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

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the goal of a strictly regulated system is to ensure that we are not allowing people off the street to sell marijuana, whether it is kids to kids or whether it is others to kids. The notion of the five-gram limit is to ensure that we avoid giving criminal records for possession to kids who are in possession of five grams and under. I am not sure if the member opposite is aware of how small five grams is in terms of selling. I also would not want to see major criminal records punishing young Canadians for the sale of such a small amount.

Principally, the focus here is on possession. There obviously should be penalties, whether it is a ticketing penalty or whether it is not a harsh criminal penalty but some form of diversion in our criminal justice system, for people who are caught trafficking, regardless of amount and regardless of age. I do not think a harsh criminal penalty is the answer, but obviously no penalty at all is not the appropriate answer for selling outside of a strictly regulated framework.

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

Mr. Speaker, the comments offered by my colleague from Beaches—East York were very thoughtful and reasoned. He clearly is speaking to members of his community and has given this issue a great deal of thought.

I am glad that he recognized the distinction between this and the approach that was taken in Colorado and Washington, which was overwhelmingly a commercial model for the regulation of cannabis. They passed referendum and ballot initiatives that really focused on legalization and revenue collection. The Canadian approach has been fundamentally different, in that our approach has been a public health approach directed entirely at reducing both the social and health harms.

I have travelled across the country and talked to parents who are concerned about their kids and they are worried about three things basically. They are worried about the health of their kids. They are worried about the effects that cannabis can have on their health and on their developing minds, and they want to restrict their access to it. They are worried about the social harms to their kids: whether they are going to finish high school; who they are going to be associated with; and, if they do get involved with cannabis, what type of people they will have to do business with. Finally, what I have also heard overwhelmingly from Canadians is that they are worried that their kids are going to end up with a criminal record.

Our government has approached all of those harms in a very comprehensive way to look at how we can do a better job of reducing those social and health harms. Could the member perhaps expand on his experience and his reflections after conversations with families and parents in his community?

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is no perfect solution to a consensual crime like this. If they want to stamp it out, good luck; it is impossible. Whether it is gambling, whether it is alcohol addiction, whether it is cannabis, frankly whatever it is, there is no way to stamp out drug use completely, including cannabis. In tackling supply and consumption, these methods simply do not work through aggressive law enforcement. We have the status quo. We know it does not work. What are the alternatives? There is an overwhelming consensus from every drug policy expert who has studied the subject that the status quo of prohibition is a failed model and that we ought to look to regulation and education.

In taking that public health approach and particularly looking at restricting commercial advertising and balancing that with treating Canadians like the responsible adults we are and recognizing that Canadians should be free to make decisions for themselves as responsible adults, it is important to strike that balance, and I think we have.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I just want to point out that we have 10 minutes. If the next hon. member is splitting his time, he can give his speech and then the questions will begin when we resume debate.

The hon. member for Kootenay—Columbia.

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time, but since it will be another day, I will provide the name at that time.

I can say with some confidence that the bill has tremendous interest among my constituents in Kootenay—Columbia. I held a telephone town hall on this issue on March 14, and more than 3,300 constituents stayed on the call for the entire hour. That is how much interest there is. Much of what members will hear in this speech reflects their views, and I thank them for that.

It is estimated that growing cannabis and selling it makes up a significant portion of the economy in parts of my riding, and certainly the product is well used, legal or not, by many people, young and old. Those who grow marijuana in the Kootenays are not part of organized crime. They do not see themselves as criminals. Rather, they believe that they are just small-scale farmers producing a herb that has received a bad rap. While I do not think that is completely accurate either, I believe that it is important for post-prohibition licensing to include small producers and co-ops, and not just the large corporations that are currently offering medical marijuana.

That leads me to one of the biggest problems with the bill, the lack of detail. Canadians were promised a piece of historic legislation that would break new ground. What we got was a frame with much of the picture missing. Manufacturing licences will be provided to producers who meet undetermined standards. They will be set by regulations we have not seen yet. It will be legal to sell marijuana, but it is entirely up to the provinces to determine how. Again, no details are provided in the bill.

