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.

[Jacqueline Bogden, Assistant Deputy Minister, Cannabis Legalization and Regulation Branch, Department of Health]

Good morning, and thank you for the opportunity to appear before the committee. As the chair has already introduced me and my colleagues, I'll dispense with introductions.

As public servants, we're responsible for providing advice and support to ministers in developing this proposed legislation. I should also note that Bill C-46 was introduced to strengthen the laws for drug-impaired driving. It's being studied by the justice committee.

Mr. Chair, your committee is embarking on the study of an important, complex, and transformative piece of legislation. On behalf of my colleagues, I'd like to provide the committee with a brief overview of the proposed legislation. I'll focus on three main aspects. The first is the context that has informed the development of the new control framework for cannabis in this bill and the government's objectives. Second, I will highlight some of the key provisions of the bill, in particular the roles and responsibilities of the different levels of government. In doing so, I will also describe how we're working with our provincial and territorial colleagues collaboratively. Third, I will describe the equally important work that is under way to support this legislative change, including increased public education and awareness focused on the health and safety risks of cannabis use.

Let me begin by describing the current context. Canada has some of the highest rates of cannabis use in the world. Of particular concern are current patterns of use that we're seeing among teens and young adults. More than one in five Canadians between the ages of 15 and 19 say they have used cannabis in the last year. The rate is higher still for young adults. Nearly one in three Canadians between the ages of 20 and 24 report using cannabis in the past 12 months. These rates of use are of concern given that the risks of cannabis use are higher for youth than for adults and that the risks increase the younger they start using it and the more often they use it.

Alongside these high rates of use among youth and young adults is an illegal market that's valued at $7 billion annually for organized crime and those who choose to break the law. This illegal market also places a considerable strain on the resources of Canada's criminal justice system. We see the results in the prosecution of simple possession offences. In 2016 Statistics Canada reported that over three-quarters of cannabis-related charges were for possession of cannabis.

Mr. Chair, against this backdrop it becomes clear that the status quo has not been effective at deterring use or preventing easy access to cannabis for young people. With Bill C-45 the government is setting out a new proposed control framework for cannabis. The government's objectives are clearly laid out at clause 7 of the proposed bill. These objectives are to protect the health of young persons by restricting their access to cannabis, and to protect them from inducements to use cannabis. It also seeks to deter illegal activities through appropriate sanctions and enforcement measures. It provides for the legal production of cannabis to reduce these illegal activities. It seeks to reduce the burden on the criminal justice system. It would allow adults to possess and access regulated, quality-controlled cannabis. Very importantly, it would enhance public awareness of the health risks associated with cannabis use.

The proposed act is closely aligned with the findings of the task force on cannabis legalization and regulation. The task force consulted widely and extensively. It sought expert opinion from public health, justice, and law enforcement, among others. It sought the view of provincial, territorial, and municipal governments; U.S. state government officials; and, of course, Canadians.

The proposed act would create strict national rules that will control the production, distribution, sale, and possession of cannabis in Canada. It would allow adults to have legal, strictly regulated access to cannabis that they could obtain through either a government-licensed seller or growing it in limited amounts at home.

In particular, the bill proposes a number of measures designed specifically to better protect young people from cannabis. For example, it would be illegal for adults to sell or to distribute cannabis to anyone under the age of 18, and provinces and territories could increase this minimum age.

The act would create two new criminal offences with maximum penalties of 14 years in jail for distributing or selling cannabis to a young person or using a young person to commit a cannabis-related offence. The act would also prohibit promotion and advertising of cannabis that could be appealing to young people, similar to the restrictions we have in place right now for tobacco. It would also prohibit products, packaging, and labelling that are appealing to youth.

Adults would be permitted to possess up to 30 grams of dried cannabis in public or an equivalent amount in other forms. There would be penalties for those who break these new rules, and these penalties would be proportional to the seriousness of the offence. There would be ticketing options for minor offences. More serious violations, such as illegal commercial production or taking cannabis across Canada's borders, would be subject to fines or imprisonment.

I'd like to turn now to the roles and responsibilities of the federal, provincial, and territorial governments. In keeping with the advice of the task force, the proposed act sets out a shared framework for the control and regulation of cannabis, which would require ongoing federal, provincial, and territorial co-operation. Under the proposed act, the federal government would be responsible for licensing and regulating the production of cannabis, including setting and enforcing high standards for health and safety. Consistent with their jurisdictional authorities and experience, the provincial and territorial governments would be able to regulate the distribution and sale of cannabis in their respective jurisdictions.

