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.

Second Reading

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage (Multiculturalism)]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of Bill C-45, legislation that would legalize, regulate, and restrict access to cannabis. The objective of our government's bill is to protect our youth, to deter criminal activity, and to promote public health and safety.

Let me turn first to the issue of Canada's youth. Canadian youth use cannabis more than youth anywhere else in the entire world. In 2015, use among youth aged 15 to 19 was 21%. In many cases, accessing cannabis in our country is easier than getting a cigarette or buying a bottle of beer, so clearly, the current system is not working.

Confronted with this reality, our government has two options: continue the zero tolerance policies that have been proven to fail, or adopt a policy of harm reduction. We have chosen the latter. We have chosen to recognize that people, including young people, are using cannabis, and the best way to address the situation is by accepting this fact, and taking positive, proactive steps to educate youth about the dangers of cannabis use, while simultaneously penalizing those who would seek to encourage cannabis use among youth.

For example, we know that cannabis has the potential to cause short and long-term mental health and physical health effects, and that it poses greater overall health risks in developing brains. It is because of this, our government would provide funding toward public awareness campaigns, which would inform our youth about the risks of cannabis.

We also propose to get tough on those who target youth. Similar to the restrictions on the promotion of tobacco products, under Bill C-45, there would be comprehensive restrictions applied to advertising and promoting cannabis, and its related products by any means, including sponsorships and branding that can be deemed to be appealing to children. There would be prohibitions on self-service displays or vending machines. False, misleading, deceptive testimonies, or endorsements that could entice young people to use cannabis would also be prohibited. A violation of these prohibitions would mean a fine of up to $5 million, or up to three years in jail.

We are also aggressively penalizing those who would target youth for cannabis sales. Our government has introduced two new criminal offences, and an up to 14-year prison sentence for those who would give or sell cannabis to our youth, or use a youth to distribute cannabis.

I want to turn to my second point in relation to the criminal justice system. Our government also accepts another clear reality, that the current policies of zero tolerance have failed to deter criminal activity. In fact, to the contrary, zero tolerance has actually permitted the illicit market to flourish, padding the pockets of organized crime and street gangs.

In Canada alone, the illegal trade of marijuana reaps an estimated $7 billion in profits annually for organized crime. Again, as a government, we have a choice, to continue failed policies, or to choose the route of legalization and regulation, a route that would take money out of the hands of criminals, and thereby keep Canadians safer.

At present, Canada is an exporter of cannabis for global markets, and organized criminal groups have reaped large profits from the cannabis cultivation and trafficking. These are individuals who operate complex organized criminal enterprises, who engage in violence, and pose a constant threat to the public safety and well-being of all Canadians. By taking money out of the hands of such groups, we would be deterring crime in this country.

The approach of Bill C-45 has another important impact on criminal justice in Canada; that is, reducing backlogs. This is a situation with which I am very familiar, as an individual who spent 15 years as a lawyer in practice prior to being elected, the majority of that time being with the ministry of the attorney general of Ontario. As crown counsel, I saw repeatedly the limited resources available to prosecutors, police, and the judiciary to administer criminal justice, which was exacerbated by the number of charges clogging up the system.

In 2015, cannabis simple possession offences accounted for more than half of all police reported drug charges, some 49,577 charges out of a total of 96,423 charges being laid. By removing charges for simple possession of small amounts of cannabis, the bill would permit limited court and crown resources to be applied directly to more serious drug related crimes, and to more serious criminals, the actual persons who pose a direct threat to the safety and well-being of Canadians. It would allow law enforcement officials to concentrate their efforts on significant criminal activity, thereby improving their ability to keep Canadian communities safe.

We have addressed how public safety would be strengthened through the new regime ushered in under Bill C-45, so now allow me to turn to my third point.

Bill C-45 would promote public health. Public health professionals are among the various groups and individuals who were consulted in the development of this legislation.

First, the task force on cannabis legalization and regulation heard from professionals, advocates, front-line workers, decision-makers and public servants, as well as expert panels, patients, citizens, and informed employers. They were all driven to develop a sound cannabis strategy in the interest of all Canadians.

The task force held a series of round table discussions across the country in order to consult experts from a wide range of disciplines as well as researchers and academics, patients and their advocates, cannabis users, police chiefs and fire chiefs, other municipal and local representatives, and various industry associations and health care professionals.

