Bill C-45 (Historical)

Cannabis Act

An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other Acts

This enactment enacts the Cannabis Act to provide legal access to cannabis and to control and regulate its production, distribution and sale.
The objectives of the Act are to prevent young persons from accessing cannabis, to protect public health and public safety by establishing strict product safety and product quality requirements and to deter criminal activity by imposing serious criminal penalties for those operating outside the legal framework. The Act is also intended to reduce the burden on the criminal justice system in relation to cannabis.
The Act
(a) establishes criminal prohibitions such as the unlawful sale or distribution of cannabis, including its sale or distribution to young persons, and the unlawful possession, production, importation and exportation of cannabis;
(b) enables the Minister to authorize the possession, production, distribution, sale, importation and exportation of cannabis, as well as to suspend, amend or revoke those authorizations when warranted;
(c) authorizes persons to possess, sell or distribute cannabis if they are authorized to sell cannabis under a provincial Act that contains certain legislative measures;
(d) prohibits any promotion, packaging and labelling of cannabis that could be appealing to young persons or encourage its consumption, while allowing consumers to have access to information with which they can make informed decisions about the consumption of cannabis;
(e) provides for inspection powers, the authority to impose administrative monetary penalties and the ability to commence proceedings for certain offences by means of a ticket;
(f) includes mechanisms to deal with seized cannabis and other property;
(g) authorizes the Minister to make orders in relation to matters such as product recalls, the provision of information, the conduct of tests or studies, and the taking of measures to prevent non-compliance with the Act;
(h) permits the establishment of a cannabis tracking system for the purposes of the enforcement and administration of the Act;
(i) authorizes the Minister to fix, by order, fees related to the administration of the Act; and
(j) authorizes the Governor in Council to make regulations respecting such matters as quality, testing, composition, packaging and labelling of cannabis, security clearances and the collection and disclosure of information in respect of cannabis as well as to make regulations exempting certain persons or classes of cannabis from the application of the Act.
This enactment also amends the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to, among other things, increase the maximum penalties for certain offences and to authorize the Minister to engage persons having technical or specialized knowledge to provide advice. It repeals item 1 of Schedule II and makes consequential amendments to that Act as the result of that repeal.
In addition, it repeals Part XII.‍1 of the Criminal Code, which deals with instruments and literature for illicit drug use, and makes consequential amendments to that Act.
It amends the Non-smokers’ Health Act to prohibit the smoking and vaping of cannabis in federally regulated places and conveyances.
Finally, it makes consequential amendments to other Acts.

Cannabis Act

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary for Sport and Persons with Disabilities]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague opposite for waking us up at this hour of the night with his enthusiastic speech.

He gave many examples of certain cases and read emails that he received.

At this very moment, the law prohibits the consumption, purchase, and sale of marijuana.

My question for the member opposite is simple: is it safer to tell our youth to obtain marijuana from organized crime or to legalize it and make it safer?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, you cannot imagine how pleased I am to answer this question.

First, the only thing we want to tell people is do not go near it, period. It is bad, bad, bad.

According to the member's logic, it would be terrible to do nothing because we would continue supporting organized crime, which makes no sense. Is the member going down the same road as his colleague from Beaches—East York who said in an interview on January 27 that marijuana was the first step and that the next step was cocaine? Apparently he subscribes to the principle that legalizing something makes everything just fine.

Is the member a party to these irresponsible ideas or, on the contrary, does he agree with his Prime Minister, who this afternoon told the House that that is not what he wants to do? That is unacceptable.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw on my colleague's experience in the National Assembly and ask him if there were debates about marijuana while he was there.

What are his thoughts on the burden this will place on the provinces, including Quebec?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, no, we did not debate it. Plus, anyone trying to debate it with me would have been in for a rough ride.

One of Quebec's ministers, Lucie Charlebois, recently issued a statement in which she said that the Government of Quebec would have to equip parents and children in schools, support employers and unions with major workplace prevention programs, pass legislation to do with housing, set up a specialized distribution system, and train police officers. She said this would put pressure on Quebec's judicial system and that the municipalities would have to be involved on the regulation end of things.

That is the Liberal government's marijuana legalization gift to the provinces. Fantastic.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent is on the finance committee and expresses a lot of common sense there, but he has absolutely lost his common sense here tonight. He talked about a measuring stick to measure how high the plants are, but a measuring stick going to the ceiling would not measure all of his exaggerations here tonight.

