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.

Health

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, the approach to cannabis does not work. It has allowed criminals and organized crime to profit while failing to keep cannabis out of the hands of youth.

We respect the work that the Senate has been doing, and we look forward to reviewing the recommendations brought forward by the social affairs committee.

Our government is confident that Bill C-45 can be adopted later this June. Our government has taken important steps to address specific interests expressed by indigenous committees and other groups.

We will continue to collaborate with the provinces and territories to ensure that a reasonable transition to a legal market is brought forward.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, the current approach to cannabis does not work. It allows criminals to profit and has not managed to keep cannabis out of the hands of our children.

We have a lot of respect for the work done by the Senate, and we look forward to carefully studying the report that the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology is working on.

Our government is confident that Bill C-45 can be passed in June. Our government has taken significant measures to address the specific interests of indigenous communities and organizations.

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

Article 19, which is more about the laws of general application, seeks to acquire.... To meet that sort of standard in terms of the Inuit, the Métis, the as yet undefined Daniels v. Canada, and the first nations from across the country that have not reconstituted...?

My other concern is that we have created something so unwieldy that the government could not even afford something such as Bill C-45, because everyone would have the right to have their consent sought on these issues.

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

I'm going to use a practical example, because you referred to Bill C-45. That's the marijuana legislation, a piece of legislation that clearly will be impacting indigenous peoples across this country.

It calls for free, prior, and informed consent, so we now know, obviously, the first nations across the country, the Inuit, the Métis.... This is the ability of the Government of Canada to move forward with a piece of legislation needing informed consent. I know right now in the courts, the Liberal lawyers are arguing that that would completely fetter the ability of the federal government to move forward, because you overlay in Daniels how you get to any sort of place where you can do the appropriate work for free, prior, and informed consent with all the treaty and rights holders on something like a law of general application.

[Gervais Coulombe, Director, Sales Tax Division, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Part 3, which covers clauses 68 to 119, implements a new federal excise duty framework for cannabis products, a measure that was proposed in the February 27, 2018, budget and detailed in the supplementary information on tax measures, on page 40.

The proposal builds upon the framework that was released for consultation by the government in November of last year, and reflects the revenue-sharing agreement that was agreed to in principle at the finance minister's meeting in December of last year as well.

The duty, which will be introduced as part of the Excise Tax Act, 2001, will generally apply to all products available for legal purchase, which at the outset of legalization will include fresh and dried cannabis, cannabis oils, and seeds and seedlings for home cultivation. Cannabis cultivators and manufacturers will be required to obtain a cannabis licence from the Canada Revenue Agency and remit the excise duty, where applicable.

Excise duties will be imposed on federally licenced producers, the so-called cannabis licensees, at the higher of the flat rate applied on the quantity of cannabis contained in a final product and the percentage of the dutiable amount of the product as sold by the producer. The dutiable amount generally represents the portion of the producer's sale price that does not include the cannabis duties under the Excise Act, 2001.

The proposed excise duty framework will be applied as follows.

A flat rate duty will be imposed, at the time of packaging for final retail sale, on the quantity of cannabis flowering and non-flowering material, generally referred to as ''flower'' and ''trim'', respectively, as well as on cannabis seeds and seedlings in the case of home cultivation. The flat rate duty will be imposed on a dollar-per-gram basis, or dollar-per-seed or seedling basis in the case of seeds or seedlings. A lower rate per gram will be applied for trim as compared to flower.

A product will generally be considered to be packaged by a cannabis licensee when it is put in a container intended for sale to a final consumer at the retail level.

At the time of delivery of the cannabis product by the cannabis licensee who packaged it to a purchaser, for instance, a provincially authorized distributor, an ad valorem rate will also be imposed on the dutiable amount of the transaction. Cannabis licensees selling to purchasers would be liable to pay duty at the higher of the flat rate, the dollar per gram, or the ad valorem rate on the product, the 10% that I just mentioned. The applicable duty will only become payable at the time of delivery to a purchaser. The cannabis licencee who packages the cannabis product for final retail sale will be liable to pay the applicable excise duty.

All cannabis products that will be removed from the premises of a cannabis licensee to enter into the Canadian market for retail sale will be required to have an excise stamp. Excise stamps will have specified colours indicating the provincial or territorial market in which it is intended to be sold. It will be the responsibility of the cannabis licensee who packaged the cannabis product to determine and apply the appropriate excise stamp before its entry into the duty-paid Canadian market.