The Liberal Party promised Canadians in the 2015 election that we would make policy decisions based on science, facts, and evidence. Bill C-45 does just that by incorporating the recommendations of this important task force. Among the recommendations, recognizing that cannabis use is occurring in my riding of Parkdale—High Park and around the country, was permitting adults to make informed choices about using small amounts of cannabis recreationally, without fear of criminal sanction.

The task force also highlighted, as a guiding principle, the notion that the law should demonstrate compassion for vulnerable members of society and patients in need of medical cannabis. However, it recognized that from a health perspective, one of the biggest dangers remaining for cannabis users is not knowing the content or the quality of the cannabis being taken. It is precisely this unknown, driven by the presence of the illegal market, that makes cannabis use so dangerous currently.

Bill C-45 would address this public health risk head on. It would protect and promote public health by strictly regulating cannabis production, distribution, and sales. Rules would be implemented for adults to access quality-controlled cannabis, while a new tightly regulated supply chain was created, ensuring product safety for Canadians so that Canadians who chose to use cannabis were able to do so knowing that they were not endangering themselves. This would, once again, be putting harm reduction, as an operating principle, to work.

This global shift toward harm reduction for cannabis use has led to legalization in Uruguay, along with several European and Latin American countries that have decriminalized the personal possession of cannabis, followed by some American states, representing more than 20% of the total U.S. population, which have voted to legalize and regulate cannabis for non-medical purposes.

Important lessons would undoubtedly arise from Canada's experience in the coming years, ones that would be valuable for advancing the global dialogue on innovative strategies for drug control. I am confident that Canada would remain a committed international partner by monitoring and evaluating our evolving cannabis policy and sharing these important lessons with national and international stakeholders.

Overall, I am very confident that the framework proposed in Bill C-45 is the best approach going forward for Canadians. It recognizes the failure of zero tolerance and the merits of pursuing harm reduction as the guiding principle to inform public policy. It is a balanced approach designed to protect Canadians, especially our youth, by providing regulated access to legal cannabis for adults while restricting access by youth.

It would put in place strict safeguards to protect youth from being encouraged to use cannabis and would create new offences for those adults who either provide cannabis to youth or use youth to commit cannabis-related offences. It would also help focus limited police and crown resources where they are most needed: in prosecuting serious drug criminals who make our communities less safe.

Bill C-45 would promote public health through increased education and awareness and by ensuring a safe supply of cannabis for those who chose to use small amounts recreationally.

I would encourage all members to support Bill C-45. We must all act now to make our communities safer by legalizing, restricting, and strictly regulating cannabis to keep it out of the hands of Canadian youth and to keep the profits out of the hands of organized criminals.

The House resumed from June 2 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.

Bill C-45—Time Allocation Motion

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

Mr. Speaker, I would submit that we are doing it properly. We have been very open and clear about our objectives around legalization of cannabis, strict regulation, and restricting access to it in order to keep it out of the hands of kids and the proceeds out of the hands of criminals. In doing so and in moving forward in a responsible way, we struck a substantive task force of eight eminently qualified people that travelled the country, went to jurisdictions not only within Canada but throughout the world to get feedback and look at best practices, in order to provide us with 80 substantive recommendations, many of which formed the basis of Bill C-45. I very much recommend that all members in this House read that task force report, if they have not already, and continue to engage in the discussions at committee, where we will hear from more experts and more Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased the hon. member across the way agrees with the bill. It is a monumental shift and a monumental change. That is why we have taken a substantive amount of time engaging with the task force, engaging with experts in the areas of public health, safety, and justice to ensure we get substantive feedback.

This debate is going to continue. The status quo simply is not working in terms of criminal prohibitions with respect to cannabis. We need to change the status quo in order to ensure we achieve the objectives of keeping it out of the hands of children and the proceeds out of the hands of criminals. Bill C-45 would do this. That is why we are actively pursing a comprehensive regulatory approach.

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, we have great respect for this place and we appreciate the two and a half days of debate and discussions we have had on Bill C-45. I very much look forward to the next number of hours of debate in this place.