I will ask the member the simple question that the parliamentary secretary asked earlier: what are you going to do instead? The Government of Canada is recognizing it, is legalizing it, is controlling it, is educating with respect to it, and is starting to deal with this problem. What would the member opposite do? What are you going to do instead to actually control the problem—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I do not know if the hon. member for Malpeque wants to know what I would do. I do not think that is what he means, so I would encourage him to address himself to the Chair and to speak in the third person when referring to other members in the House.

The hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to answer the question of my hon. colleague from Malpeque. It is a great pleasure to work with him at the finance committee, even if we disagree on so many issues. I respect him a lot.

We have to have more severe controls against the people who benefit from illegal marijuana. If the government wants to convince people to be very careful with respect to marijuana, I would ask the MP to convince his counterparts in the cabinet to be sure to give the necessary money, because the government wants to spend $1.9 million a year for the 36 million people in Canada. The states of Colorado and Washington spend $13 million a year, while the Liberal government wants to spend less than $2 million a year. If it wants to protect people and inform them that it is wrong, it needs to spend the money necessary, not the pennies it will be giving toward enforcing it.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's oratory. He has obviously woken up the House. I am afraid I am going to put everyone back to sleep.

As I stand here with my colleagues, Canadians are paying close attention to the discussion we are having on the legalization of the distribution, sale, and possession of recreational marijuana in Canada. This subject no doubt evokes many emotions on all sides, and I know there can be some strongly held views on this issue.

I feel that the government has rushed into the bill without really stopping to consider all the consequences. The Liberals are doing it to meet a campaign commitment without considering all the repercussions and effects that this legislation scheme may have.

In April, shortly after the legislation was introduced by the Liberals, I had the opportunity to host a series of community round table meetings with municipal officials throughout my constituency. I met with mayors, reeves, councillors, MLAs, and media. One of the very major concerns that these officials had was with respect to the timeline of the bill. The Liberals have introduced this very broad legislation, setting the minimum age, the number of plants, and the potency of marijuana that can be sold. They then basically told the provinces and the territories to develop their own implementation plan for the rest. That means there could be 13 different regimes across Canada.

In the lead-up to what they knew was impending legislation from the feds, the Alberta Urban Municipalities Association asked the Province of Alberta to act. As a result, in Alberta, the provincial NDP formed a secretariat to deal with this issue. That is great. The problem is that the secretariat in Alberta is excluding the municipalities from being part of it.

The Liberals keep talking about consultations with municipalities and municipal involvement, but how can this work? When the provinces are tasked with doing most of the heavy lifting for the feds, the municipalities are in fact left out of the decision-making process at the grassroots level.

As a former mayor for many years, I have a particular concern about the impact on communities and on municipalities. Municipalities are really concerned about this rush to legalize marijuana completely. They are concerned about the fact that they are going to have to pick up the tab for a variety of new responsibilities that are essentially being dumped on them overnight.

Municipalities will likely be responsible for enforcement and zoning, as well as for creating an entire new set of by-laws surrounding this new regime. With respect to zoning and by-laws, there will be a very long process. Staff will have to develop a plan. There will be public meetings and hearings. Advertising will have to be done. City staff will devote countless hours and resources over several months. There is a time factor here, and it cannot be rushed, which calls into question the government's timeline.

Licensing is not a cash cow, despite what some on the government side would have us believe. It will not be anywhere near what is required to cover the new costs this regime will impose on municipalities.

In a previous sitting of the House, I asked the Liberals what concrete actions they would be taking to support municipalities, seeing that they had dumped such a huge burden on them with very little time for them to adapt. The answer from the government side was quite generic, and it is not something I am particularly enthusiastic about. For example, the parliamentary secretary mentioned providing equipment and training, but did not mention who would pay for it. This does not help municipal planning.

Another area that will impact municipalities is they will have to rewrite their HR policies, because now they will have the threat of people coming to work under the influence of marijuana. The last thing any municipality wants is an employee operating heavy equipment while under the influence.

Enforcement as well means a whole new set of rules and regulations, planning, and money spent by municipalities.

The Liberals have essentially washed their hands of having to do any of the local work on this file. They have told municipalities, “Here is a big new change; you have about a year to implement it. Have a nice day.”

This is unfortunate, because I am sure that municipalities in my riding would have been willing to work collaboratively with the province, but they have been exempted from that. It is unfortunate that the province would not allow this to take place.

Another area of concern that I heard in the private sector while crisscrossing my riding hosting community roundtables was the concern surrounding workplace regulations regarding health and safety. Whether these organizations are small to medium-sized enterprises like ECS Safety Services in Brooks in my riding of Bow River or large outfits like oil and gas sector companies, there are some major concerns about work-related marijuana use.