The age is set at 18, but provinces can change that too. In other words, we might be able to grow cannabis, but we do not know how we would get a licence. We might be able to buy it, but we do not know where, and we might be able to smoke it, but we do not know when. That is a lot of unanswered questions.

Let us look at the issue of minimum age for a moment. Health officials and researchers have been very clear that using marijuana before the age of 25 can be dangerous to brain development. I would like to read briefly from an article by the American Psychological Association. Jodi Gilman, Ph.D., at Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Centre for Addiction Medicine, used an MRI to look for brain changes in 18- to 25-year-olds who smoked marijuana at least once per week but were not dependent on the drug. Compared with non-users, the smokers had changes in the shape, volume, and grey matter density of two brain regions associated with addiction. Participants who smoked more often had even more significant differences.

The Canadian Psychological Association recommended to the government panel that the minimum age be 21. The government has chosen to ignore this scientific and medical advice and has lowered the age even further to 18.

Of course, the impact of marijuana used by a pregnant woman could be even more severe. According to information provided to me by the senior policy adviser to the Minister of Justice, heavy cannabis use during pregnancy can lead to lower birth weights. It has also been associated with longer-term development effects in children and adolescents, such as a decrease in memory function, the ability to pay attention, reasoning, and problem-solving skills, and an increase in hyperactive behaviour.

Will marijuana carry labels warning expectant mothers to avoid use of the product, such as we see on tobacco and alcohol? Bill C-45 is silent on this issue.

Yesterday the Canadian Medical Association Journal published a powerful editorial about Bill C-45. The editorial, written by editor-in-chief Dr. Diane Kelsall, calls the minimum age of 18 too young, given the scientific evidence. Dr. Kelsall warns that growing marijuana at home will give young people too easy access. She is also concerned about the lack of national standards for retail sales as well as the limits on the potency of various strains. Dr. Kelso wrote:

The government appears to be hastening to deliver on a campaign promise without being careful enough about the health impacts of policy. It is not good enough to say that provinces and territories can set more stringent rules if they wish. If Parliament truly cares about the public health and safety of Canadians, especially our youth, this bill will not pass.

As I said earlier, last March I held a town hall in my riding to hear from constituents about their thoughts on marijuana legalization. Their opinions were widespread, naturally, and many came with questions. I heard from many people who thought legalization was a good idea. I heard from others who oppose it. I heard from producers who said they did not want to be shut out of the action, and retailers said the same.

Deb Kozak, mayor of Nelson, B.C., was one of my guest panellists. She said she wanted to see a framework that would help her municipality develop appropriate zoning and bylaws for marijuana retailers. Sadly, so far the bill is lacking on that front too, downloading that responsibility to the provinces.

The money that comes from the legal sale of marijuana is another area not covered in the proposed legislation. Many constituents want that taxation aspect to be dedicated specifically to deterring the use of marijuana and other drugs and to reducing and treating the health impacts of using marijuana. They do not want the revenue from legalizing it going to general revenue.

One question I was asked was about crossing into the United States. Will legalizing marijuana in Canada make border crossings more difficult? I did not know, so I wrote the Minister of Justice and asked. Here is what the minister's office responded:

Travellers should remain aware that while some states have legalized recreational cannabis, cannabis remains a controlled substance at the federal level in the United States. Travellers seeking entry into the U.S. may be inadmissible if they admit to having consumed cannabis in Canada or disclose to U.S. authorities plans to purchase or consume cannabis while in the U.S.

Let us say that again: travellers seeking to enter the U.S. may be inadmissible if they admit to having consumed cannabis in Canada.

Canadians doing something that will be legal in Canada may be barred, as a result, from entering into the United States. That is an issue that the government needs to deal with.

Perhaps we should retaliate. It is illegal to consume alcohol under the age of 21 in the United States, so perhaps we should ban anyone from entering Canada if they admit to having had a beer at age 20.

It is imperative that the government work with U.S. authorities to acknowledge our sovereignty and the ability to make laws that are different from theirs and to work out what is going to happen along the border.

Finally, I would like to repeat what many of my NDP colleagues have said. The biggest missing piece of Bill C-45 is the need to provide full pardons to any Canadians convicted of possession of small amounts of marijuana in the past.

