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.

[Dr. Mary Bartram]

Because of the Cannabis Act, there's a regulatory framework for making cannabis available under certain restrictions. The Cannabis Act is currently under review, which just opened up a few weeks back.

It's very difficult to know whether legalization has driven the increased rates of cannabis use among those who use that, as I mentioned earlier, or how much of that is part of the response to the stresses and distress during the pandemic, with the social isolation and that whole constellation of mental health and substance use impacts.

I think the answer to your question is going to be examined over the review of the Cannabis Act. We have a suite of research on the relationship between mental health and cannabis, which the Mental Health Commission has been funding for the past five years, so we look forward to bringing those findings into that conversation. It's not a direct answer, but nevertheless it's the one that I would give.

[Ted Haney]

Sure.

For our industry, assuming the Cannabis Act and the industrial hemp regulations are appropriately implemented, I believe that we will move from our current 60,000 acres to 229,000 acres, with farm grade sales of $340 million, a billion dollars of industry sales, a half a billion dollars in exports and almost 5,000 jobs, contributing $2 billion to the Canadian economy.

That's the prize for industry, for Canadian agriculture and the Canadian economy, just by implementing the Cannabis Act and industrial hemp regulations as written and as intended by Parliament.

[Ted Haney]

I think it begins with implementing the Cannabis Act and the industrial hemp regulations as they are written and, more importantly, as Parliament intended them to be implemented. That will be a great start.

There are amendments to both that will be helpful to more fully open our industry while protecting human health and the environment, but just implementing those two documents as intended will be of great assistance.

[Ted Haney]

Yes.

The dual approach of Health Canada, which was to implement a completely unjustified interpretation of zero tolerance for any non-THC cannabinoid in any hemp process product, really put an end to hemp entering the natural health products and veterinary health products sector completely and has absolutely put additional risk in the highly value-added processes or programs in hemp fibre, as well as hemp foods from seed and stock. Because Health Canada has basically treated the whole plant as cannabis, the ability to use hemp roots to extract bioactives and/or to infuse the product for even topical lotions has been completely voided.

We have a major issue with Health Canada treating hemp as cannabis, which is the opposite of what the intentions of the Cannabis Act and the industrial hemp regulations were in the first place.

[Keith Jones]

Thank you very much, Mr. Shields.

We found that with the uncertainty around the interpretation of the regulation, farmers are finding it too risky to seed hemp and to plant hemp. CHTA has collected numerous examples of how food processors have approached Health Canada with regard to including hemp protein or hemp oil in their food formulations and have been told by Health Canada that in order to do so and to comply with the requirements for CBD, the food processors need to register under the Cannabis Act as licensed processors.

Well, they aren't intending to get into the cannabis business. They're planning to use the exempted parts of the plant—the hemp grain and the hemp stock—for their processes, but Health Canada has advised them they'd need to get licences to be part of the Cannabis Act.

Because of that risk, processors have shut down. Processors are not expanding their businesses. Other food companies are not looking at adding hemp protein, which is a fantastic protein, or hemp oil, which is a sensational functional oil, into their formulations, and as a result, we've seen our acreage drop by half and continue to drop.

[Ted Haney, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Hemp Trade Alliance]

Thank you very much. Hopefully my mike issues have been addressed.

To summarize the high points, there have been a number of areas in which Health Canada's administration has caused damage. The high points really are that the line between industrial hemp and THC has become less clear in many ways and therefore things have not been delineated. In particular, Health Canada has created interpretation barriers that hinder and block value-added processing of hemp in Canada, and as a result of that, investment in food, feed, fibre and fractions processing has been lower and in some cases has moved outside Canada.

Regulated processes guiding hemp breeding and cultivar registration have become more complex and less transparent, which has resulted in less innovation and higher risk. Health Canada's regulatory interpretation regarding non-THC cannabinoids in hemp products is inconsistent with both the Cannabis Act and industrial hemp regulations. This has introduced risk and uncertainty, which in turn has reduced seeded acres and investments in value-added processing.

Health Canada's regulatory management has really—

[Keith Jones, Board Chair, Canadian Hemp Trade Alliance]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the committee for hearing from us today.