I look forward to the bill passing through the parliamentary process and having substantive and vigorous discussion at committee. We have had the benefit of having a task force that has undertaken a substantive amount of work and has put forward 80 recommendations, forming a substantive part of the legislation that we have introduced. This is an entirely important topic, and I look forward to continued discussion.

Marijuana

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to legalizing cannabis, strictly regulating, and restricting access to it in order to keep it out of the hands of children and the proceeds out of the hands of criminals.

We have undertaken substantive consultation, put together a substantive task force that provided a myriad of recommendations, which informed our bill, Bill C-45, the cannabis act. We will continue to work diligently with the provinces and the territories to ensure we have a comprehensive regime in place across the country.

Bill C-45—Notice of time allocation motion

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise that agreements could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill C-45, an act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code, and other acts.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage of the aforementioned bill.

Cannabis Act

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon to speak to Bill C-45 on cannabis legalization.

As my colleague said, a lot of people are talking about this. Most of the people in my riding are against the bill. I have a hard time understanding why the Liberal government wants to legalize marijuana. How is this going to benefit society?

The government says it wants to protect young people and fight organized crime. What planet is it living on? Does it really believe that its bill is going to protect young people? Does it really think it will do away with organized crime? It is dreaming. There is no way.

Luc Plamondon is a noted songwriter from my region and the brother of my colleague, the member for Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel. He was born in Saint-Raymond de Portneuf, which is in the riding of Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier. He wrote a great song that I will use to set the stage for the rest of my speech. Here is part of it:

My head's going to explode
I'm about to crash
Lie down on the road
And breathe my last

I believe in our youth, and I do not want to let our young people die. Why is marijuana not already legal in other G7 countries? That is a good question. This government wants to legalize marijuana and is so proud of itself for being the first G7 country to legalize cannabis. What lofty aspirations Canada has. Why have other countries not legalized marijuana?

The Liberal government wants to use our young people as guinea pigs. He wants to sacrifice a generation by improvising the legalization of marijuana in order to fulfill an election promise. When they made this promise, the Liberals ranked third in the polls. Now, they are trapped. Nevertheless, since they backpedalled on election reform, they could also backpedal on this bill. They have a habit of backpedalling. However, in this case, they are being stubborn. Is the Prime Minister enjoying this?

Let us talk about Bill C-45, which states that its purpose is to:

(a) protect the health of young persons by restricting their access to cannabis;

However, there will be greater supply on the market. The bill is going to:

(b) protect young persons and others from inducements to use cannabis;

This prohibited use is being trivialized. As a father, I would tell my children that it is not a good thing to smoke marijuana. However, the Government of Canada and the Prime Minister are saying that it is all right. What rhetoric. It continues:

(c) provide for the licit production of cannabis to reduce illicit activities in relation to cannabis;

People will be able to grow marijuana anywhere they want. Where is the control? Next, it says:

(d) deter illicit activities in relation to cannabis through appropriate sanctions and enforcement measures;

(e) reduce the burden on the criminal justice system in relation to cannabis;

If the Liberals want to meet that objective, all they have to do is decriminalize marijuana. That will fix the problem. Lastly:

(f) provide access to a quality-controlled supply of cannabis; and

(g) enhance public awareness of the health risks associated with cannabis use.

Also, this law will give the minister the power to set the price for various products and services provided for under the legislation. That means that the minister will become the leader of the new Liberal biker gang. His crest will be a nice marijuana leaf with the Liberal Party logo, and his motto will be “just one little joint”. It is always good to dream big.

Why is this government prioritizing the legalization of pot over other much more important issues for the country, such as the environment, job creation, economic development, aggressive efforts to support our regions, and a balanced budget, among others?

I fail to understand how Canadian society will benefit from the legalization of marijuana. I know that the government's stated objectives are to protect youth and reduce the involvement of organized crime. That certainly sounds good during an election campaign, but it is unrealistic.

Does this government know anything about human psychology? Fifteen percent of people will always defy the law, which means that 85% respect authority. Legalizing marijuana is like inviting people to an open bar; we are saying it can be used safely, and so, marijuana's potential market will go from 15% to 100%. We want to poison our youth by saying, “Smoke your joint; go on, enjoy yourself!” We are now in the business of helping to develop this market.

This law will expose new consumers to greater harm. Not only will law-abiding citizens start using, there will also be an increase in the number of road accidents caused by marijuana use. I am not the one saying this. This data comes from the various states, regions and municipalities that have legalized marijuana.