Last December, the Governor of Vermont, Peter Shumlin, pardoned 192 individuals who were convicted of possession. He said, “My hope was to help as many individuals as I could overcome that stigma and the very real struggles that too often go along with [being convicted of marijuana].”

I appreciate the government's interest in ending the failed war on drugs and that the prohibition on cannabis, which has harmed more people than it has helped, is finally coming to an end. I hope that the government will get it right.

There is work to be done. This law is not finished yet. There are a lot of holes in it, so while the NDP will support Bill C-45 on second reading, I encourage the government to listen to members of this House and take the opportunity to correct the many deficiencies of the bill when it goes to committee.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The hon. member will have five minutes for questions when the debate resumes.

It being 12 a.m., this House stands adjourned until later today at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 12 a.m.)

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-45, on the legalization of marijuana, addresses findings by various stakeholders over many years. For example, these include the 2002 Nolin report, which calls for the end of criminalization for simple possession, as well as dozens of reports by community groups and provincial and national organizations explaining that the war on cannabis is not working.

I personally support the principles of the bill, such as limiting cannabis possession for an adult or to combat illegal trade. While we may agree with the public safety and security aspects of the bill, I wonder about the public health aspects. This is just one of the major holes in the bill.

In my speech, I will focus on three of them, namely, the government’s decision to leave young people with criminal records; the burden placed on the provinces with respect to managing distribution and the handling of impaired driving charges by the courts, and on youth organizations that currently bear the prevention burden; and the lack of a vision with respect to youth prevention and education.

The Liberals have been making the legalization of cannabis a central theme since March 15, 2015. The leader of the Liberal Party announced at a Vancouver radio station that he wanted to legalize marijuana as soon as possible. He said that we needed to look at the situation south of the border and that having a criminal record has serious consequences for young people. He was right. Indeed, the current legislation has many negative impacts. Over 54,000 people were arrested for simple possession. A great many of them have criminal records. The people most affected by this are of course young people, especially young people from different cultural backgrounds and first nations. This kind of discrimination was no more tolerable in 2015 than it is today.

Now, the leader of the Liberal Party, who has since become the Prime Minister, has changed his tune and is pursuing his policy of leaving thousands of young Canadians with criminal records. I remind the House that once someone is stuck with a criminal record, it is very hard, if not impossible, to get a passport and travel abroad, or even to the U.S., to find a job, to find decent housing, or to volunteer anywhere. When someone has a criminal record, they are stuck with that black mark for the rest of their lives.

The NDP is not proposing to put the brakes on legalization, but rather to learn from the mistakes of the United States, for example, and to adopt what has worked elsewhere, unless the member for Eglinton—Lawrence believes that 17 U.S. states, Australia, Belgium, and Portugal are wrong about decriminalization.

Some organizations, such as Canadian Students for Sensible Drug Policy, are asking for the immediate decriminalization of cannabis. This would free up our courts and allow us to better address the consequences of the Jordan decision. Above all, it would give certainty to police officers who must enforce the law.

To prevent discrimination and life-long consequences for youth and to help our judicial system, I am asking the government to decriminalize marijuana immediately and to give an amnesty to those with a criminal record for simple possession of cannabis. That is also one of the recommendations of the minister's task force on cannabis legalization.

There is a serious lack of information about public health in the bill and in the document provided by the Department of Justice. According to the Institut national de santé publique du Québec, or INSPQ, the legalization of cannabis and its sale cannot be done for purely commercial purposes. I completely agree. Even if we approve the provisions of Bill C-45 that prohibit false advertising, sponsorship promotion, and the like, there are still too many details missing on other issues. Under clause 139, the matter of plain packaging and displaying information such as the level of THC, the active ingredient in cannabis, will be covered by the regulations, which will be developed after the bill is passed.

However, the government has not given any indication as to what it intends to do. Take, for example, dried products. The Netherlands have imposed a 15% limit on the concentration of THC. Why are the Liberals not setting any limits on the concentration of THC for every product covered by the bill? No limits have been set at all.

