signal, are told to call back, or are disconnected, but when his friend, Stephen Bronfman, needed an answer on his tax situation, the Prime Minister answered the call pretty darn quick and gave him the answer that he was looking for.
Why is it that Liberal friends get their calls answered and the answers they want and ordinary Canadians have to be put on hold?
Justin Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, today we are going to be talking about the Auditor General's report, as we should. It is an excellent report and, actually, a very helpful report. We realize that there are many things that we could have done better and we will do better, and we thank the Auditor General for his work.
At the same time, we have to understand that when the previous government chose to cut government services, particularly through the last years of its mandate, in order to balance the budget at all costs, there are consequences. We are working hard to restore services to Canadians at the level they expect and we have more work to do to fix the Conservatives' messes.
EthicsAndrew Scheer: That is ridiculous, Mr. Speaker. I bet that the accounts payable calls get answered pretty quickly under the Liberal government.
Today we learned that the minister did not get the Ethics Commissioner's permission to introduce his pension legislation, even though he claimed otherwise. This legislation enables the exact product that his family's company specializes in and for which the finance minister himself lobbied for before he entered politics.
Did the Prime Minister ever request assurances from the finance minister that he was working with the Ethics Commissioner before introducing the legislation?
Justin Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, all members of this House work with the Ethics Commissioner to ensure that their personal finances, their personal interests are in line with the expectations that Canadians have of all members of this House to live up to the high expectations of citizens. All of us, including the finance minister, work with the Ethics Commissioner and listen to and follow her counsel.
Andrew Scheer: Mr. Speaker, just yesterday, the Prime Minister said that the Minister of Finance had always worked closely with the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner.
Therefore, I am asking him one more time: did the Prime Minister verify with the Minister of Finance that the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner had allowed him to introduce his pension legislation, Bill C-27?
Justin Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, MPs on both sides of the House often engage in attacks that are sometimes personal and sometimes based on facts. That is how democracy works. That is how we know that a government is rigorous in the way it deals with various issues. 
However, we are working with the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner to go beyond partisan politics and to make sure Canadians know that every person in this House follows the rules and is worthy of the confidence of Canadians. That is what the Minister of Finance did. 
Andrew Scheer: Mr. Speaker, these Liberals only work with the Ethics Commissioner after they get caught breaking the ethics laws.
Therefore, let us be clear. Either the finance minister lied to the Prime Minister, or the Prime Minister did not even bother to ask, or the Prime Minister simply believes that Liberals are just above the rules. Which is it? Did anyone ever tell the Prime Minister that his finance minister was clear to table Bill C-27 before the bill was introduced in Parliament?
Justin Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, every member of this House, when they arrive to serve, works with the Ethics Commissioner to ensure that their personal situation, their financial situation, is in order and aligned with the high expectations that Canadians have of each of us in this House. The Minister of Finance worked with the Ethics Commissioner to ensure that the decisions he would take, whether it was putting in a screen or whether it was various personal dispositions, would ensure that Canadians could have confidence that everyone in this House is following the rules.
Public Services and ProcurementMr. Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP): Mr. Speaker, when we ask about the Phoenix pay system fiasco, every answer from the Liberals is to blame the Conservatives for it. Against the advice of their experts and public servants, they decided to push the button. 
They cannot hide behind the Conservatives. They have underestimated the problems. They still do not have a comprehensive plan, and worse, they do not know the full extent and causes of those problems. While they act like amateurs, hundreds of thousands of public servants are feeling the pain.
How long will the Liberals keep throwing good money after bad? Who will be held accountable and who will fix this mess?
Justin Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government did not create this mess, but we are going to fix this mess. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
The Speaker: Order. I know that everybody wants to take part in question period, but, of course, the way it works is that only two members do and the rest are required to listen and not interrupt. I know that members do not want to break the rules. 
The right hon. Prime Minister has the floor.
Justin Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government bought this system, created this system, and we will fix this system. It is unacceptable that Canadians not be paid for the work they are doing. That is why we are working so hard with different ministries, public servants, and different unions to ensure that we fix this Phoenix pay system. It is something that Canadians expect, and it is something that we are going to fix. 