Provinces and territories together with municipalities would also have broad flexibility to adapt certain rules into their own jurisdictions and to enforce them through a range of tools including tickets. These could include setting a higher minimum age or stricter limits on personal possession or personal cultivation. Local governments would also have responsibility for establishing rules around whether cannabis can be consumed in public, enacting zoning bylaws governing where stores may be located, policing, and enforcing bylaws.

Mr. Chair, coordination among various levels of government is and will continue to be absolutely essential. For that reason, in spring 2016 federal, provincial, and territorial ministers of health, public safety, and justice established a working group of officials to facilitate consultation, information sharing, and collaboration throughout the design and implementation of this proposed legislation. Since that time, senior officials have been meeting every three weeks to discuss key issues, consult each other, share information, and coordinate our respective efforts, and this collaboration will continue.

Provinces and territories are preparing. Many jurisdictions have announced plans or launched public consultations or their intention to do so. We are completely committed to working together collaboratively in the months ahead as our respective jurisdictions prepare for potential implementation of this legislation if it is approved by Parliament.

Mr. Chair, as I near the conclusion of my remarks today, I'd like to describe briefly a couple of other dimensions of work that will support this legislation. First is a system of comprehensive monitoring and surveillance. It will help us to evaluate the implementation of the legislation and to make appropriate adjustments as necessary just as other jurisdictions, such as Colorado and Washington, have done. Second, as I mentioned as the outset of my remarks, is a comprehensive public education and awareness campaign in concert with provinces and territories, municipal health authorities, and other key partners. This campaign will provide Canadians, especially young Canadians, with the information they need to be informed about the health and safety risks of cannabis use.

In closing, Mr. Chair, I wish to emphasize that Bill C-45 seeks to provide a new, more effective control framework for cannabis, one that can ensure greater protection for young people and that will, in time, displace the illegal market. With that, we would be most happy to answer the committee's questions.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

It being 8:30, we are going to call together meeting number 64. I want to welcome everybody back and welcome new members to the committee. I welcome all of our invitees who are testifying today.

We're starting on an interesting mission: a study on Bill C-45, an act respecting cannabis. I expect that it's going to be interesting, and it looks like we have some interest in the issue. We have several witnesses today.

I want to point out that with today being September 11, we're going to have a moment of silence at 8:46 in recognition of the disasters that happened in Virginia, Washington, and New York, when almost 3,000 people died in that awful tragedy, including between 24 and 29 Canadians. I will be interrupting at 8:46 and will call for a moment of silence, but in the meantime, I'll introduce our guests.

We have mostly federal, provincial, and territorial responsibilities on our agenda today. Our witnesses are, from the Department of Health, cannabis legalization and regulation branch, Jacqueline Bogden, assistant deputy minister, and Eric Costen, director general. From the Department of Justice, we have Carole Morency, director general and senior general counsel, criminal law policy section, and Diane Labelle, general counsel, Health Canada legal services. From the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, we have Kathy Thompson, assistant deputy minister, community safety and countering crime branch. From the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, we have Joanne Crampton, assistant commissioner, federal policing criminal operations.

I want to welcome all of you and thank you for coming. I'm sure your lives are getting very interesting right about now, so you can share some of that with us.

My understanding is that Ms. Bogden is going to open up on behalf of everybody.

You'll have 10 minutes, Ms. Bogden, and then we'll open the floor to questions.

Statistics Act

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague and friend, the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, for his excellent understanding of the bill and the facts and stats before us today.

The rhetoric from the Liberal Party is often its commitment to statistics and evidence. The member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan referenced Bill C-45, which is the marijuana legislation. We know there is a lot of evidence and statistics that surround that legislation, which seems to have been completely disregarded when we look at the evidence from the medical community and its recommendations for proper age limits.

We also know other jurisdictions that have legalized the use of marijuana have experienced up to a 100% increase in traffic fatalities. Every year, 1,000 Canadians die due to traffic fatalities in Canada. It seems to me that will double with the proposed legislation. Why would the Liberal government—

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Thank you for the feedback on the motion. I appreciate it.