Public health organizations such as the INSPQ tell us that concentration levels in several cannabis-related products have increased dramatically in recent years. Why, then, did the government not improve the bill? The task force also told it that the bill lacked teeth in this respect.

A major part of public health is prevention. However, this aspect is missing from the bill. The word prevention literally appears nowhere in Bill C-45, and yet, prevention is mentioned in all the papers I have read and all the conversations with organizations I have consulted. My staff and I spoke with many organizations in Salaberry—Suroît as well as provincial and national organizations. They all talked about the need to know more about the bill, since the information is not getting out, as well as the need for prevention and education funding.

PACT de Rue, an organization involved in street work, is asking for funding to be made available to community groups as well as schools to educate young people who may be between 11 and 17 when they start smoking cannabis for the first time.

The Association québécoise des centres d'intervention en dépendance, which includes Liberté de choisir, an organization in my riding, is calling on the government to reinvest that revenue in prevention and education.

National organizations, such as the Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction, are sending the same message. Even the working group that the government created made the following recommendation:

Implement as soon as possible a...public education campaign...with an emphasis on youth, parents and vulnerable populations.

It also made this recommendation:

In the period leading up to legalization, and thereafter on an ongoing basis, governments invest effort and resources in developing, implementing and evaluating broad, holistic prevention strategies....

Quebec's minister, Lucie Charlebois, was disappointed in the federal government's announcement:

We need more money to do prevention, to make sure parents have the information they need. How are we supposed to educate people? How are we supposed to prepare parents for this and do awareness programs in schools?

I just want to point out that the government goes on and on about how it wants to set up prevention programs for young people, about how it wants to protect them and stop organized crime in its tracks. That is all well and good, but it is not actually ponying anything up for effective, long-term measures to protect young people.

The Minister of Health announced a whopping $9.6 million over five years, less than $2 million per year, or less than 6¢ per Canadian per year for prevention. How is prevention work possible with so little funding? Do we need to dip into federal transfers, even though they do not even meet needs now? That is not a good idea.

Let us look south of the border, as the Liberal Party leader invited us to do in 2015. Colorado is spending over $45 million per year on prevention and education. That is 30 times more than what is being proposed.

Officials interviewed by the task force advised it to launch prevention campaigns before the official legalization date, supposedly one year from now, if the Liberals are to be believed.

For now, the federal government’s message to the provinces is “I am legalizing it, but you figure out how to deal with the public health issues”.

I find it is irresponsible of the federal government to recklessly say it is making decisions based on science. Everyone we consulted and the experts in the field are saying that investments in prevention are sorely needed to educate young people about the risks of cannabis use.

However, there is no political will, no vision, or no leadership to carry out a proper prevention campaign.

Even worse, there is not one word about research either. Several reports find that there needs to be more scientific research into the effects of cannabis. The government itself wants to change the regulations but is not contributing the resources to come up with scientific data. However, Canadian society has already accepted the bill and the social change that legalizing cannabis represents.

The University of New Brunswick created a research chair. Will the federal government help them? We do not know.

Deciding to legalize without a prevention, education, or research plan is a major flaw as well as the height of arrogance.

The government says, “It is not a problem, we will keep our promise, and the provinces will foot the bill, tough luck”.

In closing, Bill C-45 introduced by the government deals with the public safety aspect, but not the public health aspect. It legalizes cannabis, the most common drug used by young Quebeckers and young Canadians, but it ignores those who will be arrested over the next year for having a single joint.

We need prevention, not a government that plays sorcerer's apprentice with marijuana legislation. We need research on THC concentrations. We also need revenues to be invested in prevention in the provinces to ensure the future of these programs.

Since I am a former teacher, on a report card, I would give the government a mark of “C minus 45” and I would write “could do better, not reaching its potential”.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her speech.

I was also a teacher, in professional and technical training for adults. For about 20 years, I worked with this demographic, that is, young people who used cannabis. I gained a certain amount of experience working with these youth, and I can say that this bill does have the goal of preventing young people from accessing cannabis.

When we talk about youth, we have to remember the importance of distinguishing between a minor and a young person who would legally consume marijuana under the new legislation.