As we know very well, my home province of Alberta has a large oil and gas sector, and it requires a significant amount of labour. These sectors now struggle at times to have enough clean employees. Coming under the influence of marijuana now is another significant challenge they are going to be facing.

I understand that the federal government must respect constitutional division of powers, and it says it is consulting with municipalities. It talks about some of the 22 major cities, like Toronto. In my riding, there are none of those 22 major cities. They are not talking about where the vast majority of our rural people live, so when they are talking about consulting, they are talking about some of the 22 major cities. That is not where I am from.

However, the Liberals can absolutely consult with the provinces to make sure they are going to support the municipalities. There is a process, if they wish to do it strongly enough. The federal government could, by funding, support these new powers for enforcement. It could come through the form of equal sharing of the tax revenue generated by legalized recreational marijuana. Let us consider the federal gas tax model, for example, where we cut out the middleman, which is the province, and the money goes directly to the municipalities, mostly. If it does not, it is property taxes that would end up covering the cost of this, because municipalities will be doing the heavy lifting at the grassroots level.

There are other ways the government may be able to support this as it rushes the terms of this brand new piece of legislation. However, if it does not take the time, if it pushes it too quickly, it will be the property tax payers as the major source of revenue for municipalities. As a result, taxes will go up in the local municipalities to pay for this scheme.

Lisa Holmes, president of the Alberta Urban Municipalities Association, has said that many Alberta municipalities could theoretically be ready by 2019, one year or so later than the government's deadline. If there is any way the government could work with the provinces to provide them with some flexibility in timelines and implementation, this might work. Ms. Holmes understands that, otherwise, the only way this new regime would be paid for is by property taxes in municipalities.

Another group of those concerned are many of the provincial premiers, including Liberal premiers. The NDP Premier of Alberta, Rachel Notley, has expressed concerns about the short timeline.

There are many other issues that are arising from this legalization. For example, I found it somewhat distressing that we are going to be encouraging people, including young people, to smoke marijuana now, when for years we have been trying to get people to stop smoking. For years, I was involved in a regional health care board, and I was also an educator. We worked very hard with the resources we had to deliver public education on anti-smoking issues. We worked hard to educate youth as young as 10 years old on the hazards of tobacco smoke. The goal of these campaigns was to ensure that these youth never started smoking, period. In one case, we had more money to do this than the Liberals are spending across the country in five years. The $9 million spread out so meagrely over five years is tragic. It is simply not enough.

There is an opportunity here to mandate that federal taxes go to municipalities for health promotion and prevention. A specific percentage should be mandated by the federal government to ensure that prevention is being adequately funded, because $9 million is just blatantly wrong.

In tobacco prevention, one of the biggest at-risk groups, where prevention was least successful, was with pregnant teenagers. We already have a situation where these young pregnant girls, the mother and unborn child, are at risk. With Bill C-45, the Liberals are adding a new toxic substance that is going to put these girls and unborn children at even more risk. Here is a disturbing fact. One in seven teenagers will get addicted to smoking marijuana once they begin smoking it. In single, pregnant teens, that number is even going to be higher.

The government is facilitating this more by its outright legalization. It is facilitating it by making it easier for teenagers to get their hands on marijuana. This is the reason we need significant funding for prevention, and it is up to the federal government to take the lead. It is not enough to simply download it.

With all this in mind, I look forward to continuing debate on Bill C-45, with the hope that the government will reconsider the timeline. We really need that reconsidered.

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the member for what was a thoughtful and quite relevant speech. I particularly commend him for his observations and comments on the challenges that a change in the way in which we strictly regulate and manage this problem could present to local municipalities. I am a municipal guy myself and have spent a great deal of time over the past several months travelling across the country meeting with mayors, police chiefs, fire chiefs, people involved in public health, and bylaw enforcement. I recognize and very much value and appreciate the comments made by the member opposite in that respect.

I want to provide a comment, if I may. I promise you, Mr. Speaker, that I will get to my question in a moment.

Our focus has been on reducing harm, but we recognize that there is a revenue implication, that money will be generated from this. We made a commitment that the money, from a federal standpoint, will be reinvested in prevention, research, treatment, and rehabilitation. The conversations we are having with our provincial partners are to recognize that there needs to be an investment in the administration, oversight, accountability, and enforcement of these regulations, and that means a partnership with our municipalities. I want to assure the member opposite that we recognize the importance of municipalities.

If we all unite in this together, does he believe that will do a better job of ensuring that our municipal partners have the resources they need to fulfill their role in keeping their communities safe?

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I want to remind members that it is question or comments. They are allowed to make a comment or ask a question, but they do not have to do both.