Moreover, organized crime will push its customers, especially young people, to buy at a discount. This will not put an end to organized crime because its members are more clever and intelligent than this government. Organized crime will develop other markets and drugs, and it will lower its prices. They are in the business of marketing. How much will all this cost society? How many young people’s lives will be destroyed?

Schools are worried, as is the Association des policières et policiers provinciaux du Québec and the Association des pédiatres du Québec. Numerous studies on brain development in young people have shown that people under the age of 25 are at a high risk of harm.

My fellow citizens in the beautiful riding of Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier have many concerns. What will be the cost of implementing this law given all the accompanying structures that will have to be put in place? Monitoring systems, training and awareness-raising campaigns will have to be funded. How much money will be spent in the near future and for how many years if we go ahead with legalization? Awareness-raising campaigns against cannabis will need to be organized to educate the public and protect our children.

As well, how much of a burden will we be putting on our health care system? How will this impact our society? How will it affect health and safety in the workplace? Are we about to see a new generation of young, budding horticulturists? Why jeopardize Canada's fine, young people and put them at risk of irreparable harm? Why this eagerness to legalize cannabis? How do Liberals plan to measure and control the rate of hallucinogenic compounds? Regarding the limit of four plants per household, how can the government seriously think that they can control all of this?

The Liberal government wants to legalize marijuana, but give responsibility for distribution to the provinces. What happens when a young person who is not of legal age to consume marijuana crosses the Quebec-Ontario border? How will we apply this law?

All of these questions remain unanswered. I invite the Liberal government to reflect on this bill and withdraw it on behalf of our youth, who deserve a better future. We are in 2017. I am in favour of the decriminalization of marijuana and I support awareness-raising campaigns that encourage young people to participate in sports and the arts and to say no to drugs. With such measures, the Liberals would achieve their goals without having to legalize marijuana.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member on his remarks. I thought they were very thorough, well thought out, and very fair. I am pleased to hear that his party will be supporting Bill C-45 going to committee and I hope there is a robust debate there.

I have a couple of questions.

Having been in a previous government that proposed the decriminalization of cannabis back in about 2002, I do see the approach and I understand where the party and the member are coming from in that regard, because it does not make sense to have all these people with records who face the cost of a pardon and the loss of economic opportunity for having been charged for small amounts of marijuana. The problem with the decriminalization approach—and I agree on the member's point on going forward with a progressive approach—is that decriminalization, in and of itself, does not take the criminal element out of the sale of the product on the market. Does the member not see that as a problem in responding only with decriminalization?

Second, on the point of revenue, I think there are a lot of people who think this is going to mean gobs of money for governments. I do not believe that will be the case, because we have to keep the revenue very stable or at fairly low prices or we are going to encourage the black market to provide illegal product. I wonder what the member has to say on that as well.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today we are speaking about Bill C-45, a Liberal government plan that caused a stir even well before the election. When the Prime Minister was the leader of the Liberal Party and aspiring to his current position, he spoke about his own marijuana use and later said he was going to launch this major project.

First, we must point out that there is a problem we must now deal with. In fact, we have been asking for a long time for the details and the plan for this bill, information that has been lacking for far too long. When someone who is aspiring to be Prime Minister, and an MP before that, stands for election and talks in very vague terms about legalization, it creates a lot of uncertainty. We have seen that the judicial system and police forces are also dealing with a great deal of uncertainty.

When the Liberals came to power almost eighteen months ago, I asked the RCMP commissioner some questions when he appeared before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. I wanted to know how he thought the existing law should be applied in light of the Prime Minister's long-term vision, which was not materializing.

With respect to public safety and security, there are other consequences stemming from the lack of a plan, a vision, or an explanation from the government about this bill. One of those consequences is still present today, and it may very well remain after the bill is enacted: the consequences for Canadians crossing the border to the United States.

Growing numbers of American states are legalizing marijuana. In spite of that, we see that Canadian citizens crossing the border, whether to visit family or to go on vacation or to work, are being asked outright whether they have ever smoked marijuana. They are being judged for that and banned from entering the United States.

While we acknowledge the Americans’ responsibility, and their right, to make that determination for themselves, we can readily conclude that it is extremely problematic that a product legalized in Canada will have such major consequences for Canadians.

