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.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Tousaw, I'm going to be directing most of my questions to you.

I think you very articulately described the problems with criminalization. To give the government credit, I think that's something that it has recognized itself and is some of fundamental rationale behind this bill. I think Prime Minister Trudeau has recognized that criminalization has simply pushed products underground and has led to the creation of an illicit market that doesn't really work.

You've also pointed out, though, that this bill, Bill C-45, essentially retains a criminalized approach to cannabis. There are criminal sanctions for possession over 30 grams. There are criminal sanctions for growing more than four plants. There are criminal sanctions for selling and, in fact, with penalties of up to 14 years. If criminalization doesn't work generally, is it not somewhat misguided to take a quasi-criminal approach to Bill C-45? Are we going to have problems down the road with the maintenance of the criminalized approach in this bill?

[Kirk Tousaw, Lawyer, Tousaw Law Corporation]

Mr. Chair, members of the committee, my name is Kirk Tousaw. I am a barrister based in British Columbia. I formerly practised in the United States, which is perhaps why I am on the international panel. I represent clients across Canada, exclusively in cannabis law and policy, and have done so for the past decade.

My firm currently acts for hundreds of people charged with cannabis offences in Canada, many younger, few with other criminal records, all of whom do not deserve to be treated like criminals for their cannabis-related activities.

I was part of the legal team that successfully challenged the prior medical cannabis regime on charter grounds in the Allard case and litigated R. v. Smith, the only medical cannabis case to reach the Supreme Court of Canada. It resulted in a unanimous per curiam decision, finding the CDSA unconstitutional because of its prohibition on access to medical cannabis derivative products.

I commend the Government of Canada on its decision to move toward a rational and empirically based model for production, distribution, and possession of cannabis by Canadians.

Before making substantive comments on Bill C-45, I would like to take a moment to speak about why Canada is taking this important step. The Government of Canada posits two main reasons for legalization: to protect young people and to eliminate the black market.

As a father of four, ages seven to 17, and you may hear them outside the room later today, I certainly agree that protecting young people is an important social goal. The best way to protect young people is to stop criminalizing them. By far the most harm done to young people related to cannabis is done by the criminal justice system, not the use of the substance itself.

As a lawyer who has represented hundreds, if not thousands of people unjustly charged with violating the cannabis laws of both the United States and Canada, I support eliminating the black market in the sense of allowing those who are now involved in the cannabis industry, or wish to be involved, to do so lawfully.

When we speak of the black market as it relates to domestic cannabis production and consumption, we are not speaking of what most Canadians understand to be organized crime. We are not speaking of gangs. Instead, the domestic black market is comprised almost exclusively of ordinary Canadians, otherwise law-abiding, who make their living, pay their bills, and support their families by working in the cannabis industry. They do so for a variety of reasons. Some are committed to the plant and the cause. Some are entrepreneurs, employers, and small business people who simply want to be part of a vibrant industry that produces a product that brings people joy, with very little in the way of negative effect. Almost none are violent or otherwise harmful to society in any way.

While I agree that eliminating the black market is a critical goal, I strongly urge this committee and the governments of Canada and the various provinces and territories to understand elimination to be synonymous with transition and not with incarceration. This includes provinces like Ontario that are moving toward a misguided and unworkable government monopoly on retail sales. Private dispensaries are preferred by consumers, both domestically and in other legal jurisdictions internationally, and already do a great job of providing dignified reasonable access to cannabis.

There are other more important reasons to end cannabis prohibition. Canada is a constitutional democracy committed to notions of individual freedom and individual responsibility. This requires allowing Canadians to make autonomous decisions about their own bodily integrity, without undue interference or criminalization of their choices by the state. Prohibition has caused incalculable harm, both to society and to individuals entangled in the criminal justice system. Twenty-six thousand Canadians were charged with simple possession of cannabis just last year. Many will have difficulty crossing the border into the United States.

Over the course of this failed policy, hundreds of thousands of Canadians will be criminalized to no good end. Each time a Canadian is arrested, handcuffed, and caged for cannabis-related activity, an injustice is done, harm is caused, and we all suffer. Moreover, cannabis prohibition detracts from respect for the rule of law. Millions of Canadians violate the law by possessing cannabis each year. Some of these citizens have achieved positions of great prominence in our society. That is because, either through accident of law, social or racial privilege, or powerful connections, they've been able to avoid entanglement in the criminal justice system. Hundreds of thousands of Canadians are not so privileged.

When millions of otherwise law-abiding and decent people feel it unnecessary, impractical, or harmful to obey the law, respect for the rule of said law suffers. When police officers are tasked with enforcing laws that are ignored by millions of Canadians, the relationship between the police and citizens suffers. It is far past time to right these wrongs. Amnesty for Canadians charged with cannabis offences is long overdue, and I urge this committee to recommend amendments to Bill C-45 that would eliminate the criminal records of, at a minimum, those convicted of simple possession of cannabis. This would go a long way to restoring their ability to travel, in particular to the United States.

Turning to the substance of Bill C-45, I say with regret that much work remains to be done. This bill takes us in the right direction, but does not and in its present form cannot achieve either the goals I've identified or the goals that Canada seeks to accomplish.

Bill C-45 continues to criminalize young people for possessing more than five grams of cannabis, an extraordinarily small amount. It is very likely that, post-legalization, thousands of young Canadians will continue to be entangled with the criminal justice system, doing irreparable harm to the future course of their lives. I agree with age limits related to sales of cannabis to Canadians by commercial entities. Parents, not shopkeepers, should be making these decisions. Age limits for sales, however, are an entirely different thing than imposing criminal penalties on young people for simple possession. I urge this committee to recommend amendments to Bill C-45 to remove any possibility of criminal penalties being applied to any young people in the country for activities related to cannabis.

Bill C-45 also contemplates criminal penalties being applied to adult Canadians who possess more than 30 grams of cannabis or grow more than four 100-centimetre plants per household. These are arbitrary numbers.

These criminal restrictions are decidedly unlike the way our country regulates alcohol, a vastly and inarguably more dangerous substance than cannabis. At this moment in Canada, a 19-year-old can walk into a liquor store and purchase enough alcohol to kill that person and all that person's friends and acquaintances. Indeed, there's enough alcohol in one bottle of vodka to kill the consumer. Similarly, there are virtually no restrictions on individual Canadians' rights to brew beer or make wine for their individual consumption or for non-commercial sharing with friends and acquaintances. Canadians can also currently grow 15 kilograms of tobacco per year, enough for some 15,000 cigarettes.