Guy Caron: Mr. Speaker, it was the current government that said that the system was good to go. 
The Liberals have no idea what is causing the problem, nor do they know the extent of it, and to top it off, they are making the situation worse.
The Auditor General made it clear that fixing Phoenix, if indeed it can be fixed, will take years and cost us over $1 billion. In response, the Prime Minister said the same thing he said last year, the same thing he said the year before, and the same thing he is likely to say a year from now.
When Canadians buy something that does not work, they take it back for a refund.
Have the Liberals kept the receipt so they can get their money back, or will Canadians end up paying for this?
Justin Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as Canadians know, the former Conservative government bought the system, developed it, and fired the workers who were supposed to handle the transition.
We are fixing Phoenix. We are working with the public service, with unions, and with all our private-sector partners to fix and improve the system. We are working hard because people not getting paid, not getting the money they are entitled to, is unacceptable.
Alexandre Boulerice: Mr. Speaker, hello, you have reached the Canada Revenue Agency. Your call is important to us.
Seriously, if you expect to speak with a person, good luck. Half the time your call will be blocked, and more often than not, you will not get through to a person. If you actually happen to speak to someone, there is a 30% chance that you will be given the wrong information. Have a nice day.
While the Liberals allow their friends to get richer using tax havens, they are turning their backs on Canadians who could use a little help.
Is this how the Liberals deliver public services to Canadians and Quebeckers?
Justin Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we were elected on a promise to improve services to Canadians.
We recognize that we had a lot of work to do, because for years under the Conservative government, massive cuts were made to the Canada Revenue Agency. That is why, in our first budget, we invested $50 million to improve services to Canadians.
However, we know that there is still a lot of work to be done, and we are working on it. We thank the Auditor General for his report, and we continue to work together.
Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP): Mr. Speaker, do we all get the sense that even he does not believe his own spin anymore? The PM needs to change his slogan from “real change” to “Please hold. Your call is important to us. Waiting time is forever.” 
The Auditor General has exposed how the government is totally failing Canadians. CRA has been blocking half the calls, and the one-third that actually make it through get bad or wrong advice. For those looking to avoid paying their taxes, Liberals have a good answer for them. For Canadians trying to pay their taxes, they put them on hold. 
Let us all listen to the Prime Minister explain how this mess is helping out the middle class and those working hard to join it. 
Justin Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, in the last election, two parties, the Conservatives and the NDP, committed to balance the budget at all costs, including through cutting services—
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
The Speaker: Order. Do members wish to shorten question period?
Order. The right hon. Prime Minister has the floor. 
Justin Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this is exactly what happens when governments choose to balance the books at all costs. They cut services to Canadians, and Canadians suffer. We are working hard to fix their messes. We are working hard to improve services for Canadians. 
We thank the Auditor General for his report, which is very helpful. We will endeavour to do even more to serve Canadians the way they need.
The Speaker: Order. This is a place where there are criticisms that fly back and forth, and most members can hear them without reacting. I think the rest are capable of doing the same.
The hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska. 
EthicsMr. Alain Rayes (Richmond—Arthabaska, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance swore that he put his shares in a blind trust and then we learned that he never did. The Minister of Finance assured us that he had declared all his assets and then we learned that he was fined by the commissioner for failing to disclose a company. From the beginning of the session, the minister has repeated that he has always worked with the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner and, oddly enough, today we read in the Globe and Mail that the minister never worked with the commissioner on his Bill C-27.
Can the Prime Minister tell us why Canadians would still trust the Minister of Finance?
Mr. Joël Lightbound (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what is expected of all parliamentarians in the House is that they work with the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. The Minister of Finance did so as soon as he took office. He has always followed the recommendations of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, including setting up a screen to prevent conflicts of interest, which he did at the outset. That screen is still in place today. The minister announced that he would go the extra mile and divest himself of all his shares in Morneau Shepell and place all his assets in a blind trust so he could continue focusing on the important work he has been doing for two years. I can understand that the opposition members do not want to talk about the Minister of Finance's record, which includes 500,000 jobs and the lowest unemployment rate in 10 years, because such an achievement is beyond their wildest dreams.