How can the member opposite say on the one hand that the bill is well structured, promotes public health, and stands up for kids who have committed a crime, and on the other hand, want to go ahead with decriminalization before the bill even passes?

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will ask my colleague the same question: how can the Liberals say they want to protect the health of young people when they cannot invest in prevention?

According to youth centres, organizations working in the area of addiction and, this week, teachers, it just makes no sense. At present, young people believe that cannabis may even be not such a bad thing to consume because the government is going to legalize it. There is no information. There is no money for teachers and people on the front lines and on the ground to conduct public awareness campaigns about the effects of cannabis on health and behaviour, and all the legal aspects. At present, youth who are arrested may wind up with a criminal record, but they might not realize that. The information is unclear.

There have been several studies on the decriminalization of marijuana. Even the minister's task force recommended immediate decriminalization. I am not the only one calling for it. For years, many reports have said that it is important that these youth not have a criminal record because it will follow them for the rest of their lives, affect their work and ability to find housing, to travel, and even to do volunteer work. They cannot do volunteer work if they have a criminal record.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

I would like to remind her that, during the last campaign, the NDP promised to balance the budget. If the NDP were in office, it could not make any of the investments that my colleague is talking about. It is easy to tell the government to make investments. However, since the NDP said that it was going to balance the budget, it would not have been able to make those investments.

Since I know that my colleague is from Quebec, I would like to remind her of what the Institut national de santé publique du Québec said:

By giving the provinces a leading role in the distribution of the substance, the bill on the legalization of non-medical cannabis introduced today gives Quebec all the latitude it needs to implement a system that would allow people to access safe, high quality cannabis without boosting demand...

Does my colleague think that the Institut national de santé publique du Québec is wrong?

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think that the members opposite are in complete denial about what I said in my speech.

What I said was that we agreed with the principles of the bill but that there was a lack of measures to protect young people and to make them aware of the consequences of cannabis use.

I will once again quote Lucie Charlebois, the Quebec minister for rehabilitation, youth protection, public health, and healthy living. She said:

We need more money to do prevention, to make sure parents have the information they need. How are we supposed to educate people? How are we supposed to prepare parents for this and do awareness programs in schools?

I am not the one saying this; it is the Quebec minister. There is a huge lack of vision and not nearly enough investment here. Many organizations have said that we need to invest in prevention, treatment, and major awareness campaigns. Colorado alone invested $45 million in prevention, while Canada is investing a measly $2 million a year. This will not work.

In fact, that $2 million will not be dedicated just to marijuana legalization, but to all issues related to all drugs, including the opioid crisis. That is whole other matter. The Liberals are way off the mark. They need to make massive investments now. They cannot wait until next year, because it will be too late. There will be many problems and young people struggling with addiction, when young people are the ones this bill was supposed to protect.

[Jane Philpott, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured today to contribute to this debate on Bill C-45, legislation that proposes to legalize, strictly regulate, and restrict access to cannabis. Protecting the health and safety of Canadians is a priority for our government, and the focus of the bill.

Despite decades of criminal prohibition, Canadians, including 21% of our youth, and 30% of young adults, continue to use cannabis. In fact, Canadians use cannabis at some of the highest rates in the world.

As is well known, large quantities of cannabis are grown and sold illegally, profiting criminals and organized crime. This is done with no regard for public health or safety.

Too many young Canadians can access cannabis too easily. Young people often find it easier to buy cannabis than cigarettes. This situation cannot go on. Young people run the risk of being exposed to criminals whose only motivation is to maximize their profits.

Simply put, the current approach to cannabis is not working. That is why our government is proposing a public health approach for cannabis legalization and regulation. Our aim is to minimize the harms associated with cannabis use.

Scientific evidence shows that the risks of cannabis are higher for youth than adults, and these risks increase the younger people are when they start using it and the more often they use it. Our objective is to keep cannabis out of the hands of kids, both through the legislation and through early and sustained public education and awareness.

Bill C-45 currently before the House is the cornerstone of the government's approach.

The bill is about protecting our youth and reducing their access to cannabis. It would impose serious criminal penalties for those who provide cannabis to young people or enlist them in committing a cannabis-related offence.