Our organization has been involved as the Canadian national organization for the Canadian hemp industry. The Canadian Hemp Trade Alliance was established in 2003 to advance the industry. We have over 240 members from all 10 provinces and one of the two territories right across the country. We represent over 240 members, spanning the entire value chain, from producers right through to processors and companies that are making hemp products in the food industry.

I'm involved with a hemp farm in Alberta and have been board chair for the last five years at Canadian Hemp Trade Alliance.

Since the passage of the Cannabis Act, Health Canada has, unfortunately, significantly harmed the Canadian hemp industry through inattention, neglect and wholly inappropriate regulatory interpretation. This has directly contributed to the significant loss of hemp acreage in Canada, from 118,000 acres in 2017 to 60,000 acres in 2021, and likely even less this year. Health Canada's regulatory oversight has significantly undermined Canada's position as the global leader in hemp for food.

Today we are asking the committee to engage an emergency study on the current regulatory oversight of hemp under the Cannabis Act and the industrial hemp regulations. The results of that study, we believe, will support our request to move the responsibility for the hemp file from Health Canada, which doesn't understand it, to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, which does understand it.

Our industry grew significantly from 1998, when the production and processing of hemp was legalized in Canada, right through to 2017. The Cannabis Act came into force in 2018.

In 2017, our industry generated more than $180 million in sales, exported $97 million in value-added products, supported over 1,000 jobs, provided $9 million in federal and provincial corporate taxes and contributed approximately $370 million to the Canadian economy.

As Mr. Dubois testified, in addition to being an excellent source of plant oils and proteins, hemp is a tremendous contributor to carbon sequestration and low-emission agricultural production. Competitors in the U.S., Europe, Australia, China and other countries are awakening to the potential of hemp and are amending their regulatory regimes to enable this important crop.

The passing of the Cannabis Act and the industrial hemp regulations was intended to consolidate all hemp-related regulation, delineate between hemp and high-THC cannabis, streamline regulatory processes and remove certain restrictions. Unfortunately, this hasn't happened. Our industry has been damaged since Health Canada began regulating it under the new Cannabis Act.

The entire industry is concerned about the regulatory implementation. It's less concerned about the Cannabis Act itself and the industrial hemp regulations themselves, although there are definitely opportunities for improvement. It's more about the interpretation of those regulations and how Health Canada has actually regulated hemp. Despite hemp seed and hemp stalks being exempted from the Cannabis Act under schedule 2, Health Canada has continued to regulate all hemp and provide advice to any people in the industry interested in using hemp, as it is a controlled substance that requires a cannabis type of handling.

CHTA concurs with Mr. Dubois' testimony that it is time for a review of the regulatory environment and an amendment to the regulatory practices, which are damaging the industry.

I will turn it over to Mr. Haney to share some specific examples. CHTA has a great deal of evidence to provide in this regard.

[David Hurford]

I'll be brief.

I don't disagree with what Tim said earlier on the measurement, but given how difficult it is to move Health Canada—they're stuck on square feet—we felt it was just easier to continue down that road, but I think the Cannabis Act review should help that. We know it should be larger, and we know doubling the current size is very doable.

The last thing I would say is that I would really start with the medical farmers. We have 35,000 licensed medical farmers in this country who have been producing medical cannabis with some challenges along the way, as we've heard. We should start with them. These are expert farmers. None of them have really been approached in any systemic way to say, would you like to transition?

The BC Centre for Disease Control tested the cannabis coming from these medical farmers and found that 15% to 20% of all of the cannabis they're producing could pass the testing regime right now. I would start in a systemic way with really looking at all of those medical farmers who are in the system, who have done their checks, and the municipal government knows they're there, and to start looking at systemically transitioning them into the legal marketplace, or recognizing that these are expert growers and then working our way up from there. Then we could maybe provide a little more flexibility on the top end of the micro category for people to grow.

[David Hurford]

Absolutely, and I congratulate the Kootenay council for their excellent work. Tim may be able to give you a better technical answer on this.