The hon. member for Bow River.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his kind words.

Part of the challenge of going ahead with this is the short timeline we have. I understand how consultation works, and it takes a long time. I understand the relationship between the federal government and the provinces. The disconnect is with ensuring the funding gets to the municipalities. The government really has to get that done. Whether it can get that done and provide a clear commitment that the municipalities can understand in black and white, and it flows to them, is the challenge. If the government can do that, it will make a difference. They need to know it and plan for it.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, a major employer in the riding that I represent in Nanaimo is a company called Tilray. It is one of 27 licensed under the MMPR federal framework that the Conservatives put in place. It hires 120 professionals: horticulturalists, Ph.D.s, and people who left the silviculture industry and now cultivate marijuana. It is among the top five private-sector employers in my region. Its $26-million capital investment, in year one, turned into a $48-million economic output in Nanaimo. It has created 215 direct jobs. This was zoned by the municipality.

I am curious as to whether the member has had any experience with similar municipally zoned operations that seem to work within the legal framework and benefit the local economy.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague bringing up the zoning issue. Companies may have initially been looking to locate in larger municipalities, but we are now hearing that they may want to locate in more rural settings, which affects more of us outside the 22 major cities. That is a challenge that we need to be prepared for, but we need to know and understand what the implications are and how it would work. This is not a simple process of planning and zoning. It will take time. If companies locate outside major urban centres, it is going to take time, and we need more lead time than the timeline we have.

[Marwan Tabbara, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today I have the honour of speaking to Bill C-45, which our government introduced to legalize and strictly regulate cannabis consumption in Canada.

The cannabis bill represents a new approach to cannabis, one that puts public health and 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 in every five young people in this country. Too many of our youth see cannabis as a benign substance. They are often ill-informed on the harm that it can do, and are unaware that early use increases susceptibility to long-term effects on cannabis.

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 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 youth.

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 of Bill C-45, to protect youth by restricting their access to cannabis. I would begin by noting that this legislation is just one piece of the overall approach to addressing cannabis use by youth. Our government's commitment to keep cannabis out of the hands of children is made up of a number of complementary measures aimed at safeguarding their health, safety, and well-being.

Specifically, 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 health harms and risks, and to keep them out of the hands 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 this end, our government has begun a public education campaign with a focus on youth and their parents, to better inform them about cannabis and its health harms and risks. I am confident that our government's overall approach will be effective in better protecting our youth from potential harm of this substance.

I would now 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 potentially harmful substances, such as tobacco, alcohol, and prescription medications. Bill C-45 uses these best practices as its 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 caught engaged in these activities would 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 tobacco, Bill C-45 would prohibit any form of cannabis designed to appeal to youth. This means that things like cannabis-infused gummy bears or lollipops would be illegal.

To further protect youth from the encouragement to use cannabis, cannabis producers and retailers would be prohibited from using any kind of packaging or labelling that might be appealing to youth, or using any kind of endorsement, lifestyle promotion, or cartoon animals to promote their products. The promotion or advertising of cannabis products would not be permitted in any place or 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 would 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 the 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. Opportunities for employment, housing, volunteerism, and travel can all be impacted by the existence of a record. Do we want to continue to saddle Canadians with these burdens for the possession of small amounts of cannabis? Our government's answer is no.

The proposed legislation sets out a 30-gram possession limit for dried cannabis in public for adults aged 18 and older, and as I stated earlier, it also establishes offences and strict penalties for adults who give or try to sell cannabis to youth or who use a young person to commit a cannabis-related offence.

Bill C-45 takes a different approach to cannabis possession by youth, one that recognizes that in some circumstances, entering the criminal justice system can do more harm than good. 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 a small amount of cannabis, defined as over 5 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 only on the criminal justice system will 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, led by the Honourable Anne Mclellan. 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 that this strikes the right balance between avoiding criminalizing 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 confident that through this balanced approach, we will see less high-risk cannabis use by youth, and we will begin to bring down the rate at which our youth use cannabis.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of things I would like my colleague and neighbour to clarify. First, the Liberals continue to claim that all of their recommendations are based on solid science and scientific evidence. The CMA clearly has recommended 21 as the minimum age, and the government is going ahead with 18.

They also talk about a highly regulated and controlled system, yet they are allowing four plants to be grown per household. How we highly regulate and control something where there are four plants available to teenagers and children is beyond me.

Finally, the Liberals are pretty convinced that this will drive all the traffic out of criminal hands. I am just wondering if my colleague really believes that illegal drug dealers will line up for the privilege of buying licences and paying HST. Does he really think it will drive these illegal drug dealers out of business?