The excise duty framework will generally apply to cannabis products that contain THC, tetrahydrocannabinol, the primary psychoactive compound of cannabis. However, packaged products that contain concentrations of no more than 0.3% of THC, and consequently have little to no associated psychoactive effects, will generally not be subject to the excise duty under the proposed framework. Pharmaceutical products approved by Health Canada, with a drug identification number, a DIN, that are derived from cannabis and that can only be acquired through a prescription will also not be subject to the excise duty.

The federal government has reached an agreement with provincial and territorial governments on a coordinated cannabis taxation framework for the initial two years after legalization. In practice, the coordinated framework provides for the application of the federal excise duty, as well as an additional excise duty, in respect of provinces and territories.

This part also amends the goods and services harmonized sales tax, the GST/HST, the basic grocery rules of the Excise Tax Act, to ensure that any sales of cannabis products that would otherwise be considered basic groceries are subject to the GST/HST, in the same way as sales of other types of cannabis products.

In addition, relieving rules for various agricultural products will be changed to ensure that sales of cannabis products, including seeds and seedlings, will not be relieved under these rules.

The measure will generally come into effect when cannabis for non-medical purposes becomes available for retail sale. That means that the measure is contingent upon the passing by Parliament of Bill C-45, which is currently in front of the Senate—Bill C-45 being the bill legalizing cannabis for non-medical purposes in Canada.

We are available for questions.

Thank you.

Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 1

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is another good make-work project that we will not need when we get a Conservative government, because we will do away with the carbon tax. Therefore, we do not need that $120 million.

It is very clear that the government has no plan. It is parallel to what they were doing on the marijuana bills, Bill C-45 and Bill C-46. The government was really quite anxious to put out how many dollars it thought it could make with it. However, when I wrote to the Parliamentary Budget Officer about the costs of it, he said that he would tell me what they were if he knew them, but the Liberals would not tell him. This is the same. The Liberals are quite ready to talk about all the money they can make out of a carbon tax, but they will not tell anybody what it will cost.

Controlled Drugs and Substances Act

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, since I only have a couple of minutes, I will cut to the main part of what I was going to discuss.

First is a reminder that we are not debating Bill C-45. We are debating something completely different. It was disappointing that so much of the debate seemed to be confused with Bill C-45.

I spent many years in the mortgage industry, as some are aware. The ability to grow substantial amounts of medical marijuana in a home, without a landlord's consent, or with the landlord's consent, for that matter, produces some extremely difficult problems. The mortgage industry and the insurance industry have for years and years been extremely clear about not wishing to either insure or mortgage a property in which marijuana has been grown, whether legally or not. The issue has been expressed by many others. It is about the health hazards, the destruction of the property, the compromise of the structural integrity of the home, and the presence of noxious fumes and mould. These are the types of issues. Even if a person can legally grow 120 plants, no mortgage lender will ever mortgage a property that has been known to have had marijuana, in any quantity, grown in it.

This is a serious issue about stigmatizing a property. Once a property is known to have been used for the cultivation of marijuana, it becomes literally unmarketable. For many years, this would come up time and again. An application for a loan would come in. It would become known and disclosed that marijuana had been grown on the property, and no lender would touch it. I do not have time to read here the lending practice, but I can assure the House that marijuana being grown in a home makes the home unmarketable.

Bill C-330 attempts to address that issue by giving landlords at least some ability to control what goes on in their own property that will affect the marketability of the property, the insurability of the property, and certainly the ability to get a mortgage for the property. I support the bill for that reason. It would give some level of protection to landlords so that if they chose to rent a property to someone who would grow marijuana legally, under a medical marijuana prescription, it would be a contracted choice between the landlord and the tenant.

At present, landlords are in a disadvantaged position, where they risk their property through the growth of marijuana. It is perfectly legal, from the point of view of having a prescription for medical marijuana, or indeed, not that I want to bring Bill C-45 into it, but if it is passed and given royal assent, even to grow two plants. We might all agree that two plants is not a health hazard.

Right now, the mortgage and insurance industries do not agree with that. In 20-plus years as a mortgage broker, I never saw a lender that would knowingly mortgage a property when it was known to have had marijuana growing in it. That is something that the federal government will need to address, and the bill is a way to address it so that at least a landlord would have the ability to insist that marijuana not be grown in a property and would have at least some level of protection.

Madam Speaker, you only gave me two minutes. I trust I have exceeded that, and I will conclude with that, if that is your wish.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to debate Bill C-330, an act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, also referred to as “landlord consent”.