I think the broader scope, particularly around the issues of microbes, is that the laws have really been brought in without a lot of engagement and consultation with the experts. This is a good example, I think, where we have a “made in Ottawa” policy that really doesn't reflect what's going on, and it has some unintended consequences for the sector.

I hope this will be a key point that we can delve into as we review the Cannabis Act, because it really does prohibit a lot of the practices that we want to see, such as regenerative farming in traditional soils and giving back to the earth instead of taking away from it. We pioneer that in British Columbia, and we're very proud of it.

I think this is one of those examples of where a lack of engagement and a lack of consultation with experts really has created some unintended consequences.

I might defer to Tim a little bit more on the details on that question—

[George Smitherman]

I'm happy to answer that question.

I'm also happy to offer—if it's appropriate—to Mr. Epp that I believe some of your questions pertain to the personal grow model that Health Canada allows as a separate licensing regime for individuals who have paperwork from a medical practitioner. We've taken issue with that, because sometimes those medical practitioners are issuing notes which call for a very significant number of plants that is well in excess of the number that Mr. Deighton would be allowed to grow, I believe, within his limitation of footprint.

Mr. Deighton has spoken about a medical licence from Health Canada within the Cannabis Act, but prior to that and continuing through, Health Canada also grants a grower's personal grow exemption. Some of the scale of that is very challenging to us in various parts of the country, and it was probably a focus of the OPP report that you've referenced, sir.

I hope that intervention might be helpful to the committee.

[George Smitherman, President and Chief Executive Officer, Cannabis Council of Canada]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Let me begin by saying what a privilege it is to appear before the committee today. I would like to say that the Cannabis Council of Canada would be well aligned on significant portions of the previous witness testimony, and thank you for that. As an industry that enjoys so many regulatory relations with Health Canada and CRA, we feel very at home amongst those who focus on Canada's growers.

Cannabis and cannabinoids are a value-added agricultural crop contributing billions to a sector that is rapidly leveraging research and technology to create innovative products for millions of adult Canadian consumers. Through the leadership of the government and parliamentarians, including so many of you, our products are trusted globally and we are quietly exporting millions in medicinal cannabis products to welcoming nations and patients. That global market for cannabis exports is rapidly expanding and is estimated to reach $100 billion U.S. by 2030. At least 55 countries currently have or are considering purposeful cannabinoid regulations. Canada's remains the most consequential global cannabinoid legalization initiative, but first mover advantages are proving perishable.

Considering that there are more than 800 licences issued under the , Bill C-45, it's fair to say our licence-holders can be found in all of Canada's regions, and with more than 3,000 retail stores and a truly diverse ancillary services sector, our industry is everywhere, just like our consumers and our community. During our industry lobby day we met with parliamentarians and focused on five key asks where we need to see change if the fuller potential of the goals of legalization are going to be achieved. I want to draw your attention to the threat of the very sustainability of many licence-holders of all sizes posed by unsustainably high taxes, fees and markups that leave almost nobody cash-flow positive. Undercapitalized micros are the most vulnerable.

Just as a quick reminder, licence-holders—sometimes referred to as “LHs”, especially by Health Canada—come in various sizes of operations. Prior to the Cannabis Act, the medical cannabis regulations in place created a very high bar for facilities and operators, and were an important element that made the legalization of adult recreational cannabis possible following 2015. The regulatory model did not create avenues for historic or legacy producers to find their way into the new legal cannabis supply chain, and in response the micro category was introduced. The trade-off was simple: in exchange for a very small footprint, micro cultivators or throughput micro processors were born with watered down regulations in areas ranging from internal and external security, through to the requirements to have a quality assurance individual on staff.

Previously, it was presumed that the legacy grower with the micro licence would produce cannabis and sell it up the food chain to a larger scale licensed producer with brand and market reach. That marketplace, dominated by a few large players, has not emerged and the numerous micros, including C3 member HRVSTR, led by Ashley and Michael Athill, have fought for the direct-sale-through-distributor model to the provincial boards. In response, Health Canada recently shifted approaches and proactively provided sales licence status to all applicants, including micros, which implied an understanding that micros would be directly involved in sales to distributors, namely, to the provincial boards.