Alain Rayes: Mr. Speaker, the finance minister's so-called ethical screen gets weaker every day. After introducing Bill C-27, which helps his own family business, the only argument the minister has left is to say that he now miraculously has some integrity because he sold his shares and made a donation. What does the government have to say about the level of integrity he has shown over the past two years?
Will the Prime Minister finally admit what all Canadians know, that his finance minister has been in a direct conflict of interest for the past two years?
Joël Lightbound: Mr. Speaker, what all Canadians know is that, in this place, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner is responsible for safeguarding the integrity of Parliament. Like us, Canadians expect all parliamentarians to work with the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner and follow her recommendations. They expect her to tell each of us what to do based on our own individual circumstances. That is what the commissioner did for the Minister of Finance. He always followed her advice and recommendations. He will continue to work with her to live up to the highest standards of integrity that Canadians expect.
Mrs. Shannon Stubbs (Lakeland, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and the finance minister are the two most powerful lawmakers in Canada. The finance minister's Bill C-27 will directly benefit his billion dollar family business, Morneau Shepell, and he still held shares in Morneau Shepell when he introduced that bill. The Prime Minister and the finance minister and his staff all claim he has been working with the Ethics Commissioner from the start, but now, the Prime Minister and two of his cabinet ministers are under investigation by the Ethics Commissioner. How can Canadians trust the Prime Minister?
Joël Lightbound: Mr. Speaker, what is expected of all parliamentarians is to work with the Ethics Commissioner, who is responsible to safeguard the integrity of this Parliament. The finance minister has always worked in full transparency with the Ethics Commissioner, has always followed her recommendations, will continue to do so, and of his own accord has decided to go above and beyond, divesting all his shares in Morneau Shepell, and placing all of his assets in a blind trust so that he can continue to do the important work and avoid any further distraction. I understand the opposition. Members do not want to talk about his record because, when it comes to the economy, he has steered the ship in the right direction for the last two years, creating half a million jobs.
The Speaker: I would ask the hon. member for Abbotsford not to be talking throughout the time when someone else has the floor. We love to hear his voice. It is a great baritone, but only when he has the floor.
The hon. member for Lakeland.
Shannon Stubbs: Mr. Speaker, Canadians expect the Prime Minister to safeguard integrity, but the Prime Minister is the first Canadian prime minister under investigation by the Ethics Commissioner; and the finance minister is being investigated for using his public powers to enrich himself and his family. 
He claims he worked with the Ethics Commissioner and that there was a so-called ethical screen in place, but apparently she was not aware they were working together because now she is investigating him for it, and obviously that screen was a wide-open window. At first, he also said he told her about his French company, but she did not know about that either and she fined him for hiding it. 
Again, how can Canadians trust the Prime Minister, the finance minister, or any of— 
The Speaker: The hon. parliamentary secretary.
Joël Lightbound: Mr. Speaker, that conflict of interest screen that was put in place following the recommendation of the Ethics Commissioner, which she deemed to be the best measure of compliance, was a measure that was good enough for the member for Milton and for Denis Lebel when they were in office. 
The finance minister has always worked with the Ethics Commissioner and will always work with the Ethics Commissioner. He has mentioned he would go above and beyond to continue the work that he has done remarkably well over the last two years for the Canadian economy and for Canadians.
Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Carleton, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the finance minister made his shares in Morneau Shepell go above and beyond. 
Let us break this down. He had shares in a pension company and introduced a pension bill. That pension bill was on targeted benefit pension plans. His company designs targeted benefit pension plans. The model of choice was New Brunswick. His company had designed New Brunswick's system of targeted benefit pension plans.
Is there anything about his bill that was not previously written by his own company?
Joël Lightbound: Mr. Speaker, as I have mentioned time and time again, the finance minister has always worked with the Ethics Commissioner in full transparency, disclosing all of his assets and following her recommendation, the path she set forward. On this side of the House, we respect the Ethics Commissioner's work, and we follow her recommendations to make sure that all rules are followed.