I would like to thank the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo for giving us the opportunity to debate this issue.

As my hon. colleagues know, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act is the federal law used to control substances that can alter mental processes and that may cause harm to health and society when diverted to an illicit market.

Under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, it is illegal to conduct certain activities with controlled substances or precursors unless authorized by regulation or if an exemption is granted. These regulations and exemptions allow for lawful activities with a medical, scientific, or industrial purpose. Bill C-330 proposes to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to provide a specific regulation-making authority concerning the creation of requirements for written consent from landlords to produce a controlled substance in leased premises. It would also require the minister of health to report back to Parliament on an annual basis to explain why additional regulations had not been made, if that is the case.

I would first clarify that the bill, as written, would have implications not only for individuals who are authorized to cultivate small amounts of cannabis for medical purposes but for other parties using leased space, including licensed producers of cannabis and licensed dealers of other controlled substances.

I remind members that the existing regulations on controlled substances under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act have quite a broad scope. They allow the government to tightly regulate a wide range of activities and aspects connected to the production and sale of controlled substances.

In addition, if a licensed dealer were to produce such substances in a commercially rented facility, the lease agreement would likely include details on the specific activities taking place in the facility, making the landlord aware that the controlled substances were being produced. Consent would be provided by way of approving the lease.

The commercial production of medical cannabis is already regulated by the Access to Cannabis for Medical Purposes Regulations, created under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

Provisions in the access to cannabis for medical purposes regulations require that any application for a producer's licence be accompanied by a declaration by the owner of the site consenting to its use for the proposed activities, if the applicant is not the owner of the site.

As we debate Bill C-330 today, I think it is important to consider Bill C-45, the cannabis act, which is currently being studied by the Senate.

Should this legislation receive royal assent, oversight of cannabis would, for the most part, no longer fall under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act but rather under this new legislation, the cannabis act. A change in federal oversight would include comprehensive requirements for producers of cannabis and rules for individuals who choose to legally cultivate a small amount of cannabis in their homes for both medical and non-medical purposes.

If the cannabis act is passed, it will create a new legalization framework, with stringent regulations restricting access to cannabis by controlling the production, distribution, sale, and possession of cannabis. If BillC-45 receives royal assent, adults will be able to access cannabis that has been quality controlled and that comes from a legal and tightly regulated industry.

Provinces and territories would be responsible for the distribution and retail sale of cannabis, while the federal government would oversee the production of cannabis to ensure consistent product safety and quality standards across Canada.

Subject to provincial limitations, the bill would also permit adults to grow up to four cannabis plants at home for personal use, provided that they were obtained legally. Allowing adults to grow a limited amount of cannabis in their dwellings is consistent with the advice from the task force on cannabis legalization and regulation and with the approach adopted by many jurisdictions in the United States that have legalized cannabis.

If the bill receives royal assent, both the commercial producers and any adults who choose to cultivate a small amount of cannabis at home will have to comply with the provincial, territorial, and municipal regulations in place. This would include compliance with all fire prevention regulations, building codes, and any rules or regulations set by the landlord or leaseholder.

Provinces, territories, and municipalities, based on their own authorities, have the flexibility to set additional requirements and restrictions, beyond what is being proposed in the cannabis act, to address matters of local concern and community priorities. In fact, a number of provinces have already decided to pursue such additional restrictions with respect to home cultivation.

For instance, Alberta is proposing that all home grow-ops be limited to indoor cultivation only. Nova Scotia wants to grant landlords the power to prohibit the use and cultivation of cannabis in rental units. New Brunswick wants all outdoor cultivation to be done in locked enclosures, and proposes separate, locked spaces for all indoor cultivation.

We will continue to work closely with provincial and territorial governments, municipalities, as well as other stakeholders and partners, to successfully implement our new legislative and regulatory framework to strictly regulate and restrict access to cannabis.

Once again, I am grateful to have had the opportunity to debate this issue.

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

moved that Bill C-330, an act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (landlord consent), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to stand and debate my private member's bill in the House today. I look at the two votes we just had which were unanimous. They were on items put forward by Liberal members and concern very practical matters that will make things better for Canadians. I certainly I hope this particular piece of legislation will be received in the same spirit of co-operation, because I am truly convinced that this bill would make things much better and solve a really significant and difficult issue.

What Bill C-330 would do if passed is amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to provide for regulations requiring the consent of landlords to tenant activities in respect of controlled drugs and substances. More specifically, the enactment would require the written consent of any landlord on whose premises the production or sale of any controlled substance is to occur.