Beyond that, the bill is about creating a legal and regulated market for cannabis, taking profits out of the hands of criminals, and protecting public health through strict product requirements for safety and quality.

Bill C-45 is informed by the recommendations of the task force on cannabis legalization and regulation, which was led last year by the Honourable Anne McLellan. The task force heard from experts in many fields, including health, public safety, justice, and law enforcement, and received more than 30,000 responses from Canadians.

Today, I would like to focus on four key components of our government's approach: protecting youth; education and awareness; product safety and quality controls; and the roles and responsibilities, and implementation.

Let us begin with protecting youth. To reiterate what is already well known, too many young Canadians have easy access to cannabis. During its extensive consultations across the country, the task force on cannabis legalization and regulation heard the same thing: how easy it is for young people to obtain cannabis. Therefore, Bill C-45 is not just about taking action on illegal cannabis markets, which my colleagues will expand on in further detail. It is also about protecting the health of Canadians, and most importantly, the health of young people and children.

Young people are at the heart of the government's strategy to regulate cannabis and restrict access to it for three reasons.

First, there are risks associated with the use of cannabis. Even though some people use it for medical purposes, it can still be harmful to a person's health. Second, young people are particularly vulnerable to the effects of cannabis on the development of the brain and brain function because their brains are still developing. Third, the younger one is at onset of use, and the more one uses, the greater the health threat.

The combination of these factors is why we seek to restrict youth access to cannabis, to penalize those who sell or give to youth, and to restrict its advertising and promotion.

Specifically, as drafted, the cannabis act would prohibit anyone from selling or providing cannabis to any person under the age of 18, but provinces and territories would have the flexibility to set a higher minimum age should they wish to do so. In addition, the act would create two new criminal offences, with maximum penalties of 14 years in jail for giving or selling cannabis to youth or for using a youth to commit a cannabis-related offence.

The act would also prohibit certain marketing practices. Cannabis businesses would not be allowed to produce or sell products that appeal to youth, such as gummy bears. In addition, they would not be allowed to use any packaging or labelling that is attractive to youth, including depictions of persons, celebrities, characters, or animals. Also, cannabis could not be sold through self-service displays or vending machines.

The bill proposes a number of restrictions on promotion to protect youth from being persuaded to consume cannabis through marketing or advertising. Promotion would be permitted only when it provides factual information and is communicated in a way that cannot be seen by youth. In addition, false, misleading, or deceptive advertising would be prohibited, as would sponsorship, testimonials, or endorsements, or other forms of promotion or branding that could entice young people to use cannabis.

We are confident that these measures will prevent children and youth from obtaining cannabis. At the same time, adults must have access to clear and objective information in order to make informed decisions about their consumption.

Therefore, the legislation would permit information-type promotion. This means it would allow factual, accurate information about cannabis products, such as the ingredients and the THC levels. Information that allows consumers to tell the difference between brands would also be permitted. Again, in all cases, these types of promotions would be allowed only where they could not be seen by youth. Penalties for violating these prohibitions would include a fine of up to $5 million, three years in jail, or both.

When it comes to enforcement, the bill seeks to avoid criminalizing youth and subjecting them to the lifelong consequences of a criminal record. To this end, I should note three points. First, individuals under the age of 18 would not face criminal prosecution for possessing or sharing very small amounts of cannabis, up to five grams. Second, violations of the proposed legislation by youth would be subject to the Youth Criminal Justice Act and addressed in the youth justice system, and third, provinces and territories would have the flexibility to prohibit the possession of any amount of cannabis by youth, thereby permitting police to seize any cannabis a youth has in their possession.

I will move on to education and public awareness. We know that Canadians need information about cannabis. We have to talk about it with our children, make informed and responsible decisions, and ensure that our roads are safe. That was the very clear message that our government heard thanks to the working group's consultations. We have a plan to address the situation.

We are also hearing from the experience of jurisdictions in the United States, whose officials told us that it is important to communicate early and to communicate often about the risks of cannabis consumption. One of the challenges we face when it comes to protecting youth is that they are less likely than adults to see cannabis use as a significant risk to health.