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, however, the Ethics Commissioner did not recommend that the minister could introduce a bill on pensions while he had shares in a pension company. He made ill-gotten gains that he now claims he is going to give back to charity. That will entitle him to a massive tax break. There are numerous tax benefits people can get for donating to charity. Which one will the finance minister use?
Joël Lightbound: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance introduced Bill C-27 to ensure that Canadians have a secure and stable retirement, so that they may live out their retirement with dignity. The Minister of Finance has always worked with the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. He followed through on her recommendation to set up a conflict of interest screen. The commissioner felt that this was the best way to prevent any appearance of conflict of interest or any conflict of interest. The Minister of Finance will continue to work with the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner to ensure that all the rules are followed and he will continue to serve Canadians. 
Alexandre Boulerice: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party's chief fundraiser sent money to a tax haven. This morning, the NDP asked that Stephen Bronfman appear before the Standing Committee on Finance. The Liberals refused.
The Minister of Finance failed to put his assets in a blind trust. He also introduced Bill C-27, which helped Morneau Shepell rake in millions of dollars without running this by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. He is currently under investigation.
Is that the Liberals' approach to governing?
They do nothing about tax havens and introduce bills to get richer and to make their millionaire friends richer?
Hon. Diane Lebouthillier (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the chance to contrast our track record with that of my colleague opposite. Our government is fully committed to fighting tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance. In our last two budgets, we allocated nearly $1 billion to doing just that, and we are on track to recoup $25 billion. Our plan is working. We are targeting four jurisdictions a year, and we are working to finalize the hiring of 100 auditors. There have been 627 cases transferred to criminal investigations, 268 search warrants—
Nathan Cullen:  Mr. Speaker, let us lay out the facts for the Prime Minister. 
First, before entering “public service” the finance minister advocated for targeted pensions. That makes sense. He made millions off of it. Second, his company buys Mercer Canada that runs the pensions for 93,000 Canada Post workers and retirees. Then after being elected and still owning and controlling millions of dollars of shares in Morneau Shepell, he sponsors a bill that would benefit Morneau Shepell and himself personally.
If this does not qualify as a conflict of interest in the heart and mind of the Prime Minister, then what does?
Joël Lightbound: Mr. Speaker, when the minister answered the call to public service, he did what is expected of every minister and parliamentarian. He sat down with the Ethics Commissioner and followed the recommendations she made based on his situation. She recommended that a conflict of interest screen be put in place. That is what she considered to be the best possible measure. 
Furthermore, it is important to bear in mind everything that the Minister of Finance has done in the past two years. He has reduced child poverty in this country by 40%, helped 900,000 seniors through the guaranteed income supplement, and created 500,000 jobs. That is a track record to be proud of.
Hon. Maxime Bernier (Beauce, CPC): Mr. Speaker, that is not true. The Minister of Finance  did not sit down with the Ethics Commissioner. He did so only after he was in conflict of interest.
We know that Morneau Shepell deals in target benefit pension plans, and that is what the minister put forward in his Bill C-27.
The question here is simple. How can the minister think that he is not in conflict of interest when he makes the laws that govern a business in which he holds shares? How can the Minister of Finance say that he is not in conflict of interest?
Joël Lightbound: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance is working with the Ethics Commissioner, who is responsible for determining if there is conflict of interest, and that is what he has always done.
 Upon arriving in Ottawa, he did what is expected of all parliamentarians. He disclosed his situation transparently and acted on her recommendations to ensure he was complying with the laws and rules that govern us and the strictest ethical standards. That is what the minister did.
Maxime Bernier: Mr. Speaker, the minister misled the House because he did not in fact work with the Ethics Commissioner. That is what we read today in the Globe and Mail. He decided to work with the commissioner only after he was in complete conflict of interest. That is what really happened. There are no ethics.
It is important to note that he benefited from legislation. He got sums of money that drove up his shares on the stock market. He was in conflict of interest.
Why does the Prime Minister continue to protect the Minister of Finance?