The bill is in response to the access to cannabis for medical purposes regulations, which came into effect August 24, 2016. These new regulations do not require individuals who wish to produce marijuana in their residence to notify or seek the consent of their landlords. The federal government failed to provide clear direction for landlords and insurance companies when it made changes to the medical marijuana rules.

Under the rules, Health Canada gives specific guidelines on how to safely set up a medical grow op, but when it comes to checking if the safety rules are being followed, the federal department is leaving that up to the municipalities. I think all of us who live in communities have had our municipalities express extreme frustration on this issue. According to the local development and engineering services director in Kamloops, the problem is that federal privacy rules apply, which prevent local authorities from knowing where medical marijuana is being grown. They do not get a list of addresses, so they cannot actually do anything proactively in terms of going out and inspecting the premises. It is a significant issue. There is no system to proactively check if tenants are growing the allowed number of plants according to their permit.

When asked about this issue, the health minister said the federal government's role is to ensure people who need medical marijuana have access. I want to pick up on that point. I do not disagree that people who need medical marijuana should have access, but I want to give an example. Some people need digoxin for their heart, but they do not have to actually grow foxglove in their home to get digoxin. If people need something that is medically necessary, surely to goodness we could find a better way than having them grow it in their home because they cannot afford it. We have found ways around antibiotics and drugs like digoxin. We do not require people to grow their own medication. The government says that we have to provide access, but who is looking out for the landlords who have put hundreds of thousands of dollars into their homes? They are having their homes destroyed because the federal government has not found a better way to provide access to needed medical marijuana. Surely we can do better than that.

This is important for people who might be listening, because there is a lot of talk right now about the new recreational regime. Bill C-45, which is before the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, is a proposed regulatory framework for cannabis for recreational purposes. As I talk, members will see there is a huge difference between what is proposed for recreational use and medical marijuana.

With medical marijuana, the task force that was tasked with going around and making recommendations to the government essentially suggested that as the government moved toward legalization of marijuana and regulations the distinct system of the medical marijuana regime be maintained for medical purposes.

We have two very distinct systems. One is recreational, and that is Bill C-45, which is moving through the Senate. We also have the issue of medical marijuana, which has been around for many years.

The medical regime will allow people, including those under the age of 18, with the support of a health care practitioner, to have access to cannabis for medical purposes. They can purchase it from a federally licensed seller of cannabis for medical purposes. They can cultivate their own, if they are over the age of 18, or designate someone to grow cannabis on their behalf, which is called “designated production”.

There used to be limits on how much cannabis could be stored. The Liberals tried to align the recreational and medical regimes, but they took away the limits on what can be stored, which had been in place before.

When the Liberals put out the new regulations around recreational use, they talked about four plants. I think they did that because they knew they would be heading into the difficult territory we have seen with the medical regime. It is four plants. It can be regulated. The provincial authorities have the ability to regulate. For example, strata condominiums can say whether one can have dogs or cats. There is an ability for provinces to create some regulations around the four-plant designation. I believe some provinces are saying no to the home grow and others are saying yes. The government recognized that with any more than four plants it would be heading into very difficult territory, but there was no consideration given to the issue. It is only the federal government that can solve this issue with the medical marijuana. The provinces cannot do it nor can anyone else.

It is important to note that with a medical licence, people can grow their own and be designated to grow for someone else. There is a maximum of four licences to grow cannabis in one residence. For example, a 1,500 square foot apartment could have up to four licences. What does that mean in practical purposes? If one has been prescribed three grams per day, that means one could have 15 plants indoors, six plants outdoors, or a combination of indoor and outdoor plants. However, it is not uncommon or all that extreme that a person may have a prescription for seven grams a day. I remember the government moving the limit for our veterans from 10 grams to three grams. Again, seven grams is a number we can use. If there is a licence to grow for four people at seven grams a day, a person could have an enormous number of plants indoors. It could be up to 120 plants growing indoors if someone had four licences for seven grams. It is an incredible amount.

I will recount the true story of someone who came into my office, and this was part of the genesis of the bill. He shared his story with CBC in February 2017:

Longtime landlord Darryl Spencer was left scrambling for insurance after discovering a tenant was growing dozens of medical marijuana plants inside and outside his rental house.

When the landlord told his insurance company about the perfectly legal grow-op, his coverage was cancelled, leaving him with no insurance, few rights and a big cleanup bill.