Given that reality, it's ludicrous or, to put it in legal terms, arbitrary, overbroad, and grossly disproportionate to allow Canadians to be arrested and caged for simply possessing any amount of cannabis, or for possessing cannabis deemed to be illicit, which is, in any event, a wholly unenforceable distinction. There is no empirically, morally, or legally sound reason why cannabis should be treated more strictly than alcohol.

There are also practical difficulties related to these arbitrary restrictions. Cannabis, particularly outdoors, can easily grow five or more metres high in its natural state. Do we really need or want a rule that would require Canadians who wish to grow a few plants in their gardens to continually tie down the branches or otherwise artificially manipulate a plant during its growth to keep it no more than 99 centimetres high? The 100-centimetre limits are the height of absurdity.

In addition, the limit of four plants per household arbitrarily penalizes those living in large households. These limits, backed by criminal sanctions, will certainly lead to legal challenges based on section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which requires that the liberty of Canadians not be infringed by arbitrary, overbroad, or grossly disproportionate laws.

The restrictions on possession amounts and plant numbers and sizes for personal non-commercial production of cannabis also detract from the goal of eliminating the black market. Allowing Canadians to be self-sufficient and to obtain their cannabis by growing for themselves supports the transition away from reliance on the black market.

I urge the committee to recommend amendments eliminating limits on what Canadians can possess or grow for non-commercial purposes and removing the artificial and unenforceable distinction between licit and illicit cannabis. At the very least, possessory limits should be increased substantially, and plant limits should increase and be calculated per person, not per household.

Also critical to ensuring a workable transition away from the current vibrant and enormous but unlawful market for cannabis in this country is to make the process of becoming a commercial producer and distributor of cannabis as easy as reasonably possible. Most details related to becoming a commercial producer of cannabis are not contained in the bill and are instead left to regulations to be determined. If those rules mirror the current situation involving production for medical purposes, they will be too onerous, there will not be enough people or companies able to participate, there will be an insufficient amount of lawfully produced cannabis to Canadians, and the black market will continue to thrive.

The black market will also continue to thrive throughout the entire supply chain, from production to processing to sale, if legalization does not include products that are becoming increasingly popular. Edibles, concentrates, and products such as vape pens must be legal. Trends in Canada and other international legal jurisdictions, particularly in the United States, demonstrate the increased popularity of these methods of consumption, which are also potentially less harmful to the consumer and less bothersome to non-consumers.

On a practical note, there are literally hundreds of companies operating in Canada making these products right now in a professional, safe, and sophisticated manner. These products are not going away, and all rely on someone growing the raw plant material to make them. If they are not legal, then, as always, consumer demand will be filled by persons operating outside the law. It is better by far to allow the existing industry to come out of the shadows and into the light.

I urge the committee to recommend amendments to Bill C-45 that legalize cannabis derivative products, eliminate barriers to entering the lawful industry for persons currently participating in the unlawful marketplace, and carve out from federal oversight the intraprovincial production and sale of small-batch craft cannabis.

Thank you for the opportunity to address the committee. I look forward to your questions.

[Dr. Beau Kilmer, Co-Director, RAND Drug Policy Research Center]

Good evening, Chairperson Casey, Vice-Chairperson Davies, Vice-Chairperson Webber, and other distinguished members of the Standing Committee on Health. Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify before you today.

I am a senior policy researcher at the non-profit, non-partisan RAND Corporation where I co-direct RAND's drug policy research centre. Over the past two years, I've been fortunate enough to travel to Canada multiple times to meet with researchers, policy-makers, and members of the task force to talk to them about Canada's policy and provide an objective assessment about what is happening with cannabis legalization in the United States.

I was invited today to testify about my general thoughts on Bill C-45 and on some of the international implications if it passes. I want to make it clear that RAND does not take positions on legislative bills or ballot initiatives. My goal for today is solely to help inform Canada's policy debate at the federal, provincial, and municipal levels. I will divide my comments into three sections: prices, taxes, and the international implications.

With respect to prices, many of the outcomes featured in debates about legalizing cannabis will be shaped by its retail price. For example, those seeking to reduce the size of the illicit market will want the retail price to be competitive enough to move users to the newly legal market. On the other hand, those concerned about an increase in problem cannabis use and cannabis use disorders will want to prevent retail prices from significantly declining because cannabis users are price sensitive.

Over time, legalization is expected to dramatically reduce the production and distribution costs of cannabis for many reasons. Most important is getting rid of the risk. Right now when people buy heroin, marijuana, or cocaine, a lot of what they're doing is compensating the drug dealers and everyone else along their supply chain for the risk of arrest and risk of incarceration. With legalization, that goes away. Also, firms will be able to take advantage of economies of scale as they move from producing in backyards and basements to larger farms and facilities. Also it will be easier to take advantage of advances in technology if the activity is legal.

For those who are concerned about an increase in cannabis consumption and use disorders that are related to a price drop, jurisdictions have several options. I want to talk briefly about six of them. The first option to help inflate the price would be to implement a government-run monopoly and it sounds as if that's what Ontario is thinking about doing. When the government has that control, it can set the price. The second option is to minimize competition. If you are going to allow private firms to get involved, you can minimize the number that are competing so that should help reduce a drop in price.

The third option would be to cap production. A fourth option would be to impose costly licensing fees and/or regulations such as accurate testing protocols. For example, requiring cannabis producers and/or processors to submit to rigorous product testing for potency and adulterants ends up driving up costs to the firm, which are then passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices. This can also help protect public health. The fifth option for keeping the prices higher is to require minimum pricing, and Canada does have experience with that with respect to alcohol. The final option would be to levy cannabis taxes.

Before I get into more detail about cannabis taxes, I want to make it very clear about the trade-offs involved when we're talking about prices. Realize that if your goal is to eliminate the illegal market as quickly as possible, you're going to want to minimize regulations and you're going to want that price drop to happen as quickly as possible. Now if you're concerned about the public health implications of a price drop, you're going to want to take actions to inflate that retail price. It's important to acknowledge this trade-off and realize that people have different goals for legalization. Just acknowledging that can lead to more productive discussions throughout the country.

Now back to taxes. Let's make it clear, nobody knows the best way to tax cannabis, and there are trade-offs with all the options. For example, taxing as a function of price is attractive because it's very easy to apply. For example, Washington State levies a 37% tax at the retail level, but the main drawback to that particular option is that the tax revenue per transaction will fall as the price falls.