Joël Lightbound: Mr. Speaker, I think that the hon. member for Beauce knows how the House works, as well as the institutions that protect the integrity of the House. One institution that we on this side of the House respect is the Ethics Commissioner. We respect her judgment and her recommendations.
After presenting his entire situation, the Minister of Finance followed every one of the Ethics Commissioner's recommendations and will continue to do so. He divested himself of all his shares in Morneau Shepell and made a charitable donation of the difference in value in his shares since the election. He announced that was putting all his assets in a blind trust so that he can continue the important work that he has been doing for Canadians for two years now.
Mr. Mark Strahl (Chilliwack—Hope, CPC): Mr. Speaker, for two years, the Minister of Finance led Canadians to believe that his personal assets were in a blind trust. That was not true. He controlled his millions of Morneau Shepell shares the entire time. 
He also said that he worked with the Ethics Commissioner before introducing pension reform legislation, legislation that just happened to benefit his family business. We know that was not true and she never signed off on that blatant conflict of interest.
Why should Canadians trust the finance minister, when he is under investigation yet again for misleading Canadians and breaking the rules?
Joël Lightbound: Mr. Speaker, I believe that Canadians can trust that the Ethics Commissioner will do her job, will guide parliamentarians, and will ensure that the rules are obeyed in order to avoid any conflict of interest, real or perceived.
The minister has always worked with the Ethics Commissioner from the very beginning. He put in place a conflict of interest screen, and the commissioner herself believed that it was the best option. The minister will continue to work with the Ethics Commissioner.
Mark Strahl: Mr. Speaker, for two years the finance minister sheltered millions in Morneau Shepell shares in a numbered company, shares that skyrocketed after he introduced pension reform legislation that benefited his family company. Now that he has been caught and forced to dispose of those shares, he says that he can now start to work for Canadians. I guess we know who he has been working for over the last two years. 
He misled Canadians about his personal assets. He misled Canadians about working with the Ethics Commissioner. He is under investigation yet again.
Why should Canadians trust anything he says?
Joël Lightbound: Mr. Speaker, this member wants to talk about what the Minister of Finance is doing for Canadians. We can talk about that.
We can talk about the Canada child benefit, which has lifted 300,000 children out of poverty. We can talk about the guaranteed income supplement, which is helping 900,000 seniors living in poverty. We can talk about the 500,000 jobs he created. This is the most jobs created in the past 10 years. The Conservatives have the worst job creation record since the Second World War.
That is what it means to work for Canadians, and that is what the minister has been doing for two years.
Families, Children and Social DevelopmentMs. Brigitte Sansoucy (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, NDP): Mr. Speaker, yesterday we celebrated International Children's Rights Day, although there was really nothing worth celebrating. According to a Campaign 2000 report, nearly one child in five lives in a family that struggles with poverty. Even more disgraceful, one indigenous child in three living on reserve is poor.
How is it that we are still in this situation in 2017? When will the government finally assume its responsibilities and lift all children out of poverty?
Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos (Minister of Families, Children and Social Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank and congratulate my colleague on her question.
I wish to remind my colleague that our government takes poverty among families and children very seriously. I would like to remind her that, across Canada, the families of six million children are currently receiving a Canada child benefit that is better and worth more than the one provided by the previous government. This also means we are lifting 300,000 children out of poverty, which will translate into the lowest child poverty rate in the history of Canada and the greatest poverty reduction ever achieved in our great nation.
Ms. Rachel Blaney (North Island—Powell River, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Campaign 2000's latest report has confirmed, yet again, staggering rates of poverty for indigenous children, both on and off reserve. The message from today's parliamentary budget officer's report is equally clear.
If the Liberals are really serious about addressing child poverty, they need an action plan that includes concrete targets and a timeline to meet them. If two whole years in office were not enough for the government to act, can the Liberals tell us how much longer they are going to ask these children to wait?
Jean-Yves Duclos: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for asking this very relevant question.
This government is the first government that will put in place a poverty reduction strategy. We are working very hard with partners around the country, who have been waiting for us for a long time, to build this strategy. They are very dedicated to assisting us in making poverty something that is going to be not only falling over time but disappearing in the long term.