To that end, our government is investing in robust measures to make sure all Canadians, especially young people, are aware of the risks associated with cannabis use.

In budget 2017, our government committed $9.6 million to a public education and awareness campaign to inform Canadians, particularly young people, of the risks of cannabis use, as well as to fund surveillance activities. This campaign has begun and will continue over the next years. In collaboration with the provinces and territories, the campaign will raise public awareness about the risks associated with cannabis use and monitor the impacts of providing strictly controlled access.

It will also monitor patterns and perceptions of cannabis use among Canadians, especially, youth. To do this, we have launched the Canadian cannabis survey to gather information on the rates and patterns of cannabis use, as well as perceptions about cannabis. This annual survey includes detailed questions on how often and how much Canadians use cannabis, how they acquire it, and whether they consume it with other substances or before driving.

In addition to monitoring and measuring the impact of legislative measures, the survey will enable us to orient and better target our public education activities and to reduce the risks associated with cannabis use.

I will now talk about product safety and quality requirements.

Bill C-45 would permit adults 18 years or older to legally possess up to 30 grams of legal dried cannabis in public, or its equivalent in other forms.

Adults would also be able to legally access cannabis through various mechanisms. Primarily, they could purchase it from a provincially licensed retailer or could grow it themselves at home. Sharing of cannabis would be limited to no more than 30 grams of dried cannabis or its equivalent, and personal cultivation would be limited to no more than four plants per residence, each with a maximum height of 100 cm.

To deter criminal activity and protect the health and safety of Canadians, our government is committed to ensuring that there is a safe and legal controlled supply of cannabis available for sale when the act comes into force. Under the proposed legislation and regulations, our government would establish industry-wide rules on the types of products that would be allowed for sale, standardized serving sizes, and potency. We would also have rules on the use of certain ingredients and good production practices, as well as the tracking of cannabis from seed to sale to prevent diversion to the illicit market.

Canada already has experience with product safety and quality requirements for cannabis. Our current system, which provides access to cannabis for medical purposes, is recognized as one of the best in the world. It includes a number of safety and security features, such as frequent inspections of production facilities and clear regulations around pesticide use.

We will be using the authorized production system in place as the plan of action to control cannabis production under the proposed cannabis legislation.

While on this topic, I would like to say a few words about the Canadian medical marijuana system. This system will continue to exist when bill C-45 goes into effect, subject to parliamentary approval.

This was recommended by the task force to ensure access to cannabis for individuals who have the authorization of their health care practitioners. The task force also recommended that the government monitor and evaluate patients' reasonable access to cannabis for medical purposes during the implementation of the new law and that it evaluate that framework within five years. We intend to do that.

Health Canada has introduced changes to its program overseeing the medical cannabis industry to accelerate the licensing of producers to enable the industry to meet the increased demand for cannabis.

The existing rules surrounding product safety, good product practices, and restrictions on which pesticides can be used will remain in place. Health Canada will continue to inspect producers and enforce the regime. This will ensure that production is safe and quality controlled.

Finally, I would like to talk a little about the roles and responsibilities with respect to Bill C-45 and its implementation.

As I already mentioned, the proposed cannabis law would establish a rigorous national framework to limit the production, distribution, sale, and possession of cannabis in Canada.

All levels of government in Canada would be able to establish requirements with respect to cannabis, consistent with their jurisdictional authorities and experience. Again, this follows the advice of the task force.

Under the proposed cannabis act, the federal government would be responsible for establishing and maintaining a comprehensive and consistent national framework to regulate production, set standards for heath and safety, and establish criminal prohibitions.

The provinces and territories would license and oversee the distribution and sale of cannabis. Together with municipalities, they could tailor certain rules in their own jurisdictions and enforce them through a range of tools. These rules could include setting additional regulatory requirements to address issues of local concern, such as prohibiting the consumption of cannabis in public or setting zoning requirements for where cannabis businesses could be located.

Active involvement of provincial and territorial governments by, for example, setting strong retail rules to prevent cannabis from being sold to young people, will be critical to ensure that young people do not have access to cannabis.

Earlier, I mentioned that our government's budget 2017 included a $9.6 million investment over five years for a comprehensive public awareness and information campaign as well as monitoring activities.

