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.

[Bill Karsten]

Thank you, Brock.

Committee members, the fact is that passing Bill C-45 will trigger an extensive implementation process across all orders of government, and I'd like to place emphasis on what our member from Alberta said, “all orders of government”. Municipalities will have to adapt local bylaws, rules, and programs as a direct result for things like zoning, land use, business licensing, enforcement, and much more. But much of this work will stem from regulatory frameworks that federal, provincial, and territorial governments still have to design and build.

FCM is pleased and proud that we have published a legalization primer for our members from coast to coast to coast, and a fuller guideline and guidebook is being initiated and is on its way to our members. These tools will help our municipalities from coast to coast to coast get moving on issues that they can address immediately and build work plans for the remainder. But for the work plans to succeed, municipalities need clarity and engagement on a whole range of various issues.

Our first recommendation is that the federal government coordinate with all orders of government to develop its regulatory framework for Bill C-45. We believe the key to meeting a July 2018 launch timeline safely and effectively—again I emphasize safely and effectively—will be concurrent legislative, regulatory, and bylaw development by all orders of government. We'll inch forward locally, based on what we see our federal, provincial, and territorial partners doing. Those partners still have important decisions to make in areas such as minimum age for consumption and what kind of retail distribution model to use.

There is also much uncertainty in the area of shared responsibility for shared impact that I would like to share with you. It's a short list of things like the personal cultivation issue, workplace health and safety issues, public education, nuisance issues, municipal zoning, municipal authority to zone in cases where federal production facilities may exist, and actually others that we haven't mentioned in the list here today.

The federal government has formalized its consultation with the provinces and territories through a working group. We understand that, and that is a great first step. However, FCM would welcome sustained municipal engagement with this group to align the needs of all governments.

As part of this coordination, our second recommendation to you, sir, and to your committee, is to prioritize decision points that prevent local governments from moving forward with implementation work. To prioritize those decision points is critical to us safely and effectively moving this forward.

There are areas where decisions at the federal, provincial, or territorial levels will drive the local response, such as provincial retail distribution models, rules around personal cultivation, as I've mentioned, first nation and municipal boundary overlaps, which has been raised by some of our members, the authority to prohibit cannabis use and sales where applicable, and municipal options if cannabis becomes legal federally without provincial or territorial laws and regulations in place.

We believe the federal government should proactively engage with all orders of government in the coming months to ensure roles and responsibilities are very clearly defined.

Our third recommendation is for federal funding to defray start-up costs for local implementation. There is absolutely no doubt that there is an expectation that municipalities will be on the front lines of enforcing issues, such as local zoning, density bylaws, things like rules around minimum age of purchase, personal cultivation, issues like possession limits, smoking restrictions, and public nuisance complaints that are bound to happen. Also, as alluded to earlier in the other presentation, there are safety concerns related to the building code. We believe these are appropriate roles for municipalities, and municipalities alone. However, growing into them will definitely impose immediate costs. Municipalities generally simply don't have the fiscal flexibility to invest what's needed under the required timeline.

I'm pleased to point out that one of your committee members is in fact a former councillor in a municipality and that other members of Parliament have also served in that capacity.

The federal task force acknowledged that implementation will require new capacity. I would urge federal leadership to ensure all governments grow this capacity before legislation comes into force, before cannabis revenues start flowing. I will point out that we were pleased to see that the government did announce funding this week for training.

Our fourth recommendation is for a smart revenue-sharing model that includes all orders of government. The administration and enforcement will impose ongoing costs on local governments. We are looking at additional staff time, resources for training, for public health, for licensing, administration, for bylaws, etc. There's a lot more we could add, obviously. We are equally as passionate about our points and our information as other speakers, so our final recommendation is to ensure that slower than hoped cannabis revenues don't jeopardize the regime's safety and effectiveness. That is our final recommendation.

A primary objective of the cannabis act is to deter criminal activity. As experts say, the way to starve the black market is to keep the price of legal cannabis low. For this reason, the parliamentary budget officer warned that revenue from cannabis sales may start out slow, small, between $356 million and $959 million per year, but local governments, regardless of what that number is, will still face significant administrative and enforcement costs. We therefore need to know that federal support will be available if cannabis revenues take time to catch up.

Mr. Chair, we can summarize our recommendations in two ideas: the government should engage municipalities in building its regulatory frameworks and revenue models, and any cannabis regime sustainability depends on equipping local governments with the tools they need to administer and enforce it out of the gate and long term.

We're proud that the municipal sector has a track record of delivering local solutions to national challenges. We look forward to working with the federal government throughout the progression of the cannabis act. We thank you for your time, and we would also be happy to take any questions you may have. Thank you.

