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.

Cannabis Act

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one would think that at this late date in the session and at this late hour in the evening, the Liberals would be focusing on the real issues that are facing Canadians like slow economic growth, joblessness, and a growing inability of young Canadians to purchase a new home. No, instead the Liberals are spending their time working hard to legalize the recreational use of marijuana. Considering the long list of campaign promises they have broken so far, it is surprising that this is the one they decided to push through at all costs.

In regard to this legislation, our top priority on this side of the House is to stand up for the health and safety of Canadians. The Liberals have repeatedly claimed that the purpose of this legislation is the protection of our young people and to increase public safety, but the more research is done into legalization and the more information we gather about the negative effects in jurisdictions that have gone down this road, the more the claim they are making goes up in smoke.

How did we get here? On April 13, 2017, the Liberal government introduced legislation that would allow for the recreational use of marijuana for Canadians over the age of 18 and eliminate penalties for possession of up to five grams of marijuana for those between the ages of 12 and 18. This bill is now referred to as Bill C-45. As I said earlier, the Prime Minister and his Liberal government have repeated time and again that the aim of this legislation is to protect our young children and increase public safety. However, neither of these goals is accomplished with this legislation.

This is not just my view. The Angus Reid Institute conducted a poll and found that approximately two in three Canadians believe that this legislation fails to prevent young people from using marijuana more than they already do. While the government claims that it makes decisions based on facts and science, this legislation proves otherwise.

Groups such as the Canadian Medical Association, Canadian Psychiatric Association, and Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police all oppose certain aspects of the bill. Both the CMA and CPA have stated that Canadians who consume marijuana recreationally under the age of 25 have a higher risk of developing mental illness such as depression, schizophrenia, and bipolar disorder.

The Canadian Psychiatric Association has stated:

Regular cannabis use in youth and young adults can affect aspects of cognition, including attention, memory, processing speed, visuospatial functioning and overall intelligence. Worse performance is related to earlier adolescent onset of use.

The Canadian Psychiatric Association went on to say that:

Early age of use of cannabis increases the potential for adult dependence to cannabis.

Cannabis may be associated with increased progression to other illicit drug use in the context of particular factors (e.g., high frequency and early age of use).

Later in the same report, the Canadian Psychiatric Association states:

The CPA acknowledges and agrees with the CMA recommendations to the Task Force. With respect to protection of mental wellness for youth and young adults the CPA highlights the following:

Since regular cannabis use is associated with increased risk of schizophrenia, and may also negatively interact with depression, bipolar and anxiety disorders due to its biological effects on brain maturation, and since mental disorders frequently start before the age of 25, age of access to cannabis should not be prior to age 21, with restrictions on quantity and THC potency for those between 21 and 25 years of age.

None of these are found in Bill C-45.

A recent Canadian Medical Association Journal edition of May 29 states:

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.

Simply put, cannabis should not be used by young people. It is toxic to their cortical neuronal networks, with both functional and structural changes seen in the brains of youth who use cannabis regularly.

The Centre for Addiction and Mental Health has stated unequivocally that “cannabis is not a benign substance and its health harms increase with intensity of use”. Although adults are also susceptible to the harmful effects of cannabis, the developing brain is especially sensitive.

The Canadian Paediatric Society cautions that marijuana use in youth is strongly linked to “cannabis dependence and other substance use disorders; the initiation and maintenance of tobacco smoking; an increased presence of mental illness, including depression, anxiety and psychosis; impaired neurological development and cognitive decline; and diminished school performance and lifetime achievement.” The lifetime risk of dependence on marijuana is about 9%; however, this increases to almost 17% in those who start using as teenagers.

The CMA article continues:

Most of us know a young person whose life was derailed because of marijuana use. Bill C-45 is unlikely to prevent such tragedies from occurring—and, conversely, may make them more frequent. Although an accompanying bill lays out stronger penalties for impaired driving and proposed limits for blood levels of tetrahydrocannabinol in drivers, there is grave concern that legalization of marijuana will result in a substantial increase in impaired driving, particularly among young people and in conjunction with alcohol use.

Negative health effects related to the recreational use of marijuana is not exclusive to children. As the Canadian Medical Association notes, “Marijuana use is linked to several adverse health outcomes, including addiction, cardiovascular and pulmonary effects (e.g., chronic bronchitis), mental illness, and other problems, including cognitive impairment and reduced educational attainment.”

Specifically regarding addiction, the Society for the Study of Addiction has found that regular use of marijuana for one in 10 users results in a dependence problem. If usage started in adolescence, that number rises to one in six. It is clear the negative health effects of marijuana are not being taken seriously by the government and the steps it is taking now will have a long-lasting negative impact on Canadians.

As for public safety, Washington state says legalizing the recreational use of marijuana has seen drastic increases in vehicular deaths related to driving under the influence of marijuana. The Washington Times, reporting on findings from the American Automobile Association, stated:

Authorities in Washington recorded 436 fatal crashes in 2013, and determined that drivers involved in 40 crashes tested positive for THC, the active chemical in marijuana, according to the study. In 2014 [one year later] they found that of 462 fatal crashes, 85 drivers tested positive for THC.

The number of fatal crashes linked to the presence of THC doubled in one year.

MADD Canada stated:

Population surveys show the number of Canadians driving after using drugs is on the rise. In fact, driving after smoking cannabis is now more prevalent among some younger drivers than driving after drinking. Survey data from a 2013 Centre for Addiction and Mental Health report showed that, among young Ontario drivers in grades 10--12, 4% drove after drinking while 9.7% drove after smoking cannabis.

Equally concerning as the numbers is the misperception that many young people, and some parents, have that driving under the influence of cannabis is safer than driving under the influence of alcohol. A national study by the Partnership for a Drug-Free Canada revealed:

Nearly one third (32%) of teens did not consider driving under the influence of cannabis to be as bad as alcohol.

Nearly 25% of parents of teenagers did not consider driving while high on cannabis to be as bad as drinking and driving.

Many young people think driving under the influence of cannabis is risk-free. Yet studies have shown that smoking cannabis can produce unwelcome effects behind the wheel, including a shorter attention span, an altered perception of time and distances, and slower reaction times that impair the driver’s ability to respond to sudden events in traffic. A 2012 study by researchers at Dalhousie University in Halifax found that smoking cannabis three hours before driving nearly doubled a driver’s risk of having a motor vehicle crash.

Combining cannabis with even small amounts of alcohol greatly increases the negative impact on driving skills.