Another option is to tax as a function of weight. For example, Alaska applies a $50 per ounce tax at the wholesale level. Once again, it's also easy to apply but some are concerned that it creates incentives for the producers to sell more potent cannabis. We know very little about the health consequences, both the risks and the benefits, of these higher-potency cannabis products that are being sold in the stores in Washington and Colorado. We realize that most of the research that's been done on the health effects of cannabis was largely based on people who were smoking lower-potency cannabis in the 1980s and the 1990s. We have a lot of research to do.

Another option is to tax cannabis as a function of THC, which would allow the government to nudge cannabis users to lower potency products. Such an approach is similar to how many countries typically tax alcohol, with higher taxes imposed on products with higher ethanol content. The final report of the task force recommended that Canada develop strategies to encourage consumption of less potent cannabis, including a price and tax scheme based on potency, to discourage purchase of high potency products, but Bill C-45 is largely silent on this issue.

I now want to focus my final comments on the international implications. I will largely focus on the movement of people and cannabis across international borders, and I want to say a few words about the banking situation in Uruguay.

I will not speak to Canada’s international drug treaty obligations and the various options Canada could pursue if it legalizes cannabis for non-medical purposes, including doing nothing. I will note, however, that what Canada does, and perhaps more importantly, how other countries respond to those actions, could send a signal to other countries about their drug treaty obligations. Given Canada’s size, its proximity to the United States, and its status as a member of the G7, national legalization in Canada could have a much larger international impact than the legalization of cannabis in Uruguay.

With respect to the movement of people across international borders, drug tourism will happen if provinces and territories do not limit sales to Canadian residents. If provinces and territories allow public consumption in cannabis cafés or cannabis lounges, this will make tourism even more attractive.

There is also the issue of Canadians being denied entry to the United States because of cannabis consumption or previous arrests. It is unclear whether the United States will change its approach if Canada legalizes cannabis, and if it does change its approach, whether that will become more or less strict.

With respect to the movement of cannabis across borders, we must acknowledge that this is already happening via legal and illegal channels. Currently, Canada legally exports cannabis products to some countries for medical or research purposes. As for smuggling cannabis and money across the U.S. border, the amount, as well as the direction, will depend on cannabis production costs, retail prices, risk of arrest, and oversight on both sides of the border.

Finally, Canada should pay attention to the cannabis banking issue in Uruguay. While Uruguay legalized cannabis for non-medical purposes in December of 2013, residents could not purchase it at pharmacies until July 2017. Then last August it was reported that U.S. banks would stop doing business with banks in Uruguay that provided banking services to pharmacies selling cannabis. In response, The New York Times noted that the Uruguayan banks warned some of the pharmacies over the last few weeks that their accounts would be shut down.

Now it is unknown whether U.S. banks would apply the same pressure to Canadian financial institutions doing business with Canadian entities suppling cannabis for non-medical purposes, but if Bill C- 45 passes, this possibility should not be ignored.

In sum, the federal and provincial governments will confront complex decisions if Bill C- 45 passes. Because it is hard to predict the international and domestic consequences of these choices, jurisdictions considering alternatives to prohibiting cannabis supply should proceed cautiously and build flexibility, especially with respect to prices and taxes, into the proposed regulations.

With that I will close, and I look forward to your questions and comments.

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

I'm going to have to cut you off because I'm running out of time. I have just one more point to make. The reason I bring this in is exactly what Dr. Hammond said. The reason this has to be brought up is how much the tobacco companies have infiltrated this discussion on Bill C-45, themselves and through their lobby groups.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I was just going to turn to you, Ms. Beck. Can I ask you a question?

Bill C-45, ironically, will legalize dried flower, which is mainly ingested by smoking, and will leave illegal, for the moment anyway, edibles and other non-smokable products. Do you have a comment on that from a health point of view?

[Mike Hammoud, President, Atlantic Convenience Stores Association]

Thank you.

Good afternoon, everyone. I'm Mike Hammoud, president of the Atlantic Convenience Stores Association, ACSA. On behalf of the ACSA, I'd like to thank the Standing Committee on Health for inviting us here today to speak on the labelling and packaging of retail cannabis as it pertains to Bill C-45.

Within the context of my presentation today, it is our understanding that the objectives of the act are to prevent minors 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. It is also our understanding that the act is intended to reduce the burden on the criminal justice system in relation to cannabis.

More specifically, the focus today is on the labelling and packaging of regulated cannabis products at retail. To that end, I believe our experience with tobacco retailing has significant relevance to the issues you are dealing with.

First, I will begin with some information about the ACSA, our members and our collaborators. Secondly, I would like to delve into the specific issues of the labelling and packaging of regulated cannabis sales, and our experiences with tobacco packaging and labelling.

The ACSA was established in 2009 as a not-for-profit trade organization to promote responsible convenience retailing and to represent the economic interests of our convenience store members. Today, our membership includes more than two-thirds of the convenience store locations operating in Atlantic Canada.

In collaboration with the Canadian Convenience Stores Association, the Western Convenience Store Association, the Ontario Convenience Stores Association, the Quebec Convenient Stores Association, and the National Convenience Stores Distributors Association, we have considerable experience with and insight into convenience retailing.

Convenience retailers are heavily regulated, be it lottery, food services, beverages, alcohol where available, and in particular tobacco. In tobacco retailing, we have experienced monumental change over the years and we have worked with regulators in our industry to achieve what we believe to be two primary goals. The first is to minimize tobacco consumption among minors; the second is to minimize the rampant distribution of illegal tobacco.

Ladies and gentlemen of the committee, I am of the firm belief that we can bring relative and pertinent insights to your deliberations, so let's move on to the labelling and packaging of federally or provincially regulated cannabis at retail.

At present, legislation—Bill S-5—has been put forward that would introduce plain packaging for tobacco products in Canada. As mentioned earlier, this legislation would eliminate the branding of products. By this we mean the trademarks, individual logos, graphics and colours that differentiate one product from another. With a standardized generic package, the only brand identification would be the product name in a small and simple standardized font. Everything inside would look the same.

The catalyst for this is Australian plain-packaging legislation that came into effect in late 2012. However, that example and others demonstrates that plain packaging doesn't work. In the case of Australia, the reality is that an examination of all publicly available, relevant and reliable data, after five years points to the same conclusion, that there's been no statistically significant decline in Australian smoking prevalence. In the Australian plain-packaging environment, there has also been a dynamic shift in market share between legal and illegal tobacco products, with consumption of illegal products increasing.