In spite of the current scrambling resulting from the behaviour of President Trump, our relationship with the United States is nonetheless very important, and smooth flow at the border remains crucial for many Canadians, for the reasons I outlined earlier.

As we saw when my colleague from Cowichan—Malahat—Langford asked a question today during question period, we have no information about Canada’s various international obligations. We have still not been given the details about how we are going to go about this.

What we are seeing is the consequences associated with a process that was significantly lacking in transparency up until the bill was introduced, in spite of the report of the task force, whom we do thank for that.

I am going to talk about what the bill does and does not contain. Before getting into the substance of this legislation, I want to say that we will be supporting Bill C-45 at second reading. It is high time we moved forward with this debate.

However, even though we support the bill, we have important questions and concerns. Some will be resolved in committee, but others will be more difficult to resolve and will remain unanswered.

The question that comes immediately to mind relates to the responsibilities of the provinces and territories. I raised the question of uncertainty earlier. The greatest uncertainty relates to shared responsibilities with the provinces. For example, important questions arise in relation to taxation, that is, the revenue that will be derived from this. That is often one of the arguments when we discuss legalizing marijuana. People often tell us that one of the positive consequences of legalizing marijuana is that this revenue will no longer be in the hands of organized crime, and will instead be in the government’s hands.

However, we know that given the way our country is structured, all the issues relating to sale and taxation are to a large extent under provincial jurisdiction.

I have heard some Conservatives raise the question of the rights of landlords whose tenants might like to grow plants. Tenants can set rules of their own. That said, in Quebec, for example, it could be the Régie du logement that ends up having to come up with a set of rules. All these questions obviously call for a robust, transparent and very thorough conversation with the provinces.

It does not seem to me that this has happened so far. This is one of the bill's major problems. We will get answers to some of these questions when we have a clearer picture of the role the provinces are being called on to play.

Governing in Canada can be very complicated. There are different issues in the different regions of the country. This is a vast country, as we know. We hope that the provinces will get their say. We are certainly not convinced that they have had a chance to explain their concerns and say how they would like things to be structured.

Naturally, the government could ask that we have these discussions after the bill has passed. As a parliamentarian from Quebec, I see that I need a lot more information about what will be required of the provinces to do and what the provinces may require, in turn, before we can give the government a blank cheque.

In spite of all this, as I said, we support the government’s approach, up to a point. In recent years, there has been much talk about what we know as the war on drugs. That is what the media calls it. It was popularized, in a sense, by Ronald Reagan when he was president in the 1980s.

We agree with the government that the present approach is a failure. Obviously, putting our heads in the sand and contenting ourselves with punishing people is not an approach that promotes education and prevention or benefits young people or cultural communities. Unfortunately, specific segments of the population are too often victims of profiling or discrimination by the judicial system, and, without meaning to generalize, by some aspects of policing.

We can look at the American example and see how marijuana is classified in the United States. In the hierarchy of dangerous and serious drugs, marijuana is classified ahead of other drugs like heroin or cocaine. We see that there is nonetheless discussion happening. The reason I mention the American example despite the fact that it goes outside our borders is that there are a lot of fears circulating. We must take the opportunity to set the record straight.

With respect to discrimination, in our humble opinion, it is too often the same people, the same members of our society, who are punished unfairly or too harshly in connection with their recreational use of marijuana, among other things. That is why we have called for decriminalization for a long time.

When it comes to the Prime Minister, we find it unacceptable that a member of his family is able to get off because of the privileges he enjoys in our society as a result of his status, while young people, or, as I said, other members of society who are too often victims of discrimination will still have a criminal record and the negative repercussions of that record for something that will soon be legal. In the meantime, we are calling for amnesty and decriminalization.

With respect to the question of revenue, which will also have to be negotiated with the provinces, we believe that this money can and should be used for education and prevention. This is a golden opportunity to change the direction of the war on drugs and truly focus on a progressive approach. It must benefit primarily the people for whom it is intended, namely young people. We must not see cronyism or an approach that takes a direction different from the one promised by the Prime Minister.

I may be able to expand on that when I answer questions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I too want to add my comments to the debate on Bill C-45, which is the cannabis act.