I want to reiterate that my goal here was to get all of us to agree that we would be back a week earlier to dedicate ourselves to long days of studying Bill C-45 to get us started on the bill. I would be happy if we could move the week to run from September 11 to September 15, which gives us two additional four-hour blocks. We could invite the ministers to come the following week and have them come to a session the week after. I do think that we need to hear from the ministers at some point in the process.

That would give us an additional two four-hour blocks on the Friday, and we could add—

I'm sorry, Ms. Harder, but I didn't mention municipalities because they are a construct of the provinces, so they really fall under provincial/territorial jurisdiction. We could have a municipality in that block.

There's a question I want to come back to. We are either going to mandate the chair and the clerks to do this and come back to what they've set up, and stay with these general themes, plus the ones that have been added, such as labelling and packaging, edibles—

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

I have circulated a motion. I'm going to make a couple of changes to it as we go forward, but I will quickly explain this.

This is a complex bill. It represents a fairly substantive change in the norms of how we view marijuana and the use of marijuana in Canada. I think it's really important. I've been talking to a number of committee members, and there is significant interest in hearing from many witnesses and hearing testimony from different sides of different issues. If we handle it as we would normally handle our committee business, we could be hearing witnesses for months.

It is important that we review the bill, that we give it full and open consideration, and that we hear from witnesses but also that in a timely fashion we return it to the House so it can go through the rest of the processes that need to be done.

The motion is looking at a way that will allow the committee in a very focused way to hear from a number of witnesses and to work quite diligently at this review to make sure we have a substantive number of witnesses who come forward and that we organize ourselves to hear the witnesses in a way that makes sense so that we can hear countering views around some of the more controversial issues. It's also a way for us to give full consideration and to hear from a number of witnesses to start.

Nothing in this motion is intended to say there will be no more witnesses. Nothing is intended to restrict the witnesses. We can still continue after this, but the motion proposes that we have one week of dedicated time, as a committee, on this topic to hear witnesses, that we would meet for four days, and that we would organize our work so that we can get at least 72 witnesses in that week around different topics. I'll review the topics in a second.

As I said, once that week is done, if we then determine that other witnesses are needed, or if that leads us to other areas that we should consider, then nothing limits us having more witnesses and nothing in here limits the time we have yet, because we do have to do a clause-by-clause review of the bill, and we'll need time to hear from the witnesses, to synthesize what we've heard, and then to do the clause-by-clause review and to give thought to that.

Nothing in this bill is restricting that. This is really just about setting up a time for the committee to have a focused four-day period to hear from a number of witnesses around some themes as a way to kick-start our work on this very important, very significant bill for Canadians. As I said, it doesn't limit further witnesses and it doesn't put time restrictions on the clause-by-clause study.

In addition to that, I am proposing that we come back a week early and that we meet before the House sits and that we work for the week of Monday, September 11 to Thursday, September 14, which is the four days before the House sits. Again, it gives us a focused effort. We're not being interrupted by votes in the House and other routines that often interfere with witness testimony. We can have four very focused, very good days getting through witnesses on some of the important topics that we know we have before us.

It's also at a time, because the House is not sitting, when we may actually have additional media time and additional public interest in this, because the normal things that happen in Parliament aren't happening in that week. I know it's going to put a burden on members to come back from their constituencies and the work they're doing with constituents for that four-day period, but I do believe it will give us a really good start on hearing and understanding all perspectives around Bill C-45.

I am proposing:

That this Committee meet from Monday, September 11, 2017, to Thursday, September 14, 2017, inclusively for the purpose of the consideration of Bill C-45—

I'll cut out some of the verbiage. You have it in front of you. I'm changing it to “and, that each party send their lists of prioritized”—rather than “proposed”. The clerk has suggested that it's easier for them if you prioritize the lists—

—witnesses for the purposes of this study...and that the Chair be empowered to coordinate the witnesses, to a maximum of 72 witnesses, the resources, and scheduling necessary to complete this task in accordance with the following guidelines:

I'm proposing that we take those four days and break them into two four-hour blocks per day, with nine witnesses per four-hour block, and that we do two rounds of our normal questioning as well. It would be nine witnesses, and for questions it would be two rounds of seven minutes; five minutes; and then three minutes.

I propose that we organize the blocks into a number of categories. The first would be federal, provincial, and territorial responsibilities, which would include retail presentations. Revenue questions would be included in there.