Many young people also think that they will never be caught or charged for driving high. While detecting cannabis is more challenging than detecting alcohol because we do not yet have a simple roadside drug test similar to the alcohol breathalyzer, police do have tools to determine whether a driver is impaired by drugs.

However, as noted by the American Automobile Association, there are no proven blood or urine tests that can determine how high a person is from marijuana. Tests can only determine if marijuana is in their system. I have heard from police officers in the Waterloo region on this issue. Our police forces are not properly funded or equipped to handle these new dangers. We need to heed their warnings and take their concerns into consideration.

It is clear that while the government is going to rush ahead with legalizing recreational marijuana, it is not with the health and safety of Canadians in mind. It is simply to fulfill a campaign promise, with no thought or concern for our youth and their future.

Let me finish with one short quote from an editorial written by Dr. Diane Kelsall in the Canadian Medical Association Journal just three days ago. She said, “If Parliament truly cares about the public health and safety of Canadians, especially our youth, this bill will not pass.”

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, marijuana legalization would certainly have a big impact on society as we know it, and of course, I am speaking with regard to Canadian society. In particular, I am talking about Canada's overall health and the well-being of Canadians in this country. What the Liberals are attempting to do in this one piece of legislation, which they are rushing through this House, actually required decades of work when it came to doing something similar with alcohol and tobacco. With a significant change to our legal code, and the responsibilities that would be imposed on provinces and municipalities, I believe that we need to ensure that the Liberal policy is backed by scientific evidence, which, to be fair, I have reason to be skeptical of, based on committee work and other pieces of legislation the Liberals have actually put through this House. It certainly has lacked these components in the past.

We also need to make sure that the provinces and the municipalities have time to properly develop rules and regulations in their areas of jurisdiction. This is to say nothing about consideration for employers, who would then have to implement policies within their workplaces as well.

I have concerns about Bill C-45. I believe that it has flaws, both with its rushed time frame and its lack of scientific backing. I wish to explore those to a further extent today.

The legalization of marijuana is a policy area that must be informed by science. When I say this, I am particularly concerned about the health and well-being of our country's young people. We know from the Canadian Medical Association, as well as the Canadian Paediatric Society and the College of Family Physicians of Canada, that marijuana has negative health impacts on a person's brain before the age of 25, in terms of development. I have talked to young people from coast to coast, and I am impressed by the fact that many of them actually are also concerned about this. This is one of the things they raise when I hold round table discussions or a town hall and I talk to them about this piece of legislation and the decisions going forward. They tell me that 18 is simply too young. They recognize that using cannabis actually slows and harms brain development in those under the age of 25, and many of them are fearful that the use of marijuana will in fact cause schizophrenia, which of course has also been scientifically and medically proven. Furthermore, I know from peer-reviewed research, as well as from speaking to youth directly, that the legalization of marijuana would also reduce the perception of risk among young people. In other words, it would normalize the use of marijuana.

The last thing I would like to mention with regard to young people is that for youth under the age of 18, under this piece of legislation, if they were found in possession of less than five grams of marijuana, they would not be prosecuted. I have to ask, then, how this would in fact reduce access by youth. This is one of the primary arguments the Liberals use to defend this piece of legislation, and unfortunately it just does not hold up.

If the government insists on moving forward with this poorly drafted legislation, then at the very least I believe we need to ensure that there is strong and comprehensive education put in place with regard to our young people. That needs to be put in place before marijuana is legalized in our country. While cannabis education is accounted for in the 2017 budget, the plan is to put forward only $9.6 million, not over one year but actually over five years, which means less than $2 million per year for education. That is how important the Liberal government thinks our young people are. They are worth not quite $2 million of public education per year, not to mention that there is no way the education program is going to be sufficiently in place before the deadline of July 1, 2018.

While Bill C-45 clarifies the need for health and safety warnings on product packaging, by the time a young person has the product in his or her hands to read that label, it is too late for that individual to really learn about the risks. We cannot afford to overlook the necessity of education for the sake of simply rushing this legislation through. I believe that it is our responsibility as parliamentarians to defend and champion the future of Canada's young people. For that to be the case in the matter before this House today, both medical and scientific evidence must be given supreme weight when we put in place this legislation.

I also have serious concerns with regard to the ability to test for impairment, particularly, while driving. Scientific research shows the struggle to detect marijuana when it comes to impaired driving. Unlike alcohol, the amount in the bloodstream does not indicate the level of a person's impairment. THC is not easily detected by a breathalyzer because of the drug's nature as a fat-soluble substance.

Cannabis also affects chronic users to a lesser extent than first-time users, so this would have to be accounted for as well, because the same amount in a person's system is not going to have the same impact.

The Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse has found that marijuana significantly impairs a person's ability to focus when there is more than one source of incoming information. This describes driving very well. When a person is driving and they are using marijuana, it actually causes them to swerve on the roadway, it causes them to maintain dangerous following distances behind other vehicles, it sometimes causes them not to miss a pedestrian as they are crossing the street, and it causes the inability to monitor one's speed. Of course, all of these factors lead to a high probability of crashing. Worse than that, they lead to the loss of life all too often.

With cannabis being the second most common substance detected in drivers after an accident, second only to alcohol, the danger of impaired drivers on our roadways must be considered and the risk must be mitigated.

Furthermore, many concerns have been shared with me by provincial and municipal officials in my riding. They have said that while the federal government is responsible for overseeing the production of marijuana and the Criminal Code exemptions for recreational cannabis, it really is up to them. They are required to design the rest of the regulations related to public health and zoning, along with managing the system for the sale and the distribution of marijuana. They feel that this is quite a burden to be placed on them. Of course, it is being placed on them and it has to be in place by an arbitrary deadline of July 1, 2018.

Why July 1, 2018? This is much too soon for provinces and municipalities to be able to adequately put the needed regulations and bylaws in place. By the time the bill passes, they will have only six months to do that, because it is likely that the legislation is going to be in the House until about Christmas.

If that were not enough, the provinces and municipalities also have to create non-criminal offences for youth under the age of 18 if they wish to further deter the use of marijuana among young people. This is needed because the legislation before us allows youth between the ages of 12 and 17 to legally possess five grams of marijuana.

In conclusion, I do have significant concerns with regard to Bill C-45, the cannabis act. However, before I wrap up, I believe it is time for a fun fact.