[Bill Karsten, Second Vice-President, Federation of Canadian Municipalities]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, for having us here today. Certainly, we also want to thank you for the important work that you and your committee are doing.

As we know, Mr. Chair, we are here today to discuss the legislative and regulatory realities of legalizing recreational cannabis in this country because there's no doubt you will agree this needs to roll out safely and effectively for all Canadians. However, there's absolutely nothing automatic about this. This will require strong coordination across all orders of government and the role of local governments, I believe, is critical.

FCM's national board met this week in Wood Buffalo, Alberta, and trust me when I say that Bill C-45 loomed high on the agenda. Further to that meeting, I have clear recommendations to share with you today. I will share a little of the 10 minutes, but before I do that, I would like to introduce to you FCM's chief executive officer, Brock Carlton, and I'd like to pass the next few minutes over to him. Brock.

[Lisa Holmes, President, Alberta Urban Municipalities Association]

Good afternoon, and thank you for the opportunity to address your committee today.

My name is Lisa Holmes. I am the mayor of Morinville, Alberta, and the president of the Alberta Urban Municipalities Association, which is also known as AUMA.

AUMA is an association of all urban municipalities in Alberta, spanning all types of villages, towns, and cities, including Edmonton and Calgary, that are collectively home to almost 90% of Alberta's population.

AUMA was the first provincial association of municipalities in Canada to take action on addressing the potential health and safety implications coming from the legalization of cannabis. Several years ago, we struck a working group to develop recommendations relating to medical cannabis production facilities and actions to address illegal grow ops. Since then, and since the announcement of the government's desire to legalize cannabis, we have been working with other associations across Canada to proactively identify the importance of an integrated approach between the federal, provincial, and municipal governments on the implementation of Bill C-45. It is our desire to find ways for our three levels of government to collectively ensure appropriate systems are in place to educate the public, restrict inappropriate usage, address health and safety issues, and enable coordinated enforcement.

Our concern is with the timing of these conversations taking place. AUMA strongly supports a slower timeline for implementing this legislation, given the complex nature of the health and safety issues that need to be resolved and the need for comprehensive and coordinated legislation by all three levels of government. The speed at which the federal government intends to move ahead puts our local communities at risk. The federal government must lead this process at a much more measured pace and allow both provincial and municipal governments to work together to create an appropriate framework for each province.

The provincial regulations, including those related to alcohol and drugs, traffic safety, and employment standards need to be developed well in advance of the federal implementation date. To be frank, with this issue, we at AUMA do not feel that municipalities are being treated as an equal partner at the planning table, and it is imperative that all three levels of government be given appropriate time and support in order to prepare all of the required regulations and bylaws that are necessary for the areas we are each responsible for.

Municipalities will be at the front line of this. We are the level of government that's within the local community. We are operating closest to the people, and we will be the ones that have to implement, enforce, and address the impacts of this new regulatory regime. Our members are concerned about the downloading of these new duties related to cannabis legislation without the accompanying resources to ensure that the duties, particularly enforcement, can be effectively conducted. Funding and resources must be made available to municipalities to develop capacity and to offset administrative costs around licensing, education, inspection, and enforcement. Equipment and training costs related to enforcement must be fully funded through either a cannabis tax or by the federal or provincial government so costs are not downloaded onto our local communities.

With respect to health and safety matters, AUMA supports the federal task force recommendation around minimum age of purchase, advertising and promotion, packaging and labelling, and public education strategies, provided municipal governments are engaged in any of these matters impacting them as legislation and regulations are developed.

Public education, with respect to potential risks and harms of cannabis must be a political and policy priority for the federal government. We support early and intensive public education as well as an approach to packaging, marketing, and advertising similar to that of tobacco in order to limit the appeal of cannabis to youth.

These health and safety issues span the production, distribution, and consumption of cannabis. For example, municipalities had been advocating for sufficient fire and building code changes to regulate the growth of cannabis, particularly in residential properties, so that current and prospective property owners are protected from the adverse effects that a home-grow can create.

As well, the sale of cannabis products needs to be carefully considered to ensure it eliminates the illegal drug market while not occurring in a way that is dangerous to youth or others in our communities. Municipalities will work with you to do that by setting out restrictions on where cannabis is publicly consumed. However, around 96% of the urban municipalities in Alberta have yet to enact bylaws or policies that regulate the use of cannabis in their communities because the lack of information and certainty around what will be included in the regulations, both federally and provincially, don't allow us to move forward. Most of the municipalities that have started to work on this have only extended their current policy and bylaw around smoking to include smoking cannabis products. There is a significant amount of work we have to do, and municipalities will be left with little or no time after the federal and provincial frameworks are adopted to put our own bylaws and policies in place that are necessary to keep our communities safe.