The second category would be justice and public safety. We would hear from the police, RCMP, and others. If there were questions around the impact on organized crime, that would be a natural place to include witnesses around that topic.

Then we would look at other jurisdictions' experiences. Others have gone down this road, and what were the lessons learned? If there were international considerations, this would be a point in time to also build in international issues around compliance with other jurisdictions.

The next category would be the household cultivation of plants, which is a very common question that I've heard from others. It would also give us a chance to hear from landlords and tenants, and if there are rental issues on that topic.

Another category would be the age for legal possession and the impact on young Canadians. There's also prevention, treatment, low-risk use versus high-risk use, and health risks.

We would also look at workplace safety. There is a corresponding piece of legislation to this one, which is dealing with motor vehicles and heavy equipment. Otherwise, what's the impact on workplaces? Do we have appropriate detection? It would be a place to build in how we can detect and understand if somebody in the workplace is under the influence.

Then there's the impact on indigenous communities. That would be the eighth topic we would deal with.

The witnesses would be proportional to our committee. It would be five from the Liberals, three from the Conservatives, and one from the NDP. Generally on these topics we have a high degree of overlap anyway in our witnesses, but I think that would be the normal method the clerk would use to assign witnesses.

I'm changing number three. It currently says that witnesses should be directed to prepare oral remarks of five minutes. I think we can do 10 minutes. We normally do 10 minutes with four witnesses. We usually have about 20 minutes free in a two-hour block, so if we go to nine witnesses in a four-hour block, it's tight. We'll have about a 10-minute window in each four-hour block. The reason I was thinking of five minutes was really for us, just so that we have breaks. The four hours is not that intensive, and we make sure to ask for written submissions to augment the five minutes, but given that our committee practice has been 10 minutes, then we probably should stay at that 10-minute mark.

The second change I had in here is that witnesses be invited to submit their written statements prior to August 18, which would give time for the translation.

Is that correct?

Okay, sorry. It was my misunderstanding. In number three we will go back to 10 minutes, but we don't need to change the timing of the written statements on that one.

Number four really isn't about this week. I'm trying to get this week organized for us, because the House should be rising shortly and I want to make sure we have a good, robust week of study of the bill. Four is really about setting deadlines for others. Normally the committee sets a cut-off for when we receive submissions. I think we can deal with that when we come back and have a cut-off set. I'll leave it in for now and we can have discussions. In paragraph four, the chair would set a deadline of August 18 for written submissions regarding Bill C-45.

Paragraph five proposes that the Minister of Health, the Minister of Justice, and the Minister of Public Safety be invited to appear before the committee on Thursday, September 14. It would give us, at the end of that week, a chance to hear from the ministers involved in this, if they're available. It also proposes that they be given 10 minutes for remarks.

Again, I'm not trying to restrict other witnesses and I'm not trying to force us to clause-by-clause. I'm just trying to set up a very robust week of intensive work for us so that we can hear from a number of witnesses on some of the key topic areas that have been controversial in our debates in the House so that we can get a good start to our review of this bill.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Is there any debate?

(Motion agreed to)

The motion is carried. The budget is carried. There you go.

Now, on Bill C-45, are we ever lucky to get this brought to our committee. It's going to be interesting. It's very important. It's a huge change in the way we do things. We're all aware of how important it is, and we're all aware of a time frame, so who would like to start?

Mr. Oliver.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

My next question is with regard to the per se limits of THC. I know this will be set by regulation, but your department has already identified some numbers. Bill C-46 can't be seen in isolation. Of course, you introduced it on the same day that Bill C-45 was introduced, and I know you want to have this law in place before Bill C-45 becomes law, but the changes to Canada's marijuana laws will be quite a revolutionary thing. I agree with the approach, the overall goal that Bill C-45 has, but if cannabis is legal in Canadian society, it needs to be accompanied by that public awareness campaign, because I don't think a lot of people see the strong correlation between how much you can ingest or inhale and what constitutes impairment.

What studies or evidence does your department have correlating these specific numbers to impairment? Whether you eat something or smoke something, whether you're a habitual user or first-time user can have a different effect on how much of the drug is in your body, and it also could be very different to what constitutes impairment. How has your department examined that particular issue?