The legislation allows for four plants per dwelling. I am from an agricultural background, so naturally I was curious as to just how much this would yield. A quick Google search and some of the most reliable do-it-yourself bloggers tell me that one plant will yield 1,200 grams. They also tell me I have to be careful. I have to use the right bulbs in order to produce that much. I did some further research and I found out this equates to 800 joints. Then I multiplied that by four, in order to figure out that actually we can produce 3,168 joints within that household. Then I found out that, on average, a user smokes about three joints a day. That means four plants will provide each household with just under three years' worth of joints.

I do not know about members, but this seems a little excessive to what a person might need for their individual use. I wonder if perhaps at some time the Liberals could clarify their thinking there.

We should be looking at the information presented in order to find facts on how the drugs affect the development of youth, and not accepting a politically motivated age in order to hurry up the process. We must look at potential education plans to inform our citizens about the risks. Furthermore, we must work with law enforcement to come up with better ways to test for THC levels, along with better ways to test an individual's level of impairment.

In addition, we should be talking to provincial and municipal governments to understand the timelines needed for creating distribution systems and new regulations.

Here is the thing. We need to admit that this legislation is only half-baked, and the last thing the Liberals should be doing right now is pursuing a political buzz by letting Canada go to pot.

Let us end on a high note. Let us roll up this legislation and let us get out of this joint today.

[Marwan Tabbara, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today I have the honour of speaking to Bill C-45, which our government introduced to legalize and strictly regulate cannabis consumption in Canada.

The cannabis bill represents a new approach to cannabis, one that puts public health and safety at the forefront, and will better protect young Canadians. The current approach to cannabis does not work. It has allowed criminals and organized crime to profit while also 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. Canadians continue to use cannabis at some of the highest rates in the world. It is the most commonly used illicit drug among young Canadians.

In 2015, 21% of youth aged 15 to 19 reported using cannabis in the past year. That is one in every five young people in this country. Too many of our youth see cannabis as a benign substance. They are often ill-informed on the harm that it can do, and are unaware that early use increases susceptibility to long-term effects on cannabis.

Youth are especially vulnerable to the effects of cannabis on brain development and function. This is because the THC in cannabis affects the same biological system in the brain that directs brain development. At the same time, too many people today are entering the criminal justice system for possessing small amounts of cannabis, potentially impacting their long-term opportunities. Clearly, there has to be a better way of educating and protecting our youth.

Given these facts, I would like to focus my comments today on the benefits of this legislation for youth. This is one of our government's primary objectives of Bill C-45, to protect youth by restricting their access to cannabis. I would begin by noting that this legislation is just one piece of the overall approach to addressing cannabis use by youth. Our government's commitment to keep cannabis out of the hands of children is made up of a number of complementary measures aimed at safeguarding their health, safety, and well-being.

Specifically, our government is trying to reduce cannabis use by youth, to restrict their ability to obtain the product, to provide them with better information on its health harms and risks, and to keep them out of the hands of the criminal justice system for possessing even small amounts of cannabis.

This approach requires legislative and regulatory measures and support for public education and awareness. To this end, our government has begun a public education campaign with a focus on youth and their parents, to better inform them about cannabis and its health harms and risks. I am confident that our government's overall approach will be effective in better protecting our youth from potential harm of this substance.

I would now like to explain the specific measures in the cannabis bill that would help safeguard our youth. As a society, we have learned from the health and safety controls that have been put in place for potentially harmful substances, such as tobacco, alcohol, and prescription medications. Bill C-45 uses these best practices as its starting point and contains a number of measures that are designed to protect youth.

At the outset, Bill C-45 prohibits the sale of cannabis to anyone under the age of 18 and prohibits adults from giving cannabis to anyone under 18. It also creates an offence and penalty for anyone caught using a young person to commit a cannabis-related offence. Any adult caught engaged in these activities would face a jail term of up to 14 years.

To avoid the kind of enticements to use cannabis that we have seen in the past with tobacco, Bill C-45 would prohibit any form of cannabis designed to appeal to youth. This means that things like cannabis-infused gummy bears or lollipops would be illegal.

To further protect youth from the encouragement to use cannabis, cannabis producers and retailers would be prohibited from using any kind of packaging or labelling that might be appealing to youth, or using any kind of endorsement, lifestyle promotion, or cartoon animals to promote their products. The promotion or advertising of cannabis products would not be permitted in any place or any media that could be accessed by youth, such as grocery stores, movie theatres, or on public transportation, just to name a few examples.

To further reduce the chance that youth might be able to access the product illegally, cannabis would not be sold in any kind of vending machine. Bill C-45 also includes authority to make regulations that could require cannabis to be sold in child-resistant packaging to protect our youngest ones from accidentally consuming the product.

Taken together, these measures constitute a comprehensive approach to protecting the health and safety of our youth.

In addition to protecting public health and safety, one of our government's goals is to avoid criminalizing Canadians for relatively minor offences. Having a criminal record for simple possession of small amounts of cannabis can have significant consequences. Opportunities for employment, housing, volunteerism, and travel can all be impacted by the existence of a record. Do we want to continue to saddle Canadians with these burdens for the possession of small amounts of cannabis? Our government's answer is no.

The proposed legislation sets out a 30-gram possession limit for dried cannabis in public for adults aged 18 and older, and as I stated earlier, it also establishes offences and strict penalties for adults who give or try to sell cannabis to youth or who use a young person to commit a cannabis-related offence.

Bill C-45 takes a different approach to cannabis possession by youth, one that recognizes that in some circumstances, entering the criminal justice system can do more harm than good. Under Bill C-45, youth would not face criminal prosecution for possessing or sharing very small amounts of cannabis. Any activities by youth involving more than a small amount of cannabis, defined as over 5 grams, would be addressed under the provisions of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

Our government will be working with the provinces and territories to support the development of legislation in each jurisdiction that would allow law enforcement to confiscate any amount of cannabis found in the possession of a young person. This would allow authorities to take away any amount of cannabis they may have in their possession.

Let me be clear. The proposed approach addressing youth possession of cannabis does not mean that such behaviour is encouraged or acceptable. It is not. Rather, it recognizes that a more balanced approach that uses a range of tools and does not rely only on the criminal justice system will provide a better way to reduce cannabis consumption among youth.

This approach is consistent with the findings of the Task Force on Cannabis Legalization and Regulation, led by the Honourable Anne Mclellan. The task force's final report noted that cannabis use among youth could be better addressed through non-criminal approaches that discourage youth from possessing or consuming cannabis. I believe that this strikes the right balance between avoiding criminalizing youth for the possession of small amounts and ensuring that cannabis remains tightly regulated and controlled.