Is there a correlation between plain packaging and illegal consumption? Our Australian colleagues are of the opinion, and we concur, that plain packaging is the catalyst for a race to the bottom in terms of the lowest price point being the primary purchase motivator. When the price becomes the primary purchase motivator, that opens the door to illegal purchases that can be made at a fraction of the price of legally sold product.

In Canada, we estimate that illegal products account for some 20% of the overall consumption of cigarettes, with the illegal market share being upwards of 33%, and higher in Ontario. In the end, labelling and packaging are immaterial to many tobacco purchases relative to access to cheap smokes. How would this be any different for retail sales of cannabis?

We know that many illegal cigarettes are sold unbranded and loose in poly bags, also known as baggies, but it should be noted that plain packaging opens the door to increased distribution and sales of counterfeit or look-alike packaged cigarettes, simply because it is so much easier for illegal producers to replicate the packaging. Will your average smoker know the difference? It's unlikely.

More recently, plain tobacco packaging became mandatory in France as of January 1 this year, in what was described by proponents as a decisive weapon against smoking. To the surprise and shock of many, first-quarter sales of cigarettes in France increased 7% compared with the same period in 2016. The French health ministry dismissed the sales increase, saying that plain packaging would not influence current smokers, that plain packaging was principally targeting younger people, and that the impact would only become apparent in the medium- to long-term future. What we have, then, is a plain-packaging advocate saying that plain packaging will have no impact on established smokers, and that the target population for plain packaging is youth.

Well, look at the situation in the Canadian context. As far back as 2003, there have been strict rules in place in Canada related to tobacco marketing that prevent the advertising or promotion of tobacco, testimonials, accessories, and anything else tobacco-related that could be appealing to young people. Today there is also mandatory use of locked cabinets or screens at point of sale to hide tobacco products from display.

At the same time, a large majority of retailers are vigilant in screening out underage buyers through the widespread practice of asking for proof of age identification. Our industry takes great pride in its ability to be a responsible and diligent partner to government in the controlled sale of age-restricted products like tobacco. Such training programs as “We Expect ID” are a commitment to assist retailers and their staff in upholding the highest standards of professionalism and ethical conduct and to support public health and safety. Underage youth in Canada today have negligible exposure to cigarette packaging and labelling. In our opinion, the unintended impacts of plain packaging, such as the lowest-price mentality among consumers or the risk of increased contraband sales, far outweigh any perceived benefits.

It is notable that youth cannabis smoking rates in Canada are twice as high as youth smoking rates. According to Health Canada, the national youth tobacco smoking rate in 2015 was 10%, while the national youth cannabis smoking rate was 21%. Generic packaging would not be an effective tool in achieving what is a common goal for all of us, which is negligible rates of both tobacco and cannabis consumption among youth. We believe that if governments are serious about reducing smoking, be it tobacco or cannabis, then there is much more work that can be done in the areas of education and smoking cessation.

Convenience retailers believe that the types of initiatives in place for tobacco retail sales in Canada can be replicated effectively for the retail sale of cannabis without resorting to the questionable value and impact of plain labelling and packaging. As is the case with tobacco, industry, anti-cannabis groups, health care organizations, and governments should work together to minimize the number of youth and adults consuming cannabis.

In conclusion, we recommend to the committee that branding on cannabis retail packaging be allowed for two important reasons: one, to reduce the ability of criminals to produce and distribute contraband product; and two, to minimize the impact of lowest price point by educating and allowing legal consumers to make informed decisions on their product choices.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

We're reconvening our meeting number 67 of the Standing Committee on Health. We're studying Bill C-45 on cannabis. Our panel this afternoon is going to discuss labelling and packaging.

Our witnesses today are Dr. David Hammond, professor, University of Waterloo School of Public Health and Health Systems, by video conference.

From the Atlantic Convenience Stores Association, we have Mr. Mike Hammoud, president; and from the Non-Smokers' Rights Association, we have Melodie Tilson, director of policy, and Pippa Beck, senior policy analyst.

Each organization will have a 10-minute opening statement, and then we'll open it up for questions from the members.

We will start with Dr. Hammond for 10 minutes.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

You anticipated where I was going next, which is enforcement. Who will be responsible for enforcing Bill C-45on reserve lands and band land?

[Chief Isadore Day]

It is always important to be mindful of the changes to come in how colonial legislation includes the impact on the first nations' ability to generate revenues to appropriately govern their nations.

In conclusion, there are a lot of unanswered questions about how the legal sale of cannabis will affect first nations. This is why the AFN is calling for a national cannabis summit. How will our communities benefit in terms of economic opportunities and revenue-sharing? How will our people be affected in terms of health and safety, and how much funding will the federal government set aside for first nations in terms of education, especially for our youth, on the impacts of cannabis? How will we use the many millions of dollars generated to treat the ongoing issue of cannabis addiction?

At the AFN's AGM this past July in Regina, Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale told the chiefs that there simply is no funding in the current budget to properly fund first nations police services. Canada must take funding of first nations policing services as its top priority. Before Bill C-45 becomes law next year, our communities must have the proper health, policing, and public safety resources in place.

Let me repeat, there appear to be more questions than answers. This leaves first nations—and, I might say, the feds, provinces, and territories—in a compromised state leading into an accelerated timeline on legislation.

To that end, my concluding question to the committee is, who is going to pay for the impact of hasty and forced legislation?

Thank you, and I'm open for questions.

[Chief Isadore Day, Ontario Regional Chief, Chiefs of Ontario]

Before I begin, I want to extend my condolences to the family, colleagues, and friends of Arnold Chan, a member of Parliament who passed away this morning. I'm sure he will be greatly missed by his Ontario Liberal caucus colleagues and members of Parliament, who valued his thoughtful contributions to the democratic process in Parliament. Just on a personal note, I've known Arnold Chan throughout the last 15 years, when he worked with Dalton McGuinty and in the private sector as well. He was an upstanding individual who will be sadly missed. Again, our condolences.

I also want to acknowledge the unceded territory of the Algonquin Nation. I am presenting here today as the Ontario regional chief. I'm also the national chair of the Assembly of First Nations chiefs committee on health.

As we all know, Bill C-45, the cannabis act, intends 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 safety by establishing strict product safety and product quality requirements, and to deter criminal activity by imposing serious criminal penalties on those operating outside of the legal framework. The act is also intended to reduce the burden on the criminal justice system in relation to cannabis.