Spencer says the downstairs tenant in the Kamloops, B.C., rental property got a medical marijuana licence that allowed him to legally grow as many as 60 plants without his landlord's permission or knowledge.

This was his retirement savings plan, by the way. He had decided to put his money into a revenue-making rental property. There were 60 plants there without his knowledge.

The article continues:

A call from a concerned neighbour prompted Spencer, who is also a retired fire inspector, to check out the home he's rented out to different tenants for a decade.

He discovered a mess of extension cords, fans and bright lights packed into a room filled with dozens of marijuana plants. The upstairs tenant, a woman with a small child, was complaining about heat radiating through the walls and electrical breakers going off....

...landlords have little recourse if a tenant is growing licensed medical marijuana. They don't even have the right to know it's happening. Yet it's landlords who are being denied insurance

They do not have the right to know what is happening when a tenant is growing medical pot.

Spencer told Go Public, “I was worried about the fire hazard. That was my first thought because of the extension cords, the use of electricity and that something could catch fire.”

When he notified his insurance company about his tenant's grow-op, Gore Mutual cancelled his coverage.

“They wouldn't cover claims to do with medical marijuana or air quality contamination,” he said.

Gore Mutual Insurance said that it “does not provide coverage for marijuana grow-operations regardless of their legality because this type of operation in a residential building presents inherent insurance risks.”

The article continues:

Those risks, the company says, include “a greater likelihood of water damage, mould, fire, vandalism and burglary.”

Under most basic home insurance policies, marijuana-related damages or anything that companies believe is “high risk” is not covered.

This is a view that is shared by many insurance companies, according to the Insurance Bureau of Canada.

“While regulations may allow for the legal growing of marijuana for medical purposes, it does not change the structural risk grow-ops pose to homes and condos.... The operation of a grow-op, whether legal or not, is still a high-risk activity.”

That was from Andrew McGrath, spokesman for the Insurance Bureau, in an email to Go Public. The article continues:

Gore Mutual Insurance told Spencer it might reinstate his coverage if he got rid of the tenant and took specific steps to ensure the house was safe to live in.

He actually had no ability to get rid of this tenant because of the laws of the land. He actually had to tell his tenant he would pay him to leave. That was a significant cost for him.

The article states:

The insurance company also wanted air and soil testing, plumbing and electrical inspections, and the house checked for mould.

Spencer did it all, while searching for another insurance company that would cover him right away. None would.

He went for quite a while with no insurance. I remember that he came in and chatted with me in my office. He was devastated. He was absolutely beside himself seeing his life savings potentially completely at risk.

As I noted, he finally paid the tenant to leave, then he did all the remediation that was required. Of course, he is out thousands and thousands of dollars.

We talk about availability and affordability of housing in this country. When we have potential landlords who are terrified that if they rent their homes they will have no recourse, and they still do not in terms of this medical marijuana issue, I think they rightfully are saying that they are not going to rent. They will take their homes off the market or sell them. Therefore, this is an issue that has ramifications for more than individuals and their finances. It has significant ramifications for the availability of affordable housing.

Go Public covered the story. Eventually Spencer did all the work and managed to cover things off.

I do not think anyone is appreciating the cost to landlords of people growing medical marijuana. According to the Canadian Federation of Apartment Associations, it can be absolutely prohibitive.

What I am asking is that we get support to get this to committee. I appreciate that people who have a need for medical marijuana need affordable access to it, but surely, at the same time, we cannot be jeopardizing the hundreds and thousands of dollars of investments by people across this country who are being absolutely devastated by this particular structure of a regulation.

[Eric Gagnon]

There are a couple of things.

First of all, I want to remind the committee that tobacco products are hidden from public view. There's already a 75% health warning on the pack. I don't think that plain packaging will reduce smoking, but that's another debate.

The health minister has been saying that marijuana products will be in plain packaging. However, Bill C-45 allows for branding of the products. What we're saying is that if there is plain packaging for marijuana, the same plain packaging should apply to tobacco products. There should at least be a logo of the brand that enables us to differentiate legal from illegal packs.

Marijuana

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today.

The first petition is on Bill C-45. The petitioners say that it is a flawed bill that will not protect youth or climate or reduce the workload of the criminal justice system; that the implementation of the bill is being rushed, risking the health and safety of Canadians; and that the passing of the bill would put Canada in violation of three international United Nations treaties. Therefore, the petitioners are calling on the government to not proceed with the legalization of marijuana.

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

I think you again flagged some things that I have addressed, whether it's Bill C-45, C-68, or C-69. This bill has significant implications for all those other three bills and that is something that I don't think we've perhaps looked at or addressed very well.