In conclusion, our government has put the health, safety, and well-being of youth at the core of this proposed legislation. I am confident that through this balanced approach, we will see less high-risk cannabis use by youth, and we will begin to bring down the rate at which our youth use cannabis.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's oratory. He has obviously woken up the House. I am afraid I am going to put everyone back to sleep.

As I stand here with my colleagues, Canadians are paying close attention to the discussion we are having on the legalization of the distribution, sale, and possession of recreational marijuana in Canada. This subject no doubt evokes many emotions on all sides, and I know there can be some strongly held views on this issue.

I feel that the government has rushed into the bill without really stopping to consider all the consequences. The Liberals are doing it to meet a campaign commitment without considering all the repercussions and effects that this legislation scheme may have.

In April, shortly after the legislation was introduced by the Liberals, I had the opportunity to host a series of community round table meetings with municipal officials throughout my constituency. I met with mayors, reeves, councillors, MLAs, and media. One of the very major concerns that these officials had was with respect to the timeline of the bill. The Liberals have introduced this very broad legislation, setting the minimum age, the number of plants, and the potency of marijuana that can be sold. They then basically told the provinces and the territories to develop their own implementation plan for the rest. That means there could be 13 different regimes across Canada.

In the lead-up to what they knew was impending legislation from the feds, the Alberta Urban Municipalities Association asked the Province of Alberta to act. As a result, in Alberta, the provincial NDP formed a secretariat to deal with this issue. That is great. The problem is that the secretariat in Alberta is excluding the municipalities from being part of it.

The Liberals keep talking about consultations with municipalities and municipal involvement, but how can this work? When the provinces are tasked with doing most of the heavy lifting for the feds, the municipalities are in fact left out of the decision-making process at the grassroots level.

As a former mayor for many years, I have a particular concern about the impact on communities and on municipalities. Municipalities are really concerned about this rush to legalize marijuana completely. They are concerned about the fact that they are going to have to pick up the tab for a variety of new responsibilities that are essentially being dumped on them overnight.

Municipalities will likely be responsible for enforcement and zoning, as well as for creating an entire new set of by-laws surrounding this new regime. With respect to zoning and by-laws, there will be a very long process. Staff will have to develop a plan. There will be public meetings and hearings. Advertising will have to be done. City staff will devote countless hours and resources over several months. There is a time factor here, and it cannot be rushed, which calls into question the government's timeline.

Licensing is not a cash cow, despite what some on the government side would have us believe. It will not be anywhere near what is required to cover the new costs this regime will impose on municipalities.

In a previous sitting of the House, I asked the Liberals what concrete actions they would be taking to support municipalities, seeing that they had dumped such a huge burden on them with very little time for them to adapt. The answer from the government side was quite generic, and it is not something I am particularly enthusiastic about. For example, the parliamentary secretary mentioned providing equipment and training, but did not mention who would pay for it. This does not help municipal planning.

Another area that will impact municipalities is they will have to rewrite their HR policies, because now they will have the threat of people coming to work under the influence of marijuana. The last thing any municipality wants is an employee operating heavy equipment while under the influence.

Enforcement as well means a whole new set of rules and regulations, planning, and money spent by municipalities.

The Liberals have essentially washed their hands of having to do any of the local work on this file. They have told municipalities, “Here is a big new change; you have about a year to implement it. Have a nice day.”

This is unfortunate, because I am sure that municipalities in my riding would have been willing to work collaboratively with the province, but they have been exempted from that. It is unfortunate that the province would not allow this to take place.

Another area of concern that I heard in the private sector while crisscrossing my riding hosting community roundtables was the concern surrounding workplace regulations regarding health and safety. Whether these organizations are small to medium-sized enterprises like ECS Safety Services in Brooks in my riding of Bow River or large outfits like oil and gas sector companies, there are some major concerns about work-related marijuana use.

As we know very well, my home province of Alberta has a large oil and gas sector, and it requires a significant amount of labour. These sectors now struggle at times to have enough clean employees. Coming under the influence of marijuana now is another significant challenge they are going to be facing.

I understand that the federal government must respect constitutional division of powers, and it says it is consulting with municipalities. It talks about some of the 22 major cities, like Toronto. In my riding, there are none of those 22 major cities. They are not talking about where the vast majority of our rural people live, so when they are talking about consulting, they are talking about some of the 22 major cities. That is not where I am from.

However, the Liberals can absolutely consult with the provinces to make sure they are going to support the municipalities. There is a process, if they wish to do it strongly enough. The federal government could, by funding, support these new powers for enforcement. It could come through the form of equal sharing of the tax revenue generated by legalized recreational marijuana. Let us consider the federal gas tax model, for example, where we cut out the middleman, which is the province, and the money goes directly to the municipalities, mostly. If it does not, it is property taxes that would end up covering the cost of this, because municipalities will be doing the heavy lifting at the grassroots level.

There are other ways the government may be able to support this as it rushes the terms of this brand new piece of legislation. However, if it does not take the time, if it pushes it too quickly, it will be the property tax payers as the major source of revenue for municipalities. As a result, taxes will go up in the local municipalities to pay for this scheme.

Lisa Holmes, president of the Alberta Urban Municipalities Association, has said that many Alberta municipalities could theoretically be ready by 2019, one year or so later than the government's deadline. If there is any way the government could work with the provinces to provide them with some flexibility in timelines and implementation, this might work. Ms. Holmes understands that, otherwise, the only way this new regime would be paid for is by property taxes in municipalities.

Another group of those concerned are many of the provincial premiers, including Liberal premiers. The NDP Premier of Alberta, Rachel Notley, has expressed concerns about the short timeline.

There are many other issues that are arising from this legalization. For example, I found it somewhat distressing that we are going to be encouraging people, including young people, to smoke marijuana now, when for years we have been trying to get people to stop smoking. For years, I was involved in a regional health care board, and I was also an educator. We worked very hard with the resources we had to deliver public education on anti-smoking issues. We worked hard to educate youth as young as 10 years old on the hazards of tobacco smoke. The goal of these campaigns was to ensure that these youth never started smoking, period. In one case, we had more money to do this than the Liberals are spending across the country in five years. The $9 million spread out so meagrely over five years is tragic. It is simply not enough.

There is an opportunity here to mandate that federal taxes go to municipalities for health promotion and prevention. A specific percentage should be mandated by the federal government to ensure that prevention is being adequately funded, because $9 million is just blatantly wrong.