Again, it is our belief that production, distribution, and consumption of cannabis raise significant health and safety concerns in the local community. Given that actual enforcement will take place at the local level, the federal government should engage with municipal governments and police forces to determine the best method of achieving their overarching objective to minimize harm. AUMA did a survey of our membership and found the number one issue that urban municipalities in Alberta are concerned about regarding this legislation is public safety issues such as impaired driving and policing and enforcement. Given the limitations within the current testing available for cannabis impairment, AUMA believes the additional rules to discourage drug-impaired driving, such as a per se limit, should not be put in place until there is a robust body of evidence and a reliable testing mechanism to support the measurement of impairment at a time a person is driving. We recommend the federal government invest in research to better link drug levels with impairment and crash risk, and a national comprehensive public education strategy to send a clear message that cannabis causes impairment and that the best way to avoid driving impaired is not to consume.

In Alberta, our protective services do not just include the RCMP, but also municipal police forces, community peace officers, and bylaw officers. All these groups must be a component of the enforcement activities and require funded training and equipment relating to traffic so they can detain potential offenders until other law enforcement agencies can validate and, if necessary, lay charges. The training and equipment required is very expensive and that is not a cost our municipalities, especially the small ones, can absorb. It is concerning to us as municipal elected officials to hear from the RCMP that we contract to police our communities that it will not have enough time to train its officers before the July 2018 implementation date. Without that training and the equipment necessary for the enforcement of these regulations, the laws, and the bylaws, there is a lack of confidence from Alberta municipalities that we can meet one of our core mandates: ensuring the highest degree of safety and security for our community.

Again, I offer our suggestion that the federal government take a measured and phased-in approach to cannabis legislation. This approach is essential as we are working within a complex environment and, although many of us are trying to predict what will happen, none of us can claim to know exactly what outcomes will arise as a result of this legislation. This approach will provide opportunity to adjust strategies as required after all three levels of government and the stakeholders have the time to assess how this legislation and corresponding regulations will impact them. Our main ask is simple: slow down, learn from other jurisdictions, and provide time for all of us to get this right the first time.

I appreciate this opportunity to bring forward the comments from AUMA, and I'm available if you have questions. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

I'll call our meeting back to order.

This is meeting number 68 of the Standing Committee on Health in the 42nd Parliament.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, June 8, 2017, we're studying Bill C-45, an act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other acts.

We welcome our guests. The focus of our meeting on this panel is municipalities: the impact on municipalities and the challenges they will face.

From the Alberta Urban Municipalities Association, we have Ms. Lisa Holmes, president. From Cannabis Culture, we have Jodie and Marc Emery. By video conference, from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, we have Brock Carlton, chief executive officer, along with his friend, Bill Karsten, second vice-president. Mr. Karsten is also a councillor from the Halifax Regional Municipality. They're both in Fort McMurray, and we'll be hearing from them shortly.

Welcome to you all.

The way we start is we offer each organization 10 minutes for an opening statement, and then we go to questions.

We'll start, in the order that I introduced you, with the Alberta Urban Municipalities Association.

Mayor Holmes, you have 10 minutes.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

However, ironically in Bill C-45, the focus of it first and foremost is to break out smoking cannabis, which is the least healthy way to do it and leave aside edibles and other products that many patients prefer because they don't have to smoke. We're leaving that for a future day down the road. That strikes me as perverse from a health point of view.

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

There has been a very prevalent concern raised by witnesses that edibles should be part of Bill C-45 and for some very good public health reasons. The first is that otherwise people are primarily going to be smoking and inhaling and second is that the black market, or the other market, has competing goods in this area.

What we heard on Monday was that it was too soon. The experience in Colorado was that launching edibles would take some time and there are complex regulations, so it wasn't included. However, it's been three years now and I'm sure that the medical marijuana users have been advocating for manufactured edibles for sometime now, for three or four years.

It leads me to wonder what's happened. Why hasn't Health Canada addressed this? Is it you just don't think it's an important component of the market? Why haven't you addressed it for the medical marijuana group? Then you would have had the regulations and things ready for recreational.

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

In the questioning, Ms. Bogden, we heard from witness after witness. It's been a long journey since we saw you Monday morning, but the importance of public education in getting this going is absolutely paramount, so it's great to hear about the initiatives that are there. You are right. We heard a very good presentation from a group that produced quite an excellent document, which I'm going to take home with me. In the presentation, they had you speaking to youth about marijuana in a very thoughtful way, and I thank you for that.