Here are some of the current challenges that micros are facing even beyond the overall burden of taxes, fees and distribution markups that fundamentally impair our ability to compete with the unregulated market.

The micro scale makes it difficult to generate enough revenue to support some of the services implied by a direct sales model. Our organization is on the record as favouring an increase in the footprint or processing volume of micros.

Quality assurance stands out as an area where our coordinated plan to build capacity through shared services and best-practices models should be developed with support from AAFC.

Financial services access, and especially very expensive requirements for boutique recall insurance from the provincial distributors, requires special attention.

The smallest players in a nascent agricultural sector need nurturing support, and a cannabis lens should be applied to current programs to ensure fairness. For instance, a micro cultivator with an outdoor grow would not enjoy the same protection from weather-related risks as adjacent crops, because cannabis is not on the list.

Finally, Mr. Chair, achieving the objective of eliminating the illicit market includes the need for the integration of legacy growers into a sustainable environment that includes support for BIPOC communities that have historically borne the greatest price for cannabis legalization.

Thank you for the time. I appreciate the opportunity.

[David Hurford, Secretary, BC Craft Farmers Co-op]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the committee for the opportunity to speak to you on this important topic.

The BC Craft Farmers Co-op was established two years ago to help B.C.'s legendary craft cannabis farmers transition to the legal market and maintain our province's global brand for cannabis excellence. We operate under the co-operatives act of B.C., in the tradition of thousands of other agriculture co-ops across Canada.

Our B.C. cannabis farmers are truly a national asset. They are the best in the world at what they do, and they should be celebrated. Unfortunately, the federal government's micro-licensing regime is excluding thousands of them, not just in B.C. but across Canada. In the first three-plus years of legalization, barely 80 of B.C.'s craft farmers have completed Health Canada's micro-class regulation maze. By comparison, 6,000 medical farmers in B.C. are licensed with Health Canada. A cannabis policy reset is definitely required to realize the full potential of legalization in Canada and unleash B.C.'s craft cannabis community.

In April our organization hosted a summit in Kelowna with the Association of Canadian Cannabis Retailers. Over three days, about 400-plus leaders in the sector came together to hash out some of the challenges created by the federal regime, among other things. Today I'm honoured to present just a couple of the constructive policy proposals that were reviewed, voted on and prioritized by delegates during the summit. There are three of them, and I'll touch on them quickly.

First, the federal government should officially recognize across all legislation that cannabis is actually a legitimate and legal farm activity and product. Canada still does not define cannabis in this way. The B.C. government is planning to exclude structures for use in producing cannabis in the agricultural land reserve. This reality is keeping craft farmers from being eligible for most government assistance.

Second, we need to help these craft farmers transition into this new legal regime and create thousands of rural jobs across Canada. A thousand licensed farmers in B.C. have the potential to create three to four thousand jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars in new revenue for taxpayers over the next two to three years. These farmers and processors should be able to access capital, grants and small business loans that other agriculture sectors can access. We believe that with the new Pacific economic development agency, a craft cannabis partnership can be created with all the players involved to really grow the sector's capacity. We think there should be economic development grants for indigenous and local governments that want to expand craft cannabis.

Finally, the Cannabis Act needs a reset. It is up for review this year. It continues to rely heavily on the punitive and authoritarian approach that we saw during prohibition. This review does present an opportunity to reset. We believe an all-party House of Commons committee should be the one reviewing the act instead of Health Canada, as oversight is required. We also believe there are some small changes that the minister can make immediately to the act without any disruption in advance of the review, particularly related to the micro production caps, security pre-clearances and so on.

If significant improvements are not made over the coming year and Health Canada continues to approve licences at the current slow rate, summit delegates resolved that jurisdiction should be transferred to an agency mandated to support the industry and help it flourish. We have submitted all these proposals to the various ministers of health, innovation, agriculture and rural development.

To conclude, there's been a lot of speculation about why Canada's industry has not taken off since legalization three years ago and why the illicit market is still such a significant element. The reason is that cannabis legalization has deprived consumers of what they want. They want fresh, locally grown cannabis by farmers who respect the plant and are passionate about their craft. Canada's legalization task force anticipated the risk of excluding these micro farmers. Otherwise, the task force predicted the development of unhealthy monopolies and large conglomerates, and that's what we're experiencing now in our industry.