In tobacco prevention, one of the biggest at-risk groups, where prevention was least successful, was with pregnant teenagers. We already have a situation where these young pregnant girls, the mother and unborn child, are at risk. With Bill C-45, the Liberals are adding a new toxic substance that is going to put these girls and unborn children at even more risk. Here is a disturbing fact. One in seven teenagers will get addicted to smoking marijuana once they begin smoking it. In single, pregnant teens, that number is even going to be higher.

The government is facilitating this more by its outright legalization. It is facilitating it by making it easier for teenagers to get their hands on marijuana. This is the reason we need significant funding for prevention, and it is up to the federal government to take the lead. It is not enough to simply download it.

With all this in mind, I look forward to continuing debate on Bill C-45, with the hope that the government will reconsider the timeline. We really need that reconsidered.

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have an opportunity to speak to Bill C-45, which would bring in a wide-ranging set of changes to our lives.

First let me say that the NDP has a proud 45-year history of championing marijuana decriminalization. We have been asking the Liberals to immediately decriminalize simple possession of marijuana as an interim measure, as many young and racialized Canadians continue to receive charges and criminal records that will affect them for the rest of their lives, not to mention the thousands of Canadians who have criminal records for simple possession of a substance that will soon cease to be illegal.

The changes to the law that Bill C-45 would bring are long overdue, but while we wait for the bill to become law, why will the government not bring in an interim measure of decriminalization, or at the very least, why will it not invoke prosecutorial and police discretion to cease enforcing an unjust law?

In their election platform, the Liberals claimed that arresting for and prosecuting these offences is expensive for our criminal justice system. It traps too many Canadians in the criminal justice system for minor, non-violent offences. Given the current situation of an overloaded justice system where cases are being thrown out and charges stayed because of long delays in courts, it just does not make any sense to keep charging Canadians for simple possession of marijuana.

I am particularly concerned about the continued criminalization of cannabis because Saskatchewan is the place people are most likely to get busted for simple possession of marijuana and Saskatoon tops the list of major Canadian cities.

According to 2014 data from Statistics Canada, 77% of the time Saskatoon police stop someone suspected of having pot, they lay a charge. That compares with 48% in Regina, and the Canadian average is 39%. Meanwhile, if we look at the per capita rates of charges, Saskatoon ranks fourth behind Kelowna, Gatineau, and Sherbrooke. Overall, in 2014, police reported more than 104,000 drug offences, of which two-thirds, 66%, were related to cannabis and mainly possession of cannabis.

The Liberals have yet to explain their reasoning for refusing to decriminalize marijuana and their intransigence is adding to the confusion. Indeed, even law enforcement agencies and experts agree that inconsistencies abound:

Neil Boyd, the director of the school of criminology at Simon Fraser University, has concerns about who is facing criminal consequences for pot possession.

“I don't think that we can really be confident that the law is being applied equally,” Boyd said. “We know that young people with fewer resources and less access to private space are going to be much more likely to be processed for this offense than people who are older and have access to private space.”

Boyd said some people may see outdoor use of marijuana as a nuisance.

“It could be a civil fine for public use of cannabis, that would be entirely legitimate. But to treat a person who's using cannabis as a criminal. It's like using a sledgehammer for a flea.”

Two years ago, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police called for the option to write a ticket for simple possession, noting that right now their only choice is to lay charges or turn a blind eye.

In fact, even the Prime Minister has admitted that the rich and well connected have an easier time avoiding a criminal record while citing the example of his late brother, Michel. Their father, Pierre Trudeau, reached out to his friends in the legal community, got the best possible lawyer, and was very confident that he was going to be able to make those charges go away. People from minority communities, marginalized communities, without economic resources, are not going to have that kind of option to go through to clear their name in the justice system.

Not all of us have the connections of course that the Trudeaus have, and tens of thousands of Canadians will end up having criminal records for life because, despite the Prime Minister's remarks to the contrary during the election campaign, the Minister of Public Safety has stated that the government has no interest in granting a blanket pardon for people with criminal records for possessing small amounts of cannabis.

There is also no indication that the Liberals are interested in making pardons easier to obtain, or if they will address the high $631 fee for an application. Not being able to access a pardon remains a serious obstacle for people who are trying to escape their criminal past and move on with their lives. Why will the Liberals not commit to pardoning those who have previous convictions for simple possession of marijuana?

Aside from the confusion surrounding the pardons and the continued criminalization of simple possession, many questions remain unanswered. There are questions regarding the proposed cannabis tracking system. What does it mean for the privacy of Canadians? How will the data be managed? How much will it cost to implement? For the moment, Health Canada cannot say anything other than that it intends to offset such costs through licensing and other fees. Clearly, we need more details and a fulsome discussion around these important questions.

We also need answers on crossing the border for those who admit to smoking marijuana. For instance, the Prime Minister himself could be sanctioned at the border and banned for life if he did not have a diplomatic passport. We already have a host of problems at the border with Canadians being stopped, interrogated, and turned away without good cause. How is the government proposing to deal with any or all of these irritants for Canadians at the border?

One of the negative health consequences of the criminalization of cannabis has been a widely acknowledged lack of scientific research into the health impacts of cannabis use, especially chronic long-term use, particularly among young people. One especially grave concern is the fact that there is at present very little research available on the impact of cannabis on the development of the young brain. We in the NDP will continue to press the government to begin establishing research plans and funding into these important areas.

I have also heard from many seniors in my constituency who would like to be better informed and supported as they try to navigate the confusing medical marijuana maze. In fact, an estimated 90% of prescription holders are accessing cannabis illegally rather than through licensed producers. Many Canadians with ailments and chronic pain issues may prefer medical marijuana over opiates as a treatment option.

However, the task force highlighted the need for access to accurate information on the risks and negative effects of cannabis. With a lack of enough peer-reviewed, credible research on the impact of cannabis use, there is a tendency for cannabis activists to overstate the capacity of cannabis to heal or cure certain chronic conditions. All Canadians will benefit from robust, well-researched, and prominent public information and education programs, but the government has not been clear about how it will be funding public education and research and how that will be rolled out. Will the Liberals commit to using revenues from cannabis legalization for public awareness, prevention, and treatment?

Bill C-45 also leaves many key issues to the provinces that will need time to set up their own regulatory systems. This is yet another reason that this process should have been started earlier.

The task force report calls upon all levels of government to quickly build capacities to create compliable cannabis policies and regulations. It will be a complicated policy task. Western Canadian economic opportunities to seize the economic potential of a new thriving cannabis sector are unprecedented. The determining factor between profit and loss, both for businesses and governments, is how effectively the regulatory framework is created, implemented, and monitored.