It is interesting that the Liberals, when they were the third party in the House, wanted to put out some things in the window to encourage voters, but I do not think they ever actually thought that they were going to have to follow through with this particular policy. They made a lot of promises in the election, including balanced budgets, electoral reform, and of course legalizing cannabis. To be quite frank, I would have much preferred that they kept their promise on a balanced budget than their promise of legalizing cannabis.

As is the policy of our party, most Canadians think that children, young teenagers, and young adults should not be adversely impacted and have criminal records for having a small amount of cannabis. Certainly that is something that would have been important to move forward, rather than an ill-thought-out plan that probably would create some significant damages down the way.

The Liberals' stated policy objective is going to be monitored and watched by all Canadians because the Liberal government is saying two things. The Liberals are saying, first, that they are going to protect our children, and second, that they are going to get organized crime out of this business, and that the rest of us have our heads in the sand like ostriches. The Liberals are going to be held to account, year after year as the data come in, as to whether they have actually achieved those two objectives. Certainly, there are a number of people out there who are very concerned that the design of the legislation would not achieve those outcomes.

I am going to read a couple of excerpts from a very good article that came out in the Canadian Medical Association Journal a couple of days ago. It is important to note that the Minister of Health is also a physician and that this is her professional body. The CMA is advising with regard to the legislation, and it has some pretty important things to say. Perhaps the minister should reflect on what it is saying, because the association is an expert in this area.

The title of the article is “Cannabis legislation fails to protect Canada’s youth”. This is an article by Dr. Kelsall. I do not have time to read it all, but I certainly encourage anyone who is interested to read the details. It was in the May 29 Canadian Medical Association Journal. It says, “The purported purpose of the act is to protect public health and safety, yet some of the act’s provisions appear starkly at odds with this objective, particularly for Canada’s youth.”

The author then goes into significant detail, which has been spoken about in the debate up to now, in terms of young age and the particularly long-term consequences and impact of cannabis use on the developing brain, and really saying that it is not until the age of 25, when the brain is more fully developed, that it is less impactful. What did the government do? The medical association says, at a minimum, to make the age 21 for legalization because up to that age it is a real issue, so the Liberals made the legal age 18. That is the first significant area of concern.

Next, the article talks about drawing on the work of the federal task force, which “recommended taking a public health approach”, yet in the bill the age is set, even though 21 years is absolutely recommended.

The association's next area of concern is the “personal cultivation of up to four marijuana plants”. About this, the article states, “allowing personal cultivation will increase the risk of diversion and access to cannabis that is not subject to any quality or potency controls.” That is important. The Liberals talk about use, and I believe a lot of studies talk about the fact that the first time children smoke a cigarette at a young age is often when they have gone into their parents' package of cigarettes and taken from that supply. That is their first exposure to cigarettes. We now would have a situation where having cannabis, whether it is purchased legally or grown in the home, becomes normalized.

To be quite frank, I think children's access would be much easier than it currently is, especially in the case of the homegrown and particularly in the case of the potency issues.

The other issue with the home growing is that, not only do I think children are going to have more access, but why did the Liberals ever put this in there? They did not need to have homegrown in there at all. I think if they are going to do this, it should be absolutely all purchased and quality controlled.

They talk about only being able to have four marijuana plants and they can only be 100 centimetres high, so all is fine. Who is going to monitor that? Who is going to go around with a measuring tape, measuring the height of the marijuana plants and counting them? No one. This is an unenforceable piece of legislation. It is absolutely ridiculous to have that in there.

Then there is the insurance issue. I have dealt with a number of landlords who have come to me over the years, in terms of our medical marijuana regime. What is happening is that landlords have no rights. If someone has a licence to grow medical marijuana, and they rent a home from someone and decide they are going to grow their medical marijuana, they perhaps are growing it for another person with a licence, the landlord has no rights at all. What happens after that? The landlords lose their insurance.

There has been no work that I can see done with the insurance companies, real estate associations, or provinces in terms of what the impact would be in terms of the homegrown aspect.

The FCM is here. Many people have noted they are here. I met with a number of representatives from our local area. They said, “We have a mess right now. This is a mess. We don't know where it's going to end up, but we're very fearful that there's going to be a lot of downloading on us.”

