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

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to provide some reassurance to my friend, and ask him a question.

First, let me be very clear. Cannabis is a dangerous drug for kids. That is exactly why we want to strictly regulate it, to reduce their access to the drug, and to protect their health. Right now, we are leaving our kids in the hands of organized crime, which is selling them a dangerous product.

I want to advise the member that one of the risks to our kids is this. We talk about the great risk to their health, but there is also a social risk, because we are putting them in the hands of criminals. We are leaving the social future of our kids up to those who do not care about them, such as whether they can complete school, who they are hanging around with, and the dangerous criminal environment with which they are engaging.

One of the other risks that I would ask the member to consider is that young people also face criminal prosecution. In this legislation, we allow the provinces to quite appropriately use their provincial governance and jurisdiction, and you will want to listen to this because it answers your question, in every—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I remind the parliamentary secretary that he has to address the questions to the chair, and he would need to wrap up, because other people want to ask questions as well.

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member would benefit from the fact there is an understanding that in every province and territory in this country there are provincial regulations that prohibit the purchase, consumption, and possession of alcohol. We have worked with the provinces and territories to ensure the provinces and territories enact similar legislation to maintain a complete prohibition without resulting in a criminal record for our kids.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a kind of strange exchange here, because I want to ask another question. I asked the question about whether the government side actually thinks the use of marijuana for kids is healthy, and the member said he does not think it is.

I would ask the government again, even though I am supposed to be answering his question. Let me say it this way. I would challenge the government side. Government members care about kids, I understand that. I would challenge you to change the legislation to deal with section 9 in the act when it talks about distribution. There is nothing in your bill--

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I remind the member that every question has to be addressed to the chair.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would challenge the government side to change the legislation, so there is a recourse, so kids cannot sell to other kids up to 15 joints, that kids cannot sell to kids without recourse, or without a change of behaviour, because this will just open the floodgates to make this okay. Under no threat of prosecution, no ticketable offence or anything, kids being allowed to sell marijuana to each other is ridiculous.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

We have different opinions on this issue. Legalizing marijuana is something that we think is feasible. Some countries in Europe and some American states have already done it. Unfortunately, the Liberal government is doing a lot of improvising.

The current government seems to believe that, once this soft drug is legalized, the black market and organized crime will magically disappear. The Liberals often hold alcohol up as an example of this, but that situation took decades to resolve. A counter example is cigarettes, since there is still a black market for them.

I would like my colleague to talk about the strength of the drugs that would be legally sold to the public compared to that of the drugs sold on the black market. Price will also play a huge role in what will be accessible to our young people.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will try my best to answer the question.

What is of concern to all of us is the government's assumption that as soon as this is legalized, the crime will go away, and the problems with marijuana will just float away. The mental health issues, the lung issues, the issues of dealing with organized crime, all those issues will just magically float away, and that is just simply not the case. It is wishful thinking to presume that.

I would like to get back to the original reason why cannabis is illegal in Canada in the first place, and that is because it is not good for us. As a government we have responsibilities in this place to take care of our citizens, and this is one of those things, especially where there are kids. We should make it as difficult as we possibly can for them to get marijuana, and also to deal marijuana to each other, and to sell it to each other. The bill falls far short of that, and we need some significant changes for it to help our youth.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here at this time of day to discuss a topic that is really important. This has probably been one of the most half-hearted debates I have heard in a long time.

I have been in the House since 2011 and have seen members on the other side of the House bang their desktops, yell, and be warned. I have seen members on this side of the House pulling their hair out and lighting themselves on fire. However, I have not really seen that in this debate. The objections from this side of the House seem a bit diluted. Members are not as excitable. In fact, members seem more upset about the time allocation motion than they do about the bill.

On the other side of the House, there is a lot of caution. The government is talking about how this legislation will protect kids and is building armour around itself. This might mean that maybe we have it right. The government knows it has to proceed, but it has to sell it in a particular way that will not alienate important constituencies. On this side of the House, there have to be enough objections to cover the bases, to be polite, and then the bill will proceed to the other place and we will see what happens. Perhaps the government will hit the right tone. I commend it on that and I will support the bill.

I support the bill because I have been campaigning on this issue since 2004. That is when I first ran for office. I did not win, but during the campaign, I had the privilege of running with the great Jack Layton. I was fairly new to politics. Jack came to Vancouver, where I got to hear him speak and campaign with him. He was very big on the decriminalization of marijuana, and in 2004 that was a huge risk. We were branded as extremists by both the Liberals and Conservatives, who said only 5% of the public would support decriminalizing marijuana and we were hippie radicals.

In fact, during that election, Marc Emery, a great marijuana advocate, endorsed me in the election and campaigned in my riding for me.

To show how the debate has changed, I noticed that Marc Emery was at the Conservative Party convention, took out a membership, and voted. Marc Emery was standing beside me and Jack Layton in 2004, pushing for the decriminalization of marijuana. In 2017, Marc Emery was at the Conservative convention, pushing for the same thing. It shows how much this issue has moved and that this is the right time. It is past due. It is the time to pass this bill, and that is why I will support it.

Perhaps the debate is a bit subdued as well because probably 90% of people in the House of Commons have smoked marijuana. I will not speak for everybody, but that is what I think. I think they have, and I think they have through long stages of their lives. There may be those who have never tried marijuana, but they have certainly been in places where marijuana has been smoked. They have seen the effects of marijuana and decided not to rat out their friends because they do not want their friends to go to jail or have criminal records. As mature adults, we know the time has come for this bill.