What remains unclear is what the tax structure and revenue structure will look like for cannabis and how this will be shared between the federal government and the provinces. The provinces and Canadians will have to wait to hear from the Minister of Finance on that matter.

Because the existing cannabis market is so substantial, it is critical to shift the dialogue toward tangible collaborative discussions on co-creating a taxable provincial cannabis distribution model. First nations, municipalities, provinces, and the federal government all have the opportunity to realize sustainable taxation revenues, provided inclusive and enforceable regulations are co-created with the cannabis industry as part of a collaborative public policy.

It is my hope that the government does not sweep these questions under the carpet and instead tackles them, because Canadians deserve to have clear and honest answers from their government.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to be here today to take part in the discussion surrounding Bill C-45, an act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code, and other acts. It is also known informally as the cannabis act.

On this side of the House it has always been a top priority to stand up for the health and safety of Canadians, and I would like to thank all of my Conservative colleagues for their hard work in that regard. We are committed to making sure that the voices of everyday Canadians are heard, no matter what the issue might be.

To that end, I feel I am privileged to stand here today and speak to the effects this legislation may have on the Canadian public, and to ensure that the Liberals understand the implications of this policy.

I must mention that I find it rather rich that the Liberals are willing to take years to consult Canadians about basic economic projects, but they have no issue ramming through legislation like Bill C-45 in a matter of months.

The bill represents a seismic shift in our society. With prohibition repealed in the 1920s, alcohol and tobacco have been legal, on and off, for nearly 150 years, and yet we are still working out the kinks of the policy framework for these substances. To think it is a good idea to rush legislation that would have such a wide-ranging and drastic effect across the entire country is short-sighted and ill-advised.

Bill C-45 is a very complex piece of legislation that touches on many aspects of people's lives. One of the things I am most concerned about with respect to the legal age of cannabis is the potential effects it could have on the health of Canadians. This means that we do not have very much science and evidence-based research on the effects of this drug. This was acknowledged in the final report of the Task Force on Cannabis Legalization and Regulation, which states:

We are aware of the shortcomings in our current knowledge base around cannabis and the effects of cannabis on human health and development.

That is concerning. I do not think it is unreasonable to want to have a full understanding of the health effects of cannabis use before it is legalized. That way, we can ensure that the proper framework, policies, and guidelines are put in place before making the substance readily available across the country. Instead, the Liberals are rushing this legislation through the House in hopes of keeping their promised timeline of having the bill reach royal assent before July 2018. Keeping campaign promises is all well and good, but doing it without the full knowledge of the implications of the bill is really irresponsible.

As mentioned, the main areas of concern I have with the bill are the impacts it would have on the Canadian health care system. Before I became an MP, I was a chiropractor and a primary care provider. I have seen first-hand how the abuse of intoxicating substances affects the health of individuals like us.

When it comes to cannabis, studies show that the earlier cannabis use begins and the more frequently and longer it is used, the greater the risk of potential developmental harm, some of which may be long-lasting or permanent. This becomes problematic given that Bill C-45 would make cannabis more accessible to everyone, including youth.

This goes back to my point that we do not fully understand the health effects of cannabis use. What we do know is that the brain continues to develop up to the age of 25, meaning that people who use it before that age are putting themselves at risk. There are associations between frequent cannabis use and mental illnesses such as schizophrenia and psychoses.

At this point, current science is not definitive on a safe age for cannabis use. Why is it that the Liberals, who love to study and consult everything under the sun, have no issue with rapidly ramming through legislation that does not have a solid basis in science, has the potential to burden our health care system, and may cause irreversible harm to our youth? These same Liberals continually tell us that they are the true scientists, that they understand science, and that they listen to scientists—well, perhaps junk science, but I digress.

The burden to the health care system seems to be one of the aspects of the bill that has not been thought out. Cannabis is typically smoked, and similar to tobacco, it has negative effects on the health of the lungs.

Each day in Canada, 100 Canadians die of a smoking-related illness. Each year, there are more than 230,000 deaths for that same reason. With the legalization and wide availability of cannabis, it is assumed that this number would only increase.

Smoke is smoke. We do not send firefighters into a smoke-filled room without respirators, so why would we encourage another means to harm our lungs? As a health care provider, I cannot support an increased burden to our country's health care system, and I certainly cannot get behind this idea when the demographic it will affect most negatively is our youth. The federal government needs to protect the young people of Canada. I do not feel that the bill goes far enough to ensure that is the case.

Another major issue that I see with this piece of legislation is that of occupational health and safety. In my riding, there are a lot of industries that rely heavily on manual labour from their employees, an example of which is the construction industry. The Construction Labour Relations Association of Saskatchewan wrote a letter to my office, outlining some of its concerns with Bill C-45. I have an excerpt from that letter. It says that the construction and maintenance industry is widely recognized as being a safety-sensitive industry, where substance use and abuse pose significant risks to workers' health and safety, and that their contractors are deeply concerned about the forthcoming legalization of marijuana.

Another industry that this has the potential to affect is the transportation industry. My riding serves as one of the major trucking corridors through the United States and up into Canada. Hundreds of transport trucks traverse my riding daily, going through small communities and often on single-lane highways. These single-lane highways are dangerous, to the degree that a “time to twin” committee has been established with the specific goal of working to get infrastructure funding to have Highways 39 and 6 twinned.

There are already a number of accidents involving 18-wheelers every year in southeast Saskatchewan, which sadly results in an average of three deaths annually. I can only assume that there will be more, unless there are specific provisions in place regarding the use of cannabis while at work.

There needs to be a framework for employers to lawfully continue to manage the workplace risks associated with cannabis use. They need to be able to have an option to test their employees whenever they feel the need, especially if the employer feels as though safety standards have been violated. Who will protect these employers from legal challenges, and who will protect fellow workers from the safety risks caused by intoxicated individuals?

I hope that the Liberals can understand why this is so important in labour-centric industries like construction, agriculture, oil and gas, and more. Both employees and employers deserve to have a clear and standardized set of rules regarding the acceptable use of intoxicants, including cannabis, to ensure that occupational health and safety is the major priority, no matter what.

This also applies to the matter of public safety in general. This is a story I do not tell a lot, but when I was 16 years old, while riding a bicycle, I was the victim of a hit and run collision where a driver who was impaired due to drug and alcohol use hit me and left me for dead on the side of the road. I had brain matter draining out of my ear and was in a coma for two weeks. I nearly died as a result of that. It affected my life dramatically, and still does to this day.