With respect to the organized crime aspect, again, perhaps this is going to work, in terms of taking it out of organized crime. There is no guarantee. I suspect that the prices are going to be high and between the diversion from the homegrown, because no one is monitoring four plants, there is going to continue to be a significant element of organized crime. To be frank, if this goes ahead, and I hope that I am wrong, I do not think that they have created the right circumstances to remove organized crime out of this particular business. Perhaps, in many ways, they will be getting into the legal component of it.

I am going to conclude by stating what my concerns are. Absolutely, age is number one. Second is the ability to grow in the home, and the third is just a personal thing that I find to be particularly offensive. When the Liberals came out, with great pride, to announce the movement forward with their cannabis legislation, they said, “We're going to have it in place for July 1. It is going to be there for Canada Day 2018.”

In 2018, when I am watching the fireworks on Canada Day, I hope that people do not say this is what is making it special, because the Liberals think that we cannot enjoy our celebrations of our country by watching the lights and the different displays without being stoned. I think it is incredibly offensive that they want to attach legalization to Canada Day, a day on which we should be filled with pride, and they just think it is important that perhaps people can enjoy being stoned during these festivities. It is really offensive.

In any event, I hope members listen to me on at least the issue of age and the issue of home growing.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member made mention in his speech of dropping the hammer down on anyone who operates outside the way Bill C-45 is written, and Bill C-45 certainly has some harsh punishments. Someone over the age of 18 who distributes to someone who is younger could face up to 14 years in prison for an indictable offence. If it is a summary conviction, it could be $5,000 or a term of six months.

If we have a household where pot plants are allowed to be grown, and we have an inadvertent situation where someone over the age of 18 accidentally lets that marijuana get into the hands of someone younger, how are we making sure we are not dropping the hammer on a family unit and possibly sending a parent or guardian to jail for something that happened by accident? I just hope the government has taken that into consideration and maybe has a plan to deal with it.

The House resumed from June 1 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.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I once again rise in the House to speak to Bill C-45, an act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other acts. Bill C-45 would provide legal access to cannabis for adults and would control and regulate its production, distribution, and sale.

Cannabis is and has been an illegal drug in Canada for 94 years. For those doing the math, that means it has been prohibited since 1923.

I have a number of concerns with the piece of legislation before us tonight. I will list a few, and then go into detail on all of them, and I believe it will take the bulk of my 10 minutes.

From the easy and direct pot access for children and youth to the cost of implementation, the taxation, revenue sharing, and allocation, the compromising of international law and treaty obligations, and the risk of jeopardizing our relationships with our allies, including the U.S., Great Britain, and others, there is quite a lot to digest here. I am extremely concerned that this legislation is going to be passed before any of these questions are answered.

Polls would suggest that as Canadians learn more about the details of the Liberals' plan to legalize marijuana and the potential harmful impacts that may follow, some are having second thoughts. This is especially true when it comes to the legal age for buying marijuana. A whopping 58% of Canadians surveyed feel that the legal age should be higher than the age the federal government has set, which is 18. That is more than two in five Canadians who disagree with the government's current trajectory. The Prime Minister's marijuana bill is a promise to pot smokers, not to parents, and there are so many unanswered questions here.

The bill would enable children to have direct and easy access to pot. The Liberals like to say that somehow their piece of legislation would make it harder for children to get their hands on marijuana, but let us be very clear. This legislation is not in any way going to decrease the amount of usage by our children. Allowing a 12-year-old to carry up to five grams of marijuana is unacceptable.

Canada has the highest rate of youth using cannabis of any country in the world. We are not disputing that. In 2015, use among youth aged 15 to 19 was 21%, while the use among young adults aged 20 to 24 was 30%.

As we get closer to 2018, the self-imposed legislation date put forward by the Liberal government, we need to recognize the many unknowns with this legislation. That will be the bulk of my speech.

There are 41% of Canadians who feel that Ottawa is rushing this legislative process, while 53% said they feel that the federal government is underestimating the overall impact on Canadian society. I know I am throwing a lot of statistics at the House, but it is important to underscore how Canadians are feeling on something as important as a drug that will impact the health and safety of all Canadians.

The Prime Minister must also be clear in how we sell this to our international parties. As mentioned earlier, Canada is one of more than 150 parties to three United Nations drug control conventions: the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs; the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances; and the 1988 Convention against the Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. These are not to be taken lightly.