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

You're quite right. Bill C-46, the impaired driving in terms of drug impaired and alcohol impaired, is a companion piece to Bill C-45, which is the cannabis act. In terms of the mandatory roadside screening, it only applies to alcohol. We are ensuring that we continue to work with the best scientists and experts in this area who are helping and providing us advice in terms of the detection of drug-impaired driving. We've benefited greatly from the drugs and driving committee that has been working on the development of tools.

As I said in my comments, the science will continue to evolve, but as with other jurisdictions throughout the world that have followed similar processes in terms of approved devices for the oral fluid screening that is articulated in part 1 in terms of drug-impaired driving, we have benefited from the tests that Minister Goodale has undertaken. We are confident that we have an oral fluid screener that will, on the roadside, enable the first test in terms of drug-impaired driving. If there is a reasonable basis for a police officer to think that somebody has been influenced or impaired by drugs, they will be able to administer the test, which would register a positive or a negative.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

This bill is in conjunction with Bill C-45, which is with respect to the legalization of cannabis, but this specific section just refers to alcohol. Is that because you don't believe that the technology is in place to immediately check whether the person is also drug impaired? It just refers to alcohol.

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and certainly thank you to all of the members of this committee. I am always pleased to come back before all of you. I appreciate the chair saying that this is one of the most important bills to be before the committee, and I very much look forward to hearing feedback.

I'm pleased to be here to speak to Bill C-46, an act to amend the Criminal Code (offences relating to conveyances) and to make consequential amendments to other acts. The bill would strengthen the existing criminal law with respect to drug-impaired driving and would result in a simplified, modernized, and coherent legislative framework addressing all transportation offences, including impaired driving.

The ultimate goal of this bill is to reduce deaths and injuries caused by impaired drivers. Drinking and driving continues to cause untold devastation on our roads and highways, despite years of public education on the dangers of such conduct. No one is immune to its tragic impact. This was evident during the second reading debate, when many members of Parliament related their personal stories of being impacted by an impaired driver. Some have lost family members of their own, and others have described the impact impaired driving has had on some of their constituents and communities.

I would like to point out that since the introduction of this bill, questions around its constitutionality have been raised, particularly with respect to whether some of the key proposals will withstand charter scrutiny. I would like to assure the committee that I take my role under section 4.1 of the Department of Justice Act very seriously. I am confident that the proposed reforms are appropriately tailored to the important objectives we are pursuing and will survive any constitutional challenge that may be brought.

It has been my practice, as Minister of Justice, to table a charter statement. I did so with respect to Bill C-46, and it outlines some of the key considerations that informed my review of the bill to ensure its consistency with the charter. The statement identifies how the bill potentially engages charter-protected rights and freedoms and also identifies the rationale for justifying any limits that the bill may impose. My hope is that this information will be of assistance to all members as you study and continue to debate this important bill.

I would like to now spend a few moments outlining some of the key proposals in the bill. As I mentioned, the bill proposes to strengthen the existing criminal law approach to drug-impaired driving. It would do this by enacting three new driving offences of being over a legal drug limit. The legal limits are not contained in the bill but would be set by regulation. This approach would permit cabinet to add drugs or amend legal limits quickly and efficiently in response to the evolving science. Although legal limits would be established for several impairing drugs, such as cocaine and methamphetamines, I propose only to outline the levels relating to THC, the primary impairing component of cannabis.

The bill establishes a low-level fine-only drug offence for THC. This represents a precautionary approach. This offence would prohibit having between two and five nanograms of THC per millilitre of blood within two hours of driving. This offence would be punishable by a maximum fine of $1,000 and a discretionary driving prohibition of up to one year. Additionally, Bill C-46 proposes a hybrid offence for a higher level of THC, corresponding with higher risks from impairment. This offence would prohibit having five nanograms or more of THC per millilitre of blood within two hours of driving. Finally, the second proposed hybrid combination offence would prohibit low levels of THC in combination with low levels of alcohol, recognizing that these two substances interact to significantly increase overall impairment.

Both of the hybrid drug offences would have escalating penalties that mirror the existing impaired driving penalties: a $1,000 fine for the first offence, 30 days' imprisonment for a second offence, 120 days' imprisonment for a third or subsequent offence, and mandatory prohibition orders.

The bill also proposes to authorize the police to use roadside drug screeners to more effectively identify drivers who have been using drugs. These tools would be in addition to the existing roadside tests, known as standard field sobriety tests. The ability to demand these tests has been in force since 2008. They are used by police to develop reasonable grounds to believe that a driver is impaired and proceed to further investigate.