Our proposals are designed to be practical measures that can achieve win-win scenarios for consumers, small businesses, rural economies, agriculture industries and Canada's tourism sector as well. Working together, we can ensure that the legacy of cannabis legalization is not just that people are no longer arrested for possession of small amounts of cannabis. Instead, the legacy should be tens of thousands of Canadians who are proudly employed and making an honest living for their families doing something they love to do for the benefit of others.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Bill C-10—Time Allocation Motion

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and, from what I am seeing from the current government, possibly a privilege to be able to rise and speak to Bill C-10. I rise representing the good people of North Okanagan—Shuswap.

I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill.

Bill C-10 is the Liberal government's attempt to have the online streaming giants contribute their fair share to Canadian content and the retention of Canadian culture, but it has gone terribly wrong. World wars have been fought to protect our rights and freedom of speech, and we must never let those rights and freedoms be eroded. Freedom of expression must always be protected.

How did this bill go so terribly wrong? When the minister and the current government introduced Bill C-10 last November, the Minister of Canadian Heritage told the House that the bill's amendments to the Broadcasting Act were aimed at benefiting Canadian artists and musicians by forcing web giants to increase investments in Canadian content. That is something I think we all agree on. This initial commitment seemed reasonable, especially considering the need for our Broadcasting Act to be modernized in light of the major changes in where and how we now source music, television and film entertainment.

A couple of weeks later, the minister told the House that Bill C-10 was aimed at film, television and music-streaming services, like Netflix and Spotify, and that the government was committed to introducing another bill aimed at social media platforms, like Facebook and so on. At that time, the minister also stated that user-generated content would not be subject to new regulations.

Despite these assurances, the bill's progression took a sudden turn on April 23, when the Liberal members at committee suddenly amended the bill to extend its powers to the regulation of user-generated content on social media platforms. A bill originally presented as essential to protecting and ensuring continued Canadian content suddenly became a government bill seeking to regulate what Canadians say and share on social media. Smart phone apps were also added to the purview of the proposed regulations.

These amendments prompted strong reactions from my Conservative colleagues and me, but they also sparked a strong reaction from social media experts and Canadians. I have heard more from my constituents in North Okanagan—Shuswap about their concerns regarding the freedoms they could lose through this amendment and this bill than about any other topic in recent history. That is how concerned Canadians are for their freedom of expression.

What we see all around the world, and here in Canada today, is that social media has rapidly become the central platform used by citizens to express their rejections or protests against injustices, including those of government. The proposals of Bill C-10 open the door for the federal government and its regulatory agency, the CRTC, to undermine our ability to continue exercising our critical democratic freedom of expression. After 14 months of living with pandemic restrictions, many Canadians isolated at home and relying on social media for information, connectivity and entertainment, I strongly question why the government has chosen this time to radically change how Canadians can use social media.

I would also like to speak tonight about unintended consequences. It is something we have seen far too much of recently from the government, the unintended consequences of poorly drafted legislation. The case I want to tie into this debate tonight is the poorly drafted legislation in the government's Cannabis Act, Bill C-45, and how it is now having an impact on my constituents in North Okanagan—Shuswap.

I have now heard from constituents who are no longer able to get residential home insurance. Why? Because of poorly crafted and passed legislation. It has been disastrous for these constituents.

One man living on disability and trying to do things by the book was paying $1,000 for his home insurance. That bill then went up to $4,000 per year, then $5,500, then $6,500 and now more than $7,000 per year for a man living on disability. Why? Because he grows cannabis under a medical licence, but he grows more than four plants. Four plants is the maximum allowed under the government legislation. His insurance company has basically raised his rates to the point where he has to almost mortgage his insurance payments because the legislation has made it too costly for him to get insurance and pay for it up front.

He is not the only one. Another couple contacted me. They each have medical cannabis licences. Because the two of them grow more than the four permitted plants, they cannot find insurance.

This is just one example of how the government has failed to look at unintended consequences.