As the committee has already heard earlier this week, police officials have stated they will not be prepared to deal with Bill C-45 when it becomes law on July 1, 2018. That's consistent among many jurisdictions and communities. It's accurate to say that first nations are also not prepared to deal with the ramifications of Bill C-45. In fact, this is a critical issue that is going to have huge impacts on first nations and all Canadians, but we're not yet in a position to fully understand and fully address those impacts.

In this part of my presentation I will probably put a lot of questions to the committee, because there are some unanswered questions, as you know.

The first is: does Canada even know the full impacts of cannabis yet? This is a situation where we're damned if we do and damned if we don't, and that speaks to the issue of engagement readiness. The reality is, the complexities of much of the process—just as an example, environmental legislation, or even getting communities' engagement ready, to ensure we have a substantive say on any legislative changes—make it a daunting task. It's complex in nature.

The Assembly of First Nations does not yet have a position on cannabis. It has been proposed that a national first nations summit on cannabis be held in the very near future.

In Ontario, it's accurate to say that first nations are much more engaged with the province's plan to establish a cannabis control board by July 1, 2018. Last Friday, when the Ontario government announced its cannabis plans, the chiefs of Ontario were briefed in advance by the Attorney General and the Minister of Finance. In the coming months, we will establish a bilateral table to work collectively on the Ontario cannabis control act. We are meeting with INAC minister on October 2, just prior to the first ministers' meeting. Rest assured, this will certainly be one of the major issues on the table for discussion.

Initial meetings with Ontario are proving to be respectful and focused on the real issues and challenges faced by first nations in preparation for the retail and distribution of cannabis. There will be many issues and opportunities that will need to be addressed. First, how will first nations communities regulate the sale and consumption of cannabis at the local level? Some of our communities may want to explore the potential of jointly owned cannabis operations, which will—or may—be federally approved.

What I mean is that there are going to be some jurisdictional issues and questions. As you know, unlike our brothers and sisters within the Métis community, we have a very specific land tenure under the Indian Act. Some communities may want to ban the sale and consumption of cannabis, much like dry communities ban alcohol, stemming specifically from provisions in the already embattled Indian Act.

Land governance, again, unlike with our Métis brothers and sisters, is going to be the crux of the challenges we face. All you have to do is look at the tobacco issues that we're faced with in many of our jurisdictions. I'll only speak for Ontario, but we have spent years dealing with those issues at the community level.

Any provincial legislation needs to have the flexibility to support first nations communities in pursuing development in ways that align with their own specific cultural and community values, for example the banning of recreational cannabis around community events and ceremonies. We take our protocols and ceremonies very seriously, and to a large extent cannabis has not been part of those ceremonies and community protocols. How do we deal with that? How is our jurisdiction respected if the communities set out their own laws and ordinances around that?

I remain optimistic that first nations will directly benefit from any revenue generated from these ventures. While historically Ontario first nations have been neglected in resource revenue-sharing with the Province of Ontario, this new industry provides an opportunity to turn a new leaf and to examine innovative revenue-sharing opportunities. We just need to avoid the potholes in the path going forward.

However, the biggest concern that first nations in Ontario and across the country have with Bill C-45 is the health and safety of our peoples. According to the national native alcohol and drug abuse program, cannabis is the second most-abused substance after alcohol, followed by cocaine and opioids. It was estimated as far back as 2003 in Ontario that an additional $33 million per year was needed to treat first nations drug and alcohol addictions. This is as a result of decades of underfunding.

What will happen when cannabis is legalized and more of our people are able to access this drug? We know there will be an increase in the need for addiction treatment. We know there will be a need for an increase in law enforcement as well. When the states of Colorado and Washington legalized cannabis sales in 2013, American Indian tribes were negatively impacted. This should be examined. Cannabis products were sold illegally on reservations as far as New Mexico, Arizona, and North and South Dakota. The primary targets were native American teenagers.

To quote the July 25, 2014 Denver Post article:

...tribal leaders are fighting a heroic but losing stand as state-legalized marijuana, cannibis-infused food, liquids, e-cigarette cartridges and other products make their way to young people from Colorado and Washington state-licensed dispensaries.

How are we going to ensure this does not happen here in Canada? For example, first nations policing is already chronically underfunded and understaffed. Over the past several decades the Chiefs of Ontario have passed at least 43 resolutions calling for more funding for first nations community policing.

To quote from our May 2017 “Strategy for a Safer Ontario” position paper:

The federal First Nations Policing Program fails to meet the needs of First Nations Police Services in Ontario, and its archaic assumptions place the safety of First Nations Officers and their community citizens at risk.

The Ontario Police Services Act provides a legislative basis for police services in the province of Ontario. However, first nations police services are not afforded the same protections other police services receive in the province, because there is no equivalent legislation for them specifically. Securing funding that is stable and sustainable is an ongoing necessity to improve the delivery of first nations police services. Funding is needed to build capacity to ensure the safety of first nations officers in responding to calls, to create specialized services, and to ensure there is adequate housing and infrastructure in support of first nations police services.

The need for training beyond front-line policing training is an integral part of community policing. This training should include cultural awareness training for native and non-native officers alike, so they understand the cultural norms of first nations communities. It should also include understanding social services, including dealing with addictions and other societal problems common in first nations communities.

On that list of quotes, I want to emphasize that you just had folks here from the police chiefs' organizations federally, and they were stating they are not going to be prepared, so you can only imagine what is going to need to be examined for first nations communities. We definitely are going to render ourselves hopeless here if something isn't looked at and responded to.

From the economic development standpoint to date, resource revenue-sharing agreements have largely been left to the provincial governments in relation to geological and environmental resources such as mining, forestry, and hydroelectric power. The bill has completely neglected any specific opportunity for first nations to participate meaningfully in or have any resources to appropriately respond to the implications of this emerging market.

Section 60 of Bill C-45 states that the Attorney General of Canada may enter into an agreement with the government of a province, or with any provincial, municipal, or local authority, respecting the sharing of fines and fees that are collected in respect to the prosecution of offences and for the compensation, administration, and enforcement of this act.

If the Government of Canada is serious about its dedication to a government-to-government relationship, first nations need to be included in this section to provide adequate responses to the implications of this bill within and surrounding first nations communities. This could include supporting first nations emergency responders, such as police, ambulance, and fire response, which will be impacted by manufacturing and sales within this emerging industry. A revenue-sharing agreement with first nations would ensure quality emergency response to promote community safety, which is an important factor in self-government.