I am very pleased that last week Minister Goodale announced that the drug screening device pilot project conducted between December 18, 2016, and March 6, 2017, by police officers in seven jurisdictions across Canada was successful, and received positive reviews from police. Officers reported that the devices were easy to use at the roadside and that they were able to successfully use them in various weather, temperature, and lighting conditions. Giving law enforcement this tool to detect and deter drug-impaired driving will better protect communities.

Bill C-46 also proposes significant reforms in the area of alcohol-impaired driving and other transportation-related provisions. It proposes to completely repeal these Criminal Code provisions and replace them with a simplified, modernized, and coherent legislative framework. One of the key proposals is to authorize mandatory alcohol screening. This proposal would allow a police officer, in the lawful execution of their duty, to demand a preliminary breath sample from any driver who is operating a motor vehicle. This provision was debated vigorously at second reading. I want to spend a moment explaining in some detail the reason this is proposed within the bill.

Mandatory alcohol screening is common in other jurisdictions, including in New Zealand, Australia, Ireland, Scotland, and much of Europe. It has been proven to significantly reduce traffic-related fatalities. In fact, in Ireland it was credited with reducing the number of deaths on Irish roads by approximately 40% in the first four years after it was enacted. The Supreme Court of Canada has upheld the power of police officers to stop vehicles at any time to ensure that drivers are complying with the rules of the road. They can do this to ensure that drivers are licensed and insured and the vehicle is mechanically fit, and to check for sobriety. The proposal in this bill would require a driver who is already subject to a lawful traffic stop to provide a breath sample, similar to the way they are now required to produce their licence and registration. It is simply information about whether a driver is complying with one of the conditions imposed in the highly regulated context of driving.

Some have expressed concern relating to the perceived risk that this provision could lead to an increase in racial profiling. While the issue of racial profiling is a serious concern to our government, mandatory alcohol screening will not have an impact on this practice. Mandatory alcohol screening would not alter the responsibility that law enforcement has towards training and oversight to ensure fair, equal, and appropriate application of the law. Finally, mandatory alcohol screening was unanimously recommended in 2009 by the members of this very committee following a comprehensive study of the issue of impaired driving. I thank that committee for their hard work on this important issue, and I am pleased to have been able to include that recommendation in this bill.

As Minister of Justice and the Attorney General of Canada, I feel it is my obligation to take any and all reasonable measures within my authority to reduce the incidence of impaired driving, with the ultimate goal of reducing road accidents. I am confident that the mandatory alcohol screening will be effective at reducing deaths and injuries on our roads and highways. I'm also confident that mandatory alcohol screening is constitutional. Constitutional compliance is about striking the appropriate balance. Mandatory alcohol screening is minimally intrusive, but the benefits in lives saved will be immeasurable. Simply put, mandatory alcohol screening will change the mindset of drivers, who will no longer be able to convince themselves that they can evade police detection of their alcohol consumption if stopped.

Mr. Chair, the bill contains many other proposals that I do not have time to go into in great detail, but just for summary's sake, some of these elements include: removing or limiting defences which encourage risk-taking behaviour, including the bolus or drinking-and-dashing defence; clarifying that the crown is only required to disclose scientifically relevant information; simplifying the proof of blood alcohol concentration; and, increasing some minimum fines and some maximum penalties.

I would like to draw the committee's attention to the legislative backgrounder on Bill C-45 that I tabled on May 11, which contains more detail regarding all of these proposed changes. It is my hope that this document will help guide your study by explaining in more detail the intent of the proposed changes.

In conclusion, the ultimate goal of Bill C-46 is to save lives, reduce injuries, and ensure the safety of Canadians on our roads and highways. If passed, this bill would give Canada one of the toughest impaired driving regimes in the world. Protecting the public is a responsibility that I take seriously and that I know this committee takes seriously, and I'm very proud of the proposals set out in Bill C-46.

Than you for your attention. I look forward to comments and questions, Mr. Chair.

Marijuana

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, protecting the health and safety of Canadians is a top priority for our government. The current approach to cannabis does not work, as my hon. colleague and his party have admitted on numerous occasions. That is because it allows criminals and organized crime to profit and allows cannabis to remain in the hands of our children.