That personal experience is part of the reason why I feel so strongly about the need for policies to be in place regarding drug testing with respect to impaired driving before cannabis is legalized. It is a matter of ensuring public safety, and on this side of the House, we think that public safety should be put above keeping campaign promises. These tests need to be concise, accurate, and defensible. They need to be usable and in place prior to any legislation. Otherwise, we are closing the barn door after the horses have left.

In closing, I believe that Bill C-45 is flawed in many regards and that there needs to be a better understanding of the overarching effects of cannabis before it is made available to the Canadian public. I call on the Liberals to do the right thing, and to stand up for the health and safety of Canadians when it comes to the legalization of cannabis.

[Yves Robillard, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on her decision to support Bill C-45. I would like to know what you plan to do as a member of Parliament. I know what I am going to do in my region. I would like to know how you will—

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise again in this House to speak about Bill C-45, the cannabis act. One would think that once would be enough for a member to stand in this House to speak about it, but it is not. Bill C-45 is flawed. I am appalled that the Minister of Justice would present such an ill-prepared bill and arbitrarily force it on Canadians.

Last night I sat in on the debate on Bill C-46, which deals with impaired driving. If people are going to get high over Bill C-45, I can only say it is not going to happen with Bill C-46. One tends to get depressed dwelling on it.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and I are both former police officers with similar years of service, he an urban city police officer and myself a rural RCMP officer. My hon. colleague must be having difficulty over his party's two bills, and I really feel for him. Making marijuana legal in Canada is wrong. It is simply wrong. Those members across do not understand.

The 2016 report on legalization of marijuana in Colorado should have stopped the Liberals in their tracks, but it did not. Here are some simple facts. We heard a few of them earlier.

Traffic deaths have increased 62% since 2013. That was people using marijuana, by the way.

Use of marijuana by youth increased 20%, yet the American national average declined by 4%.

Do members know that in Colorado youth are ranked number one in the use of marijuana overall in the United States? If we go back to 2005-2006, they were ranked 14th. The education really worked well.

However, let us not blame the youth. Adult use is up 17% in Colorado since they brought the legalizing legislation out, and it has only come up 2% nationally.

Also, adults in Colorado are the number one users in the United States, but if we go back to the same years I mentioned with the younger people, in 2005-2006, they were only number eight. These numbers scare me. They are high.

Did members know that Colorado's adult use increased 63% in the first two years that marijuana was legalized there? That is 42% above the rest of the U.S.A.

I wonder what was causing their numbers to get higher. Oh, yes; maybe it was marijuana.

Did members know that the state of Washington has very similar statistics since it has legalized marijuana?

I have said it before and I will repeat it again. I spent 35 years watching the growth of marijuana use in western Canada from its infancy to what we see today.

Maybe a story or two may help convince our Liberal friends across the way. We all know about second-hand smoke. It is not good. I am just going to give members a scenario.

A group of 18-years-olds went out for a night to some community 100 miles or so from their town. Billy is the driver. He is the designated driver, because Billy does not drink, he does not use marijuana, and he does not use drugs. His carmates are Ralph, Jody, Jane, and Justine. Members might recognize some of these names. I am just using them for certain purposes.

They all celebrated for the night and smoked up a portion of each of their individual 30 grams of marijuana. They continued to do that as Billy drove them home, which was a two-hour drive back to their community. However, what happened was that 15 minutes from home, Billy overcorrected on a sharp corner and lost control, and the vehicle rolled. Billy had not noticed that their speed was at 150 kilometres per hour. None of the five made it home that night alive.

Most people would think that maybe Billy was an innocent person, but the smoke probably made him disoriented. We have not looked at that. The government has not talked about it. I am sorry to be so cynical and depressing, but that is the reality that this legislation will create in this great country of ours.

I have heard people talk about how the legislation will protect our children from organized crime. Well, if I was a drug dealer, all of my street people would be under the age of 17, and I would make sure they never carried more than five grams on their person. It would be a pretty safe way of doing business. That is the shocking part of it. The government has not thought about that.

While I was waiting to speak here, I read a story about an accident that happened in Colorado. It seems strange that it would happen there. A 20-year-old man was turning right on a red light. At the same time, an eight-year-old girl was crossing the intersection with her father. He ran over that eight-year-old girl, and she died under the right and left wheel of his F-250 Ford pickup truck. Actually, the driver never even noticed what he had done. It was only the waving of the father's arms that made him stop. The police arrived and tested him under the procedures that the government is talking about, a legal testing device, although we still do not know if that will be approved. The government is talking about it. We do not know what it will be calibrated to or what the legal limit for THC will be. However, in this particular case, the THC level was at 1.5, which is below Colorado's legal limit of 5.0. However, this person was still charged with impaired driving because the specialists—whom we so lack in this country—came to the scene and were able to verify and prove that this young man was impaired by the drug even though he was substantially under the limit set by the law.

The shocking part of all of this is that this young man was 20 years old, weighed 195 pounds, was on the varsity football team, was in the prime of his life, yet he was so impaired that he did not realize he had driven over a young girl, and he was at less than one-third of the legal limit.

Just imagine, Mr. Speaker, if it was you and your daughter, and the guy driving the vehicle weighed 120 pounds. What would he be at?

I have appeared in courts in British Columbia and given expert evidence as to the effects of alcohol consumption on an individual. I was a breathalyzer operator for over 20 years, and I know how it affects a person and how it is dissipated in a person: the lighter the weight, the greater the effect. However, I do not want to dwell on that too much.

Let us just take a look at one of the most recent studies done in the state of Washington, which states:

The percentage of drivers involved in fatal crashes who had traces of marijuana in their blood has doubled since marijuana was legalized in Washington state....

That has just recently come out.

The researchers also found that 70% of the drivers who failed these sobriety tests and whose impairment was attributed to marijuana by drug recognition experts still had blood levels of THC lower than the five nanograms, which is the level in the state of Washington.

I apologize for doing a bit of shock therapy, but I am appalled by the lack of common sense that I see across the floor, and people bringing legislation out when history shows us what is happening. I do not want to see that happen to my kids, my grandchildren, and my great-grandchild, who was just born.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I stand in support of Bill C-45 not because of ideology, not because of my belief, my presumption, or my assumption, but because it is an evidence-based piece of legislation. When we look at what is going on in Europe and other countries, and look at the evidence where they have decriminalized or legalized marijuana, we see that in fact consumption has gone down.