I do want to talk about Kinder Morgan because I think it's a pretty good example of some of the challenges that we have. I think a mining project is somewhat easy in terms of free, prior, and informed consent, identifying whose territory it's in and ensuring that the rights and titles are respected and acknowledged and the projects move forward.

You talked about concerns from your community, Mr. Richardson. I have chiefs who run down that pipeline and who are saying, “We took it to our community. They voted 85% for it. One-third of the pipeline is going through our territory.” We have communities along the whole pipeline route, and it's more than just the benefit agreements. They've taken it to their communities and 85% is not 100%, but it is significant.

What we have is rather like Canadians in general. We have a complexity of very strong feelings on this particular issue. How will government ever, if we have something like Bill C-262, align all those important considerations? Again, I look at the communities, the Shuswap people who are predominantly in one area.

It's difficult. It's complicated. I know we were grappling with it until midnight last night. It's important and I worry about where we're going to end up in terms of making sure we respect rights while still being able to move forward with things that are important for everyone who lives in this country.

Maybe we'll hear from Mr. Newman and then Mr. Richardson.

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

I know my colleague here was visiting a number of communities in the north last week and had a considerable discussion around, for example, the marijuana legislation. Certainly, again, the government stood up at the UN and made commitments; and they made commitments of Canada and have introduced legislation. I think it's clear that something like Bill C-45, the marijuana legislation, will impact communities across this country, including yours. Not only did I not hear any discussion around the legislation, which, I think, article 19 would suggest should have happened, the general application, but I also didn't hear anything around even excise cost-sharing. It was all conversations with the provinces.

We know that in Bill C-68 and Bill C-69 it certainly appears they haven't lived up to their commitment. Would you suggest that Bill C-45 is another example where a commitment that was made on the international stage has not been lived up to in Canada?

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

I had the opportunity last week to go to nine communities on an eight-day trip to Nunavut. I've talked to Minister Bennett about certain things. One of the things we talked about was Bill C-45, the marijuana cannabis bill.

They really haven't been consulted up there. I know that Natan Obed always has his door open to you, but let me tell you this, because I went into nine schools: they're scared as hell. There are addictions up north that you know about, family violence, and a shortage of homes. They're crowded.

Let me say this: there is not one addiction centre in Nunavut, not one. You send them to Selkirk; you'll send them to Winnipeg; you'll send them to Montreal. You'll send them everywhere but their own land. What are you going to do about that? I heard that. They don't want to leave Nunavut.

Do you see what I'm saying? You're coming with this bill. Everybody is scared up there because they're going to be shipped out. Many of these, all of these, are dry communities, and now you're going to add this marijuana to them but you don't have one addiction centre in Nunavut.

What would you think if you were living there today? If you were at Rankin Inlet today or Chesterfield Inlet today or Baker Lake today and I said to you, “We don't have an addiction centre available. You have to get on the next flight. I don't know when you're coming back, and I don't know where you're going”? What do you say to those people?

[Ramez Ayoub, Liberal, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to point out that the purpose of the amendment I am going to propose is to exclude vaping substances that contain cannabis, as well as cannabis-related devices that are not tobacco products, the focus of the bill on tobacco and vaping products. In this way, vaping substances containing cannabis and the majority of cannabis-related accessories would only be subject to Bill C-45, the Cannabis Act. This amendment would only come into effect when the relevant provisions of Bill C-45 also come into effect.

And so I would like to move the following motion:

That Bill S-5 be amended by adding after line 14 on page 47 the following new clause: “79.1 If Bill C-45, introduced in the 1st session of the 42nd Parliament and entitled An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other Acts, receives royal assent, then, on the first day on which both subsection 204(1) of that act and section 3 of this act are in force:

(a) the definition accessory in section 2 of the Tobacco and Vaping Products Act is replaced by the following:

accessory means a product that may be used in the consumption of a tobacco product, including a pipe, cigarette holder, cigar clip, lighter and matches, and also means a water pipe. It does not include cannabis accessories, as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Cannabis Act. (accessory)

(b) the portion of the definition vaping product in section 2 of the Tobacco and Vaping Products Act after paragraph (d) is replaced by the following:

It does not include devices and substances or mixtures of substances that are excluded by the regulations, cannabis, as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Cannabis Act, cannabis accessories, as defined in that subsection, tobacco products or their accessories. (produits de vapotage)“

That is the change I am proposing.