While there may be some first nations that are unwilling to participate in the industry, which is their prerogative, there will be others that will want to participate as meaningful partners or even sole owners of related businesses. Within section 6.1(a), the minister may establish classes of applications for licences and permits. First nations should be a separate class and have a designated number of licences and permits attached to the class. The act permits the minister to revoke licences based on business incorporation being formed or organized outside of Canada.

As the Attorney General continues to work on federal legislation that impacts first nations' own ability to self-govern, more first nations will begin to assert their sovereignty and their jurisdictions. This could include self-regulation on cannabis but also on business licences and incorporation.

At this point, let me just make a very quick observation and suggestion. With respect to taxation in the province of Ontario, we know for sure that within the provincial and territorial regimes, when it comes to retail and distribution, that is going to be a ticket item. That's going to be part of the bottom line. We feel it's very important to examine what has happened in Ontario.

We will certainly want to explore the issue of taxation, and we know that the only way to do that within the context of the harmonized sales tax in Canada is through a CITCA. That was a heavy negotiation in Ontario. This legislation and the relevant policy-makers should be looking at that very closely, because taxation will become an issue.

[Clara Morin Dal Col, Minister of Health, Métis National Council]

Thank you.

Mr. Chair and committee members, thank you for the opportunity to participate in your hearing today. I am here in the capacity of minister of health of the Métis National Council. I am also the president of Métis Nation British Columbia. I'm pleased to be here to provide the Métis nation perspective on Bill C-45.

To provide some background, the Métis are a distinct aboriginal people as defined in section 35 of the Constitution. The Métis nation emerged with its own collective identity, language, culture, way of life, and self-government in the historic northwest prior to Canada's westward expansion following Confederation. The Métis nation continues to exist as a distinct aboriginal people and seeks to advance its right to self-determination, including self-government within Canada.

The Métis National Council is governed by five members. These governing members are Métis Nation British Columbia, Métis Nation of Alberta, Métis Nation of Saskatchewan, Manitoba Métis Federation, and the Métis Nation of Ontario. MNC governing members, through their registries and democratically elected governance structures at the local, regional, and provincial levels, are mandated and authorized to represent the citizens who comprise the Métis nation.

About one-third of all indigenous people in Canada identify as Métis. According to the 2011 census, more than 450,000 people reported they were Métis, with almost 85% located in the western provinces and Ontario. More than 70% of Métis live in urban centres, the largest concentrations being in Winnipeg, Edmonton, Vancouver, Calgary, Saskatoon, and Toronto.

I'd like to talk a bit about the overall health status of Métis people. In the Métis context, we take a “social determinants to health” approach. Everything is interrelated; what happens in one area impacts upon another.

Such historical and current events as residential and day schools, the sixties scoop, racism, loss of family unit security, loss of community wellness and unity, and loss of culture and language have had a lasting impact upon Métis health and wellness.

Métis are vulnerable to chronic diseases such as mental health disorders. These disorders include depression, anxiety, substance use, and chronic pain, including emotional pain. For example, we know from the Métis health status and health care utilization study done in Manitoba in 2010 that Métis had statistically higher rates of depression, anxiety, and substance use than the general population.

The federal task force on cannabis legalization and regulation spoke to the risks of vulnerable populations. The Métis are a vulnerable population in terms of overall health status. It is therefore important that we be involved as equal partners in the work ahead.

I would like to take this opportunity to commend the Prime Minister and Government of Canada for entering into the Canada-Métis Nation Accord in April of this year. This commitment sets out a nation-to-nation, government-to-government relationship between Canada and the Métis nation. Under this accord, we have co-committed to advancing a range of priorities, including Métis health and wellness.

Now I will speak more directly to the proposed legislation. The Métis National Council supports the stated purpose of Bill C-45, including its intent to protect the health of young persons by restricting their access to cannabis, to protect young persons and others from inducements to use cannabis, to reduce the burden on the criminal justice system, and to enhance public awareness of the health risks associated with cannabis use.

Unfortunately, we have not had the opportunity to engage with or consult our citizens and communities on the proposed bill or its regulatory framework. There are indeed a number of matters of importance to the Métis nation, including the potential impacts that legalizing marijuana will have on health and wellness, justice and corrections, and economic development.

The Métis National Council proposes four key recommendations to ensure that there are opportunities for more adequate engagement with the Métis nation in implementation matters.

Recommendation number one is that the Government of Canada ensure meaningful engagement of the Métis nation in the development and implementation of a regulatory framework for cannabis.

The task force advised the Government of Canada that successful implementation of a regulatory framework will take time and will require that governments meet a number of challenges with respect to capacity and infrastructure, oversight, coordination, and communications. It indicated that federal, provincial, municipal, and indigenous governments will need to work together on information and data sharing in coordination of efforts to set up and monitor new systems. Organizations that have appeared before the committee recognize the importance of consultations with indigenous communities on legislation, preventive measures, and interventions to meet local conditions and cultural requirements. We support these recommendations.

Recommendation number two is that the Government of Canada provide the Métis nation with resources to minimize the harms of cannabis use in the Métis population.

The Métis National Council agrees with the task force on cannabis legalization and regulations advice that a public health approach should be taken to promote health and reduce harm. This approach considers the risks associated with cannabis use, including the risks of developmental harms to youth. It is imperative that resources be provided to Métis governments to mitigate harms associated with cannabis use. The Métis nation is prepared to work with all levels of government to undertake health promotion activities and to develop approaches to minimize harms in the Métis population. Funding supports should be provided by the federal government to Métis governments to undertake this work.

Recommendation number three is that funding be provided by the Government of Canada to support prevention, education, and treatment supports, especially for Métis youth. Of particular concern to the Métis nation is the health and wellness of Métis youth.

We understand that legalizing cannabis will have impacts upon the Métis, particularly Métis youth. The Métis population is young. According to Statistics Canada, 41% of the Métis population is under 25, compared with 30% of the non-indigenous population. Many of our Métis youth are already dealing with issues surrounding drug use and addiction issues. We know from a Métis study by McCreary Centre Society in B.C. in 2013 that around half, 48%, of Métis youth had tried marijuana. Among those who had tried it, 23% had used marijuana on six or more days in the preceding month, 30% of males and 18% of females.