We want to make sure that does not happen. That is why, after long and hard work by an independent task force, as well as important debate in the House, we have introduced Bill C-45. We look forward to ongoing debates so we can keep cannabis out of the hands of our children and profits out of the hands of criminal organizations.

The House resumed from June 7 consideration of the motion that Bill C-45, an act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Cannabis Act

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to speak to Bill C-45. As several of my colleagues have already noted, the current approach to cannabis is not working. It has allowed criminals and organized crime to profit while failing to keep cannabis out of the hands of Canadian youth. In many cases, it is easier for our kids to buy cannabis than cigarettes, and the evidence shows that Canadians are using cannabis in greater numbers. In doing so, they engage with criminals and take on the added health risks associated with consuming an unregulated product. In addition, they put themselves at risk of a criminal conviction and of the lifelong consequences of a criminal record for possessing even small amounts of the substance.

Forcing a total prohibition on cannabis occupies the valuable time of the police and criminal justice system and diverts resources for more important priorities without any appreciable public health benefit. An unintended consequence of our current prohibition approach to cannabis is that it criminalizes our children. I am certain that the intention of the 1922 legislation was not to criminalize children in future generations. Getting caught with cannabis and being charged opens the door to the criminal justice system, and for many, stepping through this door is a one-way journey, especially for vulnerable and marginalized communities, and has lifelong consequences.

It is important to pose this question to members in the House. Is it the position of the Conservative opposition that Canadian adults between 18 and 25 lack the maturity and intelligence to make informed choices about their own health? They can get married, get a mortgage, build a career, start families, yet the Conservatives think that these Canadians cannot make informed choices about their own health.

I would say that we need to look at some parallels in the past. When I was growing up in the 1970s, Canadians had two choices if they wanted to gamble. The first choice was to go to Las Vegas. The second choice was to stay here and participate in illegal gambling dens. If we looked around the country, there were active anti-gang units within police forces. Why? It was because they were responsible for curbing the illegal behaviour of Canadians.

One of the great things about Canada is that our country has enshrined the rule of law, and what is important is that Canadians respect the rule of law. The laws that we pass in the chamber matter. When Canadians have a safer, legal, more socially accepted option, they choose it.

What happened in the 1970s? Governments made policy changes. They legalized and regulated legal gambling. What happened is that Canadians quickly changed their behaviour. They stopped going to the illegal gambling dens and started participating in regulated legal gambling. That changed the stranglehold that the criminal-controlled element of gambling had on that sector. Governments competed, governments drew down the price, people voted with their feet, and the criminal gangs could no longer compete with the governments. Then the criminal gangs left the sector, but more importantly, Canadians who have addictions to gambling can now get the supports they need, paid for in part by the revenues that this legal, regulated gambling now generates.

It would be hard to find any police force in this country today that contributes any significant resources to curbing illegal gambling. Why? It is because policies changed and governments regulated a former illegal activity. The parallels to what is happening right now with the resources police forces must use to curb illegal drug use and possession are stark.

The work our government is trying to do is to strictly regulate and legalize cannabis in small amounts of 30 grams to make sure that our children are protected. At the same time, we are boosting the criminal penalties for illegal possession, illegal distribution, and illegal trafficking of this substance. Not only are we going to have faith in Canadian adults to make choices about their own health, not only are we going to work with provinces and territories to strictly regulate the production and distribution of this substance, but we are going to make sure that protections are there for our children, because that is what we promised to do and that is exactly what this government will deliver.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to talk about Bill C-45, the cannabis act and the complications it will create, the planning that is necessary, and more importantly, what should be done for many Canadians as the legislation moves to implementation.

One of the things that concerns me the most is that we will continue to criminalize Canadians. That will be quite substantial for their record, especially given that our neighbour to the south, the United States, has a much broader definition of a criminal record as it relates to marijuana possession. Despite state movements to legalize and decriminalize cannabis, border complications become an impediment to this idea.

Liberals do not even care about the substantial repercussions. They are indifferent to the fact a life can be changed significantly by a federal criminal charge and the consequences of that charge for the rest of that person's life.

What is more interesting is that as we move toward legalization, we see a culture that becomes a little more emboldened before the law changes. We see it every single day out on the streets. People may accidentally get bold with this.