I will also tie in some of the experiences I have had on other committees in dealing with unexplained, non-scientific decisions of the government. It may seem unrelated to this, but I am trying to point out that this legislation is poorly drafted and should be taken back or at least have the proper time spent at committee to correct it.

Tying this to the fisheries committee, there was a regulation regarding the prawn harvesters in B.C., that had been in place for about 50 years. Everyone was operating under those rules. All of a sudden, the government decided it was going to reinterpret those regulations. Basically, it was going to shut down a huge portion of the spot prawn harvesters in British Columbia, simply by a reinterpretation of the regulation that had been in place for 50 years. There was no explanation, no working with the stakeholders to try to figure this out for the future. It threw the whole system into disarray because of unintended consequences of a decision that had not been researched or had any background.

I sat in on the heritage committee last week when it was going through the amendments, those that could be talked about. I tried to bring forward some of these issues about unintended consequences and the Liberal members on the committee tried to shut me down. They tried to censor what should have been my freedom of expression at that committee, pointing out the errors that the government continued to make. The member for Calgary Nose Hill was also in the committee at that time and witnessed how that took place. She may tie that session at the committee into her speech momentarily.

It was interesting to see how quickly the government seemed to want to censor Canadians, especially us parliamentarians by shutting down the debate at the committee stage of this bill to the point where amendments could not even be read aloud by the chair. They simply had to be listed by number and then voted on. Nobody could discuss what the amendment would do, the benefits or disadvantages of it, none of that. All of this was shut down by the government, trying to censor debate on this bill. Now the Liberals have limited the time we will have to debate it in the House, and it is a shame. Something as serious as freedom of expression deserves full and uncensored debate.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's good to see you again. We certainly had some splendid times on that fisheries committee, or FOPO, and it was interesting to hear another member mention today that the FOPO committee had to be cancelled because of the proceedings here.

I sit on that committee, and indeed the meeting was cancelled just minutes before the meeting was to start, but no explanation was given, so I had to come to this committee to find out the reason that my regular committee had been cancelled.

I want to speak to this amendment that's been proposed and how it puts limits and parameters around who will be affected by this. This is certainly needed. We've seen in the past how legislation that was rushed through caused unintended consequences, and I want to refer to unintended consequences that my constituents have been calling me about just recently.

They can't buy home insurance. They can't find home insurance. Why? It's because the Cannabis Act, Bill C-45—

Statement Made on February 5, 2018

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a matter of personal privilege. On February 5, 2018, in the 42nd Parliament, I misled the House. Because we now sit as the 43rd Parliament, I was uncertain as to how to correctly deal with this procedurally, so I contacted you to determine how best to proceed. I thank you and the Clerk for the guidance provided in this regard, and in particular for your suggestion that I raise the matter at this hour and at this point in today's proceedings.

On the aforementioned date in 2018, at roughly 1:20 p.m., I responded to a very courteous remark from my esteemed colleague, the member for Burlington, then the minister of democratic institutions, who said she was saddened that I was no longer the critic for her portfolio. I thanked her and said:

As members may know, my family runs Giant Tiger. I am now the vice-chair of Giant Tiger and that is the reason I am no longer the critic on this file.

Although it was true that I had assumed this new position at my family's business, it was not true that this was the reason I was no longer the critic for democratic institutions. The actual reason I was no longer the critic for this file was that I had been relieved of my responsibilities as a consequence of having voted against my party's position on Bill C-45, the Cannabis Act, at third reading.

It goes without saying that if I had said anything at all in the House of Commons on February 5 with respect to my being relieved of this position, it should have been the truth, although a judicious silence would also presumably have been acceptable.

Mr. Speaker, you wisely counselled me to keep my remarks as brief as possible, so I will conclude with what I believe to be an important clarification.

In addition to withdrawing the words in question and apologizing for having misled the House, I want to assure the House that my transgression was entirely my own and that no colleague, nor any other person, prompted me in any way to say these words in the House. The purpose of an apology ought to be to correct the record as thoroughly as possible, and this task would be incomplete if I did not clarify that the responsibility lies entirely upon my own shoulders.

I thank all colleagues for their indulgence in letting me speak about this matter today.