We want to ensure that Métis, including Métis children and youth, have access to information to enable them to make informed decisions. We also want to ensure that Métis children and youth have access to Métis-specific prevention, education, and treatment supports. On that front, we agree with the task force that governments should commit to using revenue from cannabis regulation as a source of funding for prevention. Funding should be provided to Métis governments to address these needs.

To minimize harms, we would like to see the minimum legal age set at 19 years. The age of 19 is consistent with the legal age of drinking in most provinces.

Recommendation number four is that the Government of Canada work with the Métis nation in enforcing public safety and protection. The Métis nation supports the task force's recommendations that the federal government take a leadership role to ensure that capacity is developed among all levels of government, including Métis governments, prior to the start of the regulatory regime; that it develop and coordinate national research and surveillance activities, including Métis population-specific research and surveillance; that it establish a surveillance and monitoring system inclusive of Métis; that it engage with indigenous governments, including Métis governments, to explore opportunities for their participation in the cannabis market; and that it engage with indigenous communities, including Métis communities, to develop targeted and culturally appropriate communications.

In particular, resources should be provided to implement an evidence-informed public education campaign targeting the Métis population. Métis are the experts in relation to their own health and health needs and can play a meaningful role in public education.

The Métis nation seeks to work as an equal partner in the development and implementation of regulatory matters and in optimizing help for Métis people in Canada. The Métis nation is committed to working with all levels of government to ensure that the task of legalizing and regulating cannabis is done carefully and safely. Métis governments have the ability to effectively reach Métis people and communities in ways no other government can do. We look forward to contributing to the work ahead.

Thank you again for the opportunity to participate in this panel. We welcome any questions you may have.

Marsi.

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Would your advice to this committee, as part of our clause-by-clause review of Bill C-45 and any amendments or attachments we decide to put with it, then be to address those five principles that you brought forward?

[Norm Keith]

There is more attention. The companion legislation to Bill C-45—Bill C-46—is moving towards dealing with a framework for public safety, in particular motor vehicle safety, and as technology advances and law enforcement concerns are understood and reflected in legislation, that will be dealt with.

Most Canadians seem to be more worried about public safety on our roadways than about workplace safety. My experience, if I have any expertise, is more in occupational workplace safety. It is a matter for concern, because it seems as though we're valuing the travelling public on the road more than we are the worker in the workplace.

I think there should be complementary legislative proactive testing measures taken. The proviso and the theme of the legislative framework I'm recommending is hopefully striking a balance between respecting workers' privacy and their need for assistance if they're proven to be impaired. There can, however, be as much or more harm done in a dangerous workplace or to a travelling member of the public—situations in which you have public safety but also occupational safety at play—than there would be with roadway safety.

The statistics are that for every person killed on the roadway you have about one person killed in the workplace, and it seems that the workplace risk of fatalities is being given less attention. That's why I've emphasized the points I have.

[Trina Fraser]

Mr. Chairman and committee members, thank you for having me here today.

I'm going to approach the panel topic of workplace safety from a different perspective, from the employee perspective, and specifically from the perspective of a specific group of employees, those being the thousands of workers across the country who currently work within the illicit cannabis industry.

It is estimated that over 13,000 individuals in British Columbia alone participate and work in the illicit cannabis industry. This represents an estimated wage amount of over $600 million. These are obviously estimates only. We don't have reliable statistics, but I think it's safe to say that across the country we're talking about tens of thousands of workers involved in cultivation, processing, or sales of illicit cannabis. The safety of these workers is threatened in a number of ways. In the retail sector, dispensary workers face a threat to their personal safety through the risk of robbery. Dispensaries are a ripe target for thieves due to cash on hand and due to the fact that thieves know that there's a good chance the robbery won't even get reported to the police. There may be environmental risks associated with working in an unregulated grow op or lab, and of course, the personal liberty of these workers is threatened by the risk of criminal prosecution.

I'm here to suggest to you today that the risks to these workers can be mitigated while simultaneously the objectives of legalization are advanced as these workers are provided a meaningful opportunity to participate within the legal market. This can be done by codifying within the bill and the regulations to the bill a tolerance for applicants with certain prior illicit market participation.

Subclause 62(7) of Bill C-45 provides that the minister may refuse to issue a production licence if the applicant has contravened the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the CDSA, in the past 10 years. That, in and of itself, excludes anyone who has been convicted of producing, trafficking, or even possessing cannabis in the last decade. The bill also provides that additional grounds for refusal may be prescribed by regulation.

We don't yet know what those regulations will look like, but we can look to the current access to cannabis for medical purposes regulations, the ACMPR, for a sense of this. In section 36 of the ACMPR, not only is the minister required to refuse to issue a production licence where the CDSA has been contravened in the past 10 years, but the minister is also required to refuse to issue a licence where law enforcement has provided information that raises reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant has been involved in the diversion of a controlled substance to an illicit market. The use of the words “reasonable grounds” here is important because it means that a conviction is not required. Charges are not even required. A mere reasonable suspicion is sufficient to result in the refusal of your application.

In addition, the ACMPR provides that all directors and officers of a licensed producer as well as certain key employees must be security cleared. Clause 67 of Bill C-45 also refers to security clearances, so it appears that this concept is being brought forward into the cannabis act, and again, under section 112 of the ACMPR, mere reasonable grounds to suspect that the applicant has been involved in the diversion of a controlled substance to the illicit market is a factor to be taken into account by the minister in deciding whether to grant a security clearance.

Under the ACMPR clearly we have a framework that essentially denies prior illicit cannabis market participants from obtaining a licence to produce medical cannabis, and also precludes them from holding many key positions with a licensed producer. This also creates a chilling effect on licensed producers with regard to hiring those with prior cannabis convictions, and it appears that we are heading in the same direction with Bill C-45.

This can be contrasted with the approach that's being taken in the United States. Of the eight states in the U.S. that licensed the production of recreational cannabis, seven have legislation that contains what I would refer to as amnesty provisions regarding prior cannabis convictions. Massachusetts, Nevada, and Colorado deny licences to those with a prior felony conviction, but they expressly exclude certain marijuana offences from that rule. Oregon, Maine, and Washington exclude certain marijuana convictions completely from the consideration of whether a licence should be granted. The draft regulations in California are the most inclusive. They provide that a prior conviction for the possession, sale, manufacture, or cultivation of a controlled substance, not involving minors, shall not form the sole ground for denial of a licence application. At least 11 states that have legalized medical cannabis also have some form of amnesty provisions in their legislation.