Bill C-45 is quiet, though, on public education. I think some jurisdictions suggested that they were mandated to use a percentage of the proceeds from the sale of marijuana or cannabis for education. Are you happy with Bill C-45 as it is now? Does the educational component, the public health message, reside elsewhere in the health department? Will it be a continuing ongoing strategy for health or does it need to be in the bill itself?

[Jonathan Zaid, Executive Director, Canadians for Fair Access to Medical Marijuana]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and the standing committee, for your invitation to appear here today.

We will be speaking on behalf of two organizations, Canadians for Fair Access to Medical Marijuana, also known as CFAMM, and the Arthritis Society. I am the founder and executive director of CFAMM, a national non-profit organization focused on the needs of medical cannabis patients. The Arthritis Society is Canada's principal health charity providing education, programs, and support to the over 4.6 million Canadians living with arthritis. Over the past two years, the organizations have collaborated extensively on important issues surrounding medical cannabis research, access, and affordability. The brief submitted to the committee is a joint submission between the two groups, and any follow-up can be done with me or Janet Yale, CEO of the Arthritis Society. You may recall Janet recently appeared before this committee on other issues including national pharmacare. I would also like to introduce Daphnée Elisma, CFAMM's Quebec representative and a member of our patient advisory board. She'll present in French momentarily. First, I'd like to share a bit about my personal story.

So much of what we hear about cannabis is focused on the harms and risks, which of course are important issues, but my experience and the experience of many other patients is quite the opposite. On April 22, 2007, at the age of 14, I woke up with a constant headache that still remains today, 24-7. This neurological condition known as new daily persistent headache is said to be one of the hardest pain conditions to treat. After trying over 40 prescription medications and all other therapies, I was nearly ready to give up. I had no quality of life. I could not leave the house due to noise sensitivity and low energy. I dropped out of grade 8 and struggled throughout high school. I finally turned to medical cannabis. It helped reduce painful flare-ups and allowed me to sleep. Although not a cure, the effective symptom management enabled me to concentrate and be successful in my academic studies. I advocated for insurance coverage, and was the first in Canada to be successful in getting insurance coverage for medical cannabis in this manner.

Medical cannabis patients are often looked at as stereotypical stoners, yet to me, Daphnée, and the patients we represent, effective symptom management translates to increased quality of life and functionality. Cannabis is a medicine. There are over 200,000 authorizations for the use of cannabis as a therapy to manage a variety of health conditions, including seizures, pain, insomnia, nausea and vomiting, and side effects from prescription medications.

Although there is legal access to medical cannabis, many challenges are still associated with its use. We need more research. Access to various product forms and retail distribution is an important issue, and affordability remains one of the most pressing concerns facing patients.

As the government progresses with legalization, one of the primary goals is to reduce consumption. Although laudable for recreational purposes, the government's goal ought not to be to restrict access to medical cannabis, a medicine, but rather to ensure a safe, reliable, and affordable supply for those who medically require it.

We will be highlighting three issues today: the importance of a distinct regulatory framework, research, and affordability, which Daphnée will speak to. Although we need more research, a recent review by the U.S. National Academies found substantial evidence for the use of cannabinoids in conditions including chronic pain, MS, and chemotherapy-induced nausea.

The two most studied cannabinoids are THC and CBD. THC, the cannabinoid that causes the stereotypical high associated with cannabis, has medical properties including analgesia. CBD, a non-impairing cannabinoid, which has been shown to have anti-inflammatory and anticonvulsant effects, also limits the impairment and side effects caused by THC. Many patients use these two cannabinoids in combination to gain the most effective symptom management while limiting potential impairment. Again, for most people using cannabis for medical purposes, this is not about getting high, but rather effective symptom management and increased quality of life.

Cannabis is a legitimate medication and it must be treated that way. It is important that it be treated that way in a distinct regulatory framework. In crafting Bill C-45 we want to commend the government for recognizing the need to maintain a separate and distinct regulatory approach for medical cannabis, and we want to make sure that this is maintained. Beyond the government's constitutional requirements to provide reasonable access to cannabis for medical purposes, we believe cannabis and patients' needs are best suited to be addressed in a distinct regulatory framework. Moving forward beyond Bill C-45, it is important that the government prioritize and adequately support the needs of patients by addressing their unmet needs.

Of course research is a very important issue. There is an enormous deficit of properly funded research and Canadian clinical trials in the therapeutic use of medical cannabis. This creates barriers to patient access, as many physicians express reluctance to authorize medical cannabis in the absence of robust, peer-reviewed research.