The bill is extremely important, and the police do not spend their time picking up people who are smoking a joint on the street. They go after organized crime and people who are selling heroin on the street.

Why is this an important bill? UNICEF did a study in 2015 that showed that Canada has the highest number of youth who have access to and who smoke cannabis. At the same time, that same UNICEF study showed that Canada has the lowest number of youth using cigarettes and having access to cigarettes.

What is the difference between cannabis and cigarettes? Cigarettes are legal. Alcohol is legal. What do cigarettes, alcohol, and cannabis have in common? They are psychoactive drugs. They have an effect on one's behaviour. They have an effect on a lot of things people do. The legal drug, tobacco, is the only thing that when used exactly as directed would make someone sick and kill them, yet it is legal. It is being sold in this country. We have brought down smoking to the lowest level in the OECD for cigarettes, because we have taken steps to look at packaging. We have taken steps to ensure that they are not sold to people under the age of 18.

This is what we are trying to do, because when our young people have the highest access in the OECD to cannabis, it means they are getting it. They are getting it illegally from street pushers and users whom we cannot moderate. We do not want people to have to buy substances that have an impact on youth from street dealers. We had an opportunity to deal with opioids under the last government, and we did not. Now the dealers who are selling opioids on the street are lacing them with fentanyl and carfentanil. They do not care about quality control. They do not care about the potency of what they are selling. They do not care about any of those things. They just care about selling, and if people die, who cares?

We want to keep this drug out of the hands of our young people. Why young people specifically? We would legalize and regulate this drug because we know that young people have not had their frontal lobes fully developed and we know that cannabis has an impact on cognitive behaviour, and therefore, on the frontal lobe. We do not want them to use cannabis.

Let us look at the three drugs that are psychoactive, two of which are legal at the moment. We have prohibitions on the sale of alcohol, and we have prohibitions on the sale of tobacco. We know that tobacco causes disease and it kills. I do not know of any particular medical properties that tobacco brings to anyone. There are no benefits to using tobacco. There are only side effects.

Let us look at alcohol. We have heard arguments that if we drink a glass of red wine every day it will help us. The jury is out on that. There are still some medicinal benefits for alcohol, but there are negative effects too. MADD would tell us that, in fact, the largest number of motor vehicle accidents in the country come from drunk drivers. We have had to legalize alcohol to ensure young people do not get a hold of it, look at tracking who drinks it, and make sure we set very clear guidelines for what the level of alcohol should be if one is driving, etc.

Cannabis does have medicinal properties. We know it is used for pain, for chronic disease, and it brings down levels of anxiety. We also know that cannabis oil is used in certain amounts for people with epilepsy. Therefore, we know there are medicinal properties, but like anything that has good effects, there are side effects. What we know is that these side effects impact youth more than anyone else, and we do not want youth to have access to it. Therefore, we are doing what we successfully did with alcohol and with tobacco to ensure that young people do not get hold of it.

Why do we have the lowest number of people smoking cigarettes in our country? It is because it is legal and regulated, and we are ensuring that young people cannot buy them. We have very clear penalties and guidelines for anyone who sells it to young people. It is very clear. We are talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars in penalties.

This is the reason the bill is so important.

The bill also authorizes who is allowed to sell, just like with cigarettes and alcohol. If one is an unauthorized seller, for example a street dealer, then that seller will face a penalty of 14 years, especially if he or she sells to a young person. It is a 14-year penalty for people who use a young person to sell cannabis on the street.

We will be tracking this. Like MADD we will be able to educate people about the use of cannabis and the dangers of cannabis. We will be able to track who buys it. We will be able to keep pace with what is going on. All sorts of penalties are going to be available to people who sell cannabis to people who are under age or anybody who is an unauthorized seller.

This is about evidence-based information. This information picks up evidence from other countries to see what has happened. It looks at the sale of alcohol and cigarettes in our own country, and it asks what we did not do. We are not doing anything at the present time. Fifty-one per cent of young people in this country are using cannabis and that level keeps going up. Whatever we are doing right now is not working. When we have the highest level, and I want to harp on this, of young people in the OECD having access to and using cannabis, then we are not doing anything right.

Let us get it right. Let us look at our own evidence in Canada with regard to the sale of cigarettes and alcohol. Let us look at European studies and results. We can then say we are using evidence-based information to stop cannabis from getting into the hands of our young people, who are particularly susceptible because of the cognitive impact of cannabis on them.

I have heard people say that we presume this is going to happen. We put money in the 2017 budget just for a public awareness campaign. We put money in the 2017 budget just to make sure that we have all the money we need for the tools that we need. We are going to train police on how to test for levels of impairment if someone is caught driving with cannabis.

As a physician, I can tell the House that I do not know very many people who were caught impaired after smoking cannabis. Someone has to smoke a lot of cannabis to get to the impaired level, and that means the individual will fall asleep at the wheel of the car before the ignition is even turned on. We know what cannabis does.

We need to do this because it is important. We need to prevent our youth from getting access to a drug that impairs their cognitive ability when their frontal lobes have not completely developed. We need to authorize who sells it just like we do with the other drugs I have talked about. We need clear penalties to deal with their use.

This is clear. I do not understand what the debate is about. This is an easy thing to understand. There is a problem, there is evidence on how to deal with the problem, and that evidence shows success in other drugs that we have legalized. It is a fait accompli. It is simple. We are trying to get at a simple thing. We are trying not to allow cannabis to get into the hands of our youth. The only way we can do that is to legalize it and regulate it.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government recently introduced Bill C-45, which aims to provide legal access to recreational cannabis and to control and regulate its production, distribution, and sale.

The Liberals are on record as saying they hope it receives royal assent before July 2018. Numerous studies cite marijuana as one of the most abused drugs across the world. The Liberal call for its legalization has a significant impact on governments, businesses, and individuals.

In an August 1, 2016, opinion piece, Richard Berman of The Washington Times wrote:

Proponents like the Drug Policy Alliance claim that legalization should occur partially for “health” reasons. The Marijuana Policy Project has called pot “harmless.” Others say it is “safe” and even “healthy.” Nearly all proponents seem to deny or minimize its risks. Popular culture reinforces this view portraying use generally as a risk-free endeavor. And big business looking to cash in on legalization is all too happy to propagate this claim.

But here’s the problem: This view is out of step with the medical literature. In fact, a scientific consensus exists that marijuana has serious health implications—even for casual users.

Despite marijuana gaining greater acceptance in our society, it is important for people