A government memo that came out last year stated that Canada will need to explore how to inform the international community and take the steps needed to adjust its obligations under these investigations. What does this mean? In order to withdraw from any of these treaties, Canada must do so before July 1st of this year. When will the government signal its intent to do so, or has it already?

Canada will be the first G7 country in the world to take steps to legalize this drug, and yet we still cannot answer the most basic of questions. What does it mean for someone crossing the border who may have consumed cannabis earlier in the day or even a couple of days previously?

If a U.S. customs officer finds that Canadians who are going through the border consumed marijuana at any time or within the last 48 hours or 24 hours, they will be deemed inadmissible. They could be detained. Will this affect border times? Will more resources be dedicated to dealing with this issue?

There is even reason to believe that the legislation around impaired driving may be unconstitutional. The National Post has highlighted this point by saying that science is yet to establish a solid link between a given level of THC concentration in the driver's blood or saliva and the level of impairment. I will say again, as I have said before, that impairment with THC or cannabis is completely different from impairment with alcohol, and to this date, despite all of the questions we have asked, all of the questions I have asked, the government has been unable to give us what level of THC needs to be in the bloodstream to determine that an individual is impaired.

Impaired driving is the leading criminal cause of death in Canada, and we can only expect these numbers to increase when marijuana is legalized. There are serious questions also being asked about our transportation industry. I have stood in the House many times explaining that I know from my background, 22 years in the aviation industry as well as working with many organizations, that whether it is road, rail, marine, or aviation, these groups will all have serious concerns over this legislation.

There are tens of thousands of commercial trucks on the highways and roadways of our provinces, our communities. What is the government putting forth to communities that have these trucks going through at all hours of the day? What steps is the government taking to ensure that the conductor or engineer of a train hauling hazardous materials through our communities or that the pilots flying our families have not consumed marijuana? What are we saying to the organizations that employ these people?

Will the government provide additional resources? Will we still mandate that drug testing is required? How do these companies that we trust to operate safely and efficiently police their employees?

On the other side of that, we have also heard serious concerns from our insurance and mortgage industries. When a property is sold, there is a purchase contract in place as well as a property disclosure that is typically required. The exact wording from the statement is, “Are you aware if the premises have been used as a marijuana grow operation or to manufacture illegal drugs?” It does not state quantity or whether it was a legal or illegal operation, but simply whether there was any marijuana grown on that property. Once owners have knowledge of this, they are required to disclose it to any subsequent purchaser, which will drastically affect the marketability of that property. Furthermore, the stigma will remain attached to the property for the life of the home and potentially onward.

Financing options for properties that have had marijuana grown on them have become almost obsolete. As a matter of fact, many of the insurance companies that underwrite the mortgages in Canada are in the United States, and they have said that they do not want to touch the bill and do not want to see it go through. Most of our major banks will no longer allow it, and few smaller credit unions who will still consider, are typically charging higher premiums due to risk management.

A phase one environmental assessment is always required to determine the potential damage to the home, and then all remediation is to be completed prior to obtaining a new occupancy permit. This process can cost tens of thousands of dollars, if not more.

In conclusion, has the Liberal government done a thorough analysis and consulted the mortgage and insurance brokers and the transportation organizations on the impact of this legislation? I think I have been very clear on my points today. The legislation is momentous. I do not have to say it is very dramatic. We are in uncharted territory and, if this legislation is passed, the world will be looking at Canada's model, and what it will find are flaws that put the health and safety of Canadians at risk.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this very important issue, and I look forward to the questions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my hon. colleague for his remarks, but I do think he seems to be confusing two very basic concepts. One is on the need to safely and strictly regulate cannabis, which we propose to do with Bill C-45, and the second is the need to safely regulate our roads and keep our roads safe. It is important that we disentangle those two concepts.

I think the member will acknowledge, by taking a close look Bill C-46, that we are increasing sentences for certain offences, we are creating new offences which actually help police officers to charge drivers who are mixing drugs and alcohol, and we are proposing to introduce mandatory road screening. All of those measures are why MADD, an organization that my hon. colleague is very familiar with, is very supportive of Bill C-46. If MADD can get behind Bill C-46, why can my hon. colleague not get behind it?