The lack of scientific and clinical research has also been cited by Health Canada as a key reason why medical cannabis is not yet regulated as a therapeutic product, which affects the ability of patients to access medical cannabis through private or public drug plans. In particular, more research is needed in terms of dose, indication, and form. To that end, we have asked, as part of budget 2018, for the federal government to commit $25 million over five years to support medical cannabis research. This investment would go a long way towards expanding the evidence base for medical cannabis, and it's a small amount compared to the $274 million already proposed for enforcement.

Although we fully support enforcement and research into the risks associated with recreational cannabis use, we believe it's necessary for the federal government to invest in research specific to the medical use of cannabis. This is an urgent and vital step towards further understanding and recognizing the legitimate medical use of cannabis and ensuring the sustainability of a distinct regulatory framework.

In terms of improving access, in addition to the continuation of mail order and personal production, we believe that pharmacies should have exclusive authority to retail medical cannabis, and that further product forms should be made available. Sales through pharmacies would go towards improving affordability, including the elimination of sales tax based on the Excise Tax Act, and increasing the potential of insurance coverage.

Pharmacists will help ensure that patients across the country receive reliable education on safe and effective use from trained health care professionals with regulatory oversight. While retail and distribution decisions are largely provincial competencies, in order for pharmacy distribution to happen, the access to cannabis for medical purposes regulations will need to be amended.

I will now pass it to Daphnée to discuss affordability.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Welcome to our Standing Committee on Health meeting number 68. We're studying Bill C-45, an act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other acts.

We're now going to focus our panel on medicinal marijuana. Our witnesses today are, from the BC Compassion Club Society, Hilary Black, founder, and Marcel Vandebeek, administrator. From the Canadians for Fair Access to Medical Marijuana are Jonathan Zaid, executive director, and Daphnée Elisma, Quebec representative. From the Department of Health, we have Jacqueline Bogden, assistant deputy minister, cannabis legislation and regulation branch, and David Pellmann, executive director, office of medicinal cannabis.

We're going to ask each organization to give an opening statement of 10 minutes. You can share the time with each other, but the maximum is 10 minutes per organization.

We'll start with the BC Compassion Club Society.

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

I'll just end with a comment then.

Mr. Larsen, with all due respect, I find your lack of respect for the rule of law in this country disturbing. It's clear that it doesn't matter what we come up with in Bill C-45. You're going to do whatever you like and obey whichever laws you like, and I don't personally approve of that.

Thank you.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Sure.

Mr. Larson, I think we've heard lots of evidence about the damage criminalization has done to Canadians. Many of the harms associated with cannabis are directly related to the criminalization of cannabis, not cannabis itself. Bill C-45, I think we all would acknowledge, makes progress, but it retains a criminalized approach. There are criminal sanctions for possession over 30 grams, criminal sanctions for growing over four plants of over 100 centimetres, criminal sanctions over selling, punishable by penalties of up to 14 years.

If criminalization has failed and caused harm, won't Bill C-45 continue to do that at least to some degree?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Bill C-45 legalizes dry flour and oil, but I'm not quite sure what that oil will be used for. What's your understanding, Mr. Larsen, of the oil that will be legal under this bill? How will people use it and can it be vaped?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Larsen, you sell products. We're talking edibles, and again, all I hear is about brownies and gummi bears. You described a range of products that under Bill C-45 would still be illegal. You mentioned creams, sprays, tinctures, patches, and tablets. These are all forms of cannabis that would remain illegal under Bill C-45.

Can you tell us, in terms of the products you sell: are these products unsafe? Do consumers want them? What percentage of your users prefer these products as opposed to smoking cannabis?

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

I'd appreciate it if you could, and to Mr. Rolles' comments I'll let Canadians decide how dramatic they think it is that Canada will breach these treaties, especially after I remember my NDP colleagues calling for action on this even in 2016, already being aware that the deadlines were approaching.

Mr. Tousaw, you made a comment about the home-grow aspects of Bill C-45, especially the very prescriptive charges around heights of plants and that sort of thing, that they violated or that you thought they would get a court challenge under section 7 of the charter. Can you elaborate on that a bit?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

You described the majority of people involved in the marijuana industry as law-abiding, non-violent, and entrepreneurial. This is the black market we talk about really. There's a tendency to think Hells Angels and Crips as organized crime, but you described a very different picture of the thousands of people who are currently involved in this industry.

You have said we have to remember that virtually all the cannabis produced and sold in this country right now is done so unlawfully, but if the government wants to eliminate that portion of the industry, this bill is not the way to go about doing it.

Can you expand on that? Should we bring those people into the legal market? Does Bill C-45 do that, and if not, what should we do to help facilitate that transition?