In fact, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice mentioned one of those things. He mentioned a case in which a person now has a federal criminal record. He is concerned about more of those. That can happen, and there are consequences, especially in border communities. Given the fact that 80% of Canada's population lives close to the U.S. border, we will have implications.

In the area I represent, 10,000 doctors and nurses commute daily across the border. Thousands of auto workers commute across the border on a daily basis. We have an aging population now, and the first chance in a while for some people to get good-paying, career-oriented jobs, with benefits and a return on investment on their education. If they make a mistake now—if they are around cannabis, or somehow get caught up in a charge as we are making this transition—it is not good.

Let us not confuse what can be done right now, and decriminalization can be done right now, independent of what we are doing here. It is as simple as that.

The Liberals choose not to do this, to instead hang those people out to dry in the interim, because if a truck driver, a nurse, or a doctor happens to have a teenager or someone else with marijuana in their household, or if they are around it or smell of it or any of those different things, they could be implicated at the border.

Worse yet is if they have a charge already. I know many professionals that we have to deal with on a regular basis who are so important to the Canadian economy and will forever need constant management on the border. That is what we do out of our office. We work over and over on certain cases. They have no other criminal record, no other consequential involvement, only good employment records and contributions to the community. This is where the bitter irony resides, from this moment on until we finally move to legalization.

All those victims in between the chaos—the ones who are emboldened to do it, the ones who get side-swiped during the transition, and the other ones who are going to crack down on it—will have their lives altered.

Meanwhile, the Prime Minister will walk free and clear. He could do that because he thought it was just a popular thing for him to say. He had been elected as a member of Parliament and he bragged about the fact that he smoked marijuana, a criminal offence in Canada. Is it not a little ironic that he has a security detail around him and the known fact that he has participated was willingly expressed? The fact is that we still do not know to this day where that marijuana came from. Where did the marijuana come from that the Prime Minister smoked? Did it come from a friend, a family member?

The fact is that his life never changed as a consequence. He used it as a political opportunity, whereas the people I represent cannot get their records cleared. They are working day in and day out with no other problems but are affected by this thing from 10, 20, sometimes 30 years ago.

As we go down this path, we will continue to have those people who are caught at a disadvantage because they are not the elite. They are not the ones with the family name. They are not the ones from the political corridors of this chamber or other chambers. Despite this being the House of Commons, and it has been for many decades, we will see them suffer a different fate from that of our own Prime Minister during this entire thing. That is a problem. That is called elitism because someone is separate or above the law and can flaunt it for political gain. In fact the political gain is an economic gain, but if someone happens to be a truck driver, a business person, or anyone else, they have that blemish on their record forever.

Why can we not fix that right away? The Liberals simply do not want to. It is interesting because we have heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice talk about criminalization, organized crime related to this, which is very true and very important to deal with, but he was the same as the Prime Minister in voting against single-event sports betting, which has $8 billion to $10 billion of organized crime and offshore betting accounts stuffed to the limit because we do not allow it. It happens in bars, in basements, with the click of a mouse, or off of a phone, and it goes offshore with no taxation. That $8 billion to $10 billion are modest estimates and the Liberals voted against even putting that to committee. The bill was supposed to at least get to committee. It had actually passed in this chamber before and it failed in the Senate. The Liberals decided to stop it right here and not to send it to committee.

There is very little credibility left for them with that argument. Canadians who are actually arrested, no matter where they are from, from the day of tabling of legislation here until the day it is not, will have to ask themselves, and they will get an opportunity to reflect, why is it okay for some to puff up their chests and smile with bravado and say they are cool because they smoked marijuana and do it for their own interests, whether it is political or otherwise, and not get a record, not be held to account, at the same time as others face a record that includes criminality that will affect them and their lives just because they were not the elite.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his remarks and for his conditional support for Bill C-45.

The member suggested that he would like to see as an interim measure the implementation of decriminalization. Decriminalization is a process by which the criminal penalties that enforce a prohibition are removed and replaced with civil penalties. I would simply ask the member if he has given any thought to what would then be required to implement such a system. What legislation would have to be passed? If he has any sense of how this new administration of civil penalties might be administered, what would it cost to establish this system? There is no existing ticketing scheme that could be used, so something new would have to be invented. How much training would law enforcement require?

I would like to ask the member if he has any sense of how long this would take, how much it would cost, and how much work would be involved. Has he thought of that with his recommendation that this might be done as a simple interim measure?