There will be objections, though, in this debate, the objections seem kind of minor. They seem to be numerically based in terms of grams and all the numbers in the bill. To me, that kind of technical stuff should be debated in committee, such as whether we get the law correct in this case. However, the overall sentiment that is reflected in the bill is a good thing. People are upset enough on both sides that it has probably hit a proper compromise.

I am not going to be investing in the marijuana industry as it is not something that I would do at this stage of my life. I did play rock and roll music for about 10 years, starting at the age of 15 through to 25.

During that period in life people experiment with things and marijuana is one of those things. There are no real ill effects if marijuana is used in moderation and with caution. There is a lot of hoopla around the negative effects of marijuana and we do have to worry about the health effects. We have to make sure that we have the proper scientific facts and so on. We hear so much hyperbole about the negative effects, such as how this is going to damage our society irreparably. That is a fallacious argument.

We have had the same kinds of arguments around alcohol. We could even say that sugar and other things should be regulated. These are scare tactics that are used to frighten the public, when we all know that this is such a large part of our society already.

If I can quote the Fraser Institute, which I often do, marijuana is a $7 billion a year industry in British Columbia. It's bigger than any other agricultural product that's produced.

Where does that $7 billion go? That is my question. That money goes to organized crime and we see the effects of it. When I tried to rent my first office in North Burnaby, I could not find a place because most of the buildings were owned by the Hells Angels. A lot of organized crime grows marijuana and sells it illegally. The proceeds are put into real estate or casinos or other types of gambling. The money is laundered and comes back into society and organized crime benefits from that. I have to commend the government again because the legislation, when enforced, will take a lot of money away from organized crime.

Just like we saw with alcohol, the prohibition of something that is widely used in society only benefits organized crime. We also saw that with gambling. Police forces used to break up gambling rings. As soon as the government legalized gambling to some extent, like lotteries and bingo and those types of things, there was less need to waste policing resources on gambling rings. Those saved resources go back to the government and it can then fund things like rehab for gambling addiction and so on.

The time is definitely right.

My critic area is science. When the Conservatives shut down funding to science in the last Parliament, believe it or not, many scientists who left the National Research Council moved out to British Columbia to apply their scientific know-how to cannabis. They look at the strains, the effects, how to keep it safe, and they can do that because this is just another agricultural product.

This is a great opportunity for Canada and I think the government has built the bill well. However, I am quite upset that the government is not considering pardoning people with past offences. This should be done right away. It is not fair that in 18 months some people will not have criminal convictions but people with past criminal convictions will have to live with them for the rest of their lives.

I will be supporting the legislation. It cannot come fast enough. I really hope the government has a strategy for getting it through the Senate.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, I totally agree with the member. I cannot fault any of his points, so I am just going to make a couple of points of my own and not ask a question, but leave it for him to go on to say more of what he probably wanted to say.

It would appear on the surface that, if we make something illegal, fewer people will get it, but of course prohibition proved that wrong; it did not work. What is far more effective is education, and that has to be a big part of this effort. I was very disappointed when this House, years ago, twice refused to have labelling of the dangers of alcohol for pregnant mothers.

Also, one of the effects, of course, is the quality if we leave it free. When it is regulated, we stop the dangerous quality by which so many people have been killed or injured.

Another point, of course, is the health fact. There are lots of unhealthy things in society that we give people the freedom to choose. There are far more accidents and crime, etc., with alcohol, but I do not think anyone would attempt to make that illegal.

The conditions of advertising are another great initiative that would reduce it.

Finally, on the suggestion of penalties, of course we do not want penalties for kids. I know that was a suggestion, but there would have to be some other type of thing. We do not want to criminalize kids, because that affects the rest of their life.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Madam Speaker, those comments are all relevant to the debate here.

We have the best police in the world, in Canada. We all, as MPs, interact regularly with our police forces, and in some ways the police have had their hands tied for many years to deal with this issue. With the proper regulation and the legal constraints that would come in with this bill, police will breathe a sigh of relief that finally they have the tools to deal with this, they do not have to bust people for small amounts, and they do not have to ruin people's lives with criminal records so they cannot travel abroad anymore and have their livelihoods affected as to employment. However, I do not think it is so liberal that we have to worry about it running amok.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the member, who agrees with the government, how he thinks that our children will be better protected.

How can you explain to us that children will now be better protected against this dirty thing—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I will to remind the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent that he must address his question to the Chair.

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

I will need a mirror just to be sure that the member is listening quite clearly.

Madam Speaker, can the member explain to us and to Canadians how Canadian children will be best protected and more protected than they are today against this dirty thing, marijuana, while they can have in their hands and their pockets at the age of 12 years old five grams of marijuana without any penalty, and while every single house in Canada could have marijuana plants and children can go into the houses of their friends and see marijuana plants in front of them? Does the member seriously think that our children would be better protected with the Liberal bill?

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member's question does sound familiar. I have heard this a number of times today, so perhaps people are sharing the same sheet on this issue.

It is not as if the Liberals are bringing marijuana to Canada. Marijuana is already here. We need regulation on this. We need to give the police the proper tools. However, if we do not pass this bill, it does not mean marijuana is going to go away. We do have to regulate it, and that is what is going to protect kids.