What I submit to you is that this is the direction we need to take in Canada as well. We need to consider and debate the parameters of acceptable prior illicit market participation. Many of these individuals would embrace the opportunity to operate legally. They would comply with regulations. Granted, some would choose to continue to operate outside of the law, so as not to be burdened by government regulation, and so be it. They would be dealt with on the offence and enforcement side of the equation, but there should be an opportunity to comply and participate.

At the very least, mere possession offences should not inhibit legal market participation, but what I'm suggesting is that we should go further than that because the cannabis entrepreneurs that I'm referring to are producing and selling cannabis products, so they would still be excluded. We need a more nuanced approach to the issue of licensing and who should be prohibited from obtaining a licence. For example, we can exclude those convicted of offences that involve young persons. We can exclude those with established connections to organized crime. We can exclude those convicted of offences that involved guns, violence, or controlled substances other than cannabis. We can build reasonable parameters that exclude those who are likely to be a threat to public health and safety, while also providing an opportunity for those who would not be.

I am a business lawyer. I have advised the medical cannabis industry since it was privatized three and a half years ago with the MMPR. I have seen the shortcomings of this system, but I've also seen the potential of this industry. Current licence producers are not averse to an inclusive industry. What they want is for everybody to be on a level playing field and to be subject to the same set of rules. I'm certainly not suggesting this from the perspective of being a cannabis activist and I'm not suggesting that illicit market participants have somehow earned the right to participate as a reward for their civil disobedience. I'm suggesting it because I believe it's the only way legalization is really going to work. The stated objectives of the bill include the reduction of the illicit market and it attempts to do so by imposing criminal sanctions on those operating outside of the legal framework, but this, in and of itself, will not work. We know this because it hasn't worked. Those who are excluded will continue to operate outside of the law. A better approach would be to design a framework for legalization which permits the inclusion of prior illicit market participants. This will enhance the public health and safety objective by subjecting those individuals to government oversight and regulation. It will increase tax revenues, as these individuals report and pay tax on their income. It will allow the legal industry to benefit from the breadth of knowledge that is possessed by these individuals and it will protect these individuals, by allowing them to work in a safe, regulated environment, free from the risk of criminal sanctions. If we fail to create an inclusive cannabis industry, the black market will thrive, and if it thrives, cannabis will continue to be easily accessible to minors, the public health and safety objective of restricting access to unregulated cannabis products will be compromised, and we will continue to place an unnecessary burden on the criminal justice system.

I would also add that a meaningful opportunity to transition into the legal market involves having regulations which are not so onerous that they effectively exclude small operators. The task force on cannabis legalization and regulation, in fact, recommended that the government encourage market diversity by creating a space for smaller producers. Under the ACMPR, what I am seeing is that the cost of compliance, in particular relating to security requirements, is a real barrier to small-scale production, and a meaningful opportunity to transition also requires expanding the scope of cannabis products to include edibles and other derivative products. This is what the market wants and demands and it will be required in order to transition the existing producers of these derivative products into the legal market.

Thank you.

[Brenda Baxter, Director General, Workplace Directorate, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development]

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, I am very pleased to appear before you to discuss workplace safety.

I am accompanied by my colleague Eric Advokaat, senior director of Occupational Health and Safety.

Responsibility for labour matters in Canada, including workplace safety, is shared between the federal, provincial, and territorial governments. For more than 100 years now, the labour program has been protecting the rights and well-being of both workers and employers in federally regulated sectors, which represent approximately 8% of Canadian workers. This includes creating and maintaining safe and healthy workplaces.

As part of its mandate, the labour program is equally responsible for the administration and enforcement of the Non-smokers' Health Act.

Enacted in 1989, the purpose of the Non-smokers’ Health Act and the non-smokers' health regulations is to protect non-smokers from second-hand smoke in federally regulated workplaces, including in the federal private sector, federal crown corporations, designated federal agencies, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the federal public service, and Parliament, as well as on certain modes of transportation, such as ships, trains, and aircraft.

The administration of the Non-smokers’ Health Act is the joint responsibility of the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour and the Minister of Transport. The former is responsible for the act's application to federally regulated workplaces, and the latter for its application to common federally regulated transportation carriers.

The Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour is solely responsible for designating inspectors to ensure compliance with the act. Fines for offences under the Non-smokers’ Health Act range from $1,000 to $10,000 for employers, and $50 to $1,000 for individuals.

Since 2007, over the past 10 years, there have been a total of 39 complaints under the Non-smokers’ Health Act, with an average of less than two per year in the past five years. This represents 1% of all of the health and safety complaints under just one part of the Canada Labour Code. There are very few complaints under this act.

To date, no prosecution has been filed under the Non-smokers' Health Act.

Since the Non-smokers' Health Act and the non-smokers' health regulations were introduced in 1989, public views with regard to smoking and second-hand smoke have greatly evolved.

In 2007, in light of scientific evidence on the danger of second-hand smoke, the non-smokers' health regulations were amended to eliminate provisions allowing for the designation of smoking rooms and areas in federally regulated workplaces. Since then, all persons, including employees and members of the public, have been prohibited from smoking in any federally regulated workplace and on certain modes of transportation, except in highly restricted smoking areas such as living accommodations or motor vehicles to which only one person has access during a shift.

More recently, new amendments to the Non-smokers' Health Act were proposed under Bill S-5, An Act to amend the Tobacco Act and the Non-smokers’ Health Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

The proposed tobacco and vaping products act, Bill S-5, would amend the Non-smokers' Health Act to add a prohibition against the vaping of tobacco in federally regulated workplaces and on certain modes of transportation. In addition, the task force on cannabis legalization and regulation recommended that federal, provincial, and territorial jurisdictions extend the current restrictions in place for smoking tobacco to the smoking of cannabis. As a result, amendments to the Non-smokers' Health Act are correspondingly being proposed through Bill C-45.

Bill C-45 proposes to amend the definition of smoke under the Non-smokers' Health Act to include cannabis. Provincial and territorial governments would be responsible for deciding whether to restrict the smoking and vaping of tobacco and cannabis to other public spaces. Should both these bills be approved by Parliament, the smoking and vaping of tobacco or cannabis would be regulated under the Non-smokers' Health Act in all federally regulated workplaces and on certain modes of transportation such as trains, planes, and boats where they cross provincial or international boundaries.

The changes we are proposing would assist in the protection of employees' health and safety at work under federal jurisdiction purview.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.