As health is a responsibility shared by the federal, provincial, and territorial governments, the provinces and territories can complement federal public health programs.

This could include managing health and public safety issues, as well as providing public awareness activities and counselling in schools.

Our government is committed to continuing to work with the provinces and territories to address this complex issue.

When it comes to the implementation of Bill C-45, I should note that cannabis for non-medical purposes will remain illegal as the bill moves through the legislative process. Currently, it is illegal to buy, sell, produce, import, or export cannabis unless it is authorized under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and its regulations, such as the Access to Cannabis for Medical Purposes Regulations.

Subject to approval by Parliament, the government intends to bring the proposed cannabis act into force no later than July 2018. Under the proposed act, possession, production, distribution, and sale outside the legal system would remain illegal and be subject to criminal penalties proportionate to the seriousness of the offence. These could range from ticketing up to a maximum penalty of 14 years' imprisonment.

In the weeks and months to come, our government will be working with those who share with us the responsibility for the legalization and regulation of cannabis. In particular, we will be working with provincial and territorial governments, municipalities, and our partners in indigenous communities.

To conclude, I would like to reiterate that Bill C-45 uses a public health approach to strictly regulate and restrict access to cannabis. Our focus will remain on protecting youth, on educating the public and raising awareness, on ensuring product safety and quality requirements, and on establishing clear roles and responsibilities.

Our government is confident that the proposed cannabis act will protect the health and safety of all Canadians.

Based on these points, I call on my colleagues to support Bill C-45 at second reading so that it can be considered by the Standing Committee on Health.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, since this legislation was first introduced, I have had some unease about a number of areas.

About three days ago, the Canadian Medical Association Journal published an article entitled “Cannabis legislation fails to protect Canada's youth”. This is a professional organization to which the minister would probably belong. I am sure she must be aware of what it is saying.

The article states, “The purported purpose of the act is to protect health and safety, yet some of the act's provisions appear starkly at odds with this objective, particularly for Canada's youth.” That is a pretty strong statement from the experts.

They go on to talk about the areas of concern, first and foremost being age. The brain is still developing at the age of 18, so age is a significant concern. Being able to grow it in one's home, with the issue of quantity and quality and toxicity, is a concern. The organization has a number of areas of concern.

I would like the minister to perhaps respond to her association and tell it why it is wrong in terms of its concerns about her proposed legislation.

[Jane Philpott, Liberal, Markham—Stouffville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the report that came out from the Canadian Medical Association, and I have had the opportunity to discuss that with the leadership of the organization.

As the member said, there are concerns about the potential harms associated with cannabis, particularly for young people, and I alluded to those issues in my speech.

I know that the member is aware, and also the Canadian Medical Association is aware, that Canadian young people have among the highest rates of cannabis use in the world, particularly the age group between age 20 and 24. Thirty per cent of young people in that age group use cannabis. This is a rather high rate.

The reality is that when a product becomes legal, that is not to say that it is without risks. We recognize that there are risks associated with cannabis use. There are many products that are legal that are not without risks, and the best examples are, of course, tobacco and alcohol. I wonder if the member is proposing that perhaps we should make tobacco consumption illegal. Of course, I would think that is not her perspective, because we know that criminal prohibitions are not the way to address public health issues.

We know that criminalization of a product is not how to do it. It needs to be done with a public health approach to minimize the harms associated with it.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on one hand, the Liberals have acknowledged many times the harms that come from the continued criminalization of cannabis, particularly as it affects small possession charges. These affect our youth and racialized Canadians, and the Liberals have admitted that it clogs up our justice system. On the other hand, the Liberals say that we just need to wait another year, because it is still illegal and that will continue to happen. However, I want to leave that aside for a moment.

What I want to ask the Minister of Health is specifically on the issue of pardons. Pardons cost $631. That is a lot of money for people on the margins of society to clear their names and move their lives forward, which is something I think everyone in the House wants to encourage. I want to know from the Minister of Health if her government is going to consider amnesty for people who were previously convicted for possession of small amounts of marijuana, yes or no. I think the House, and Canadians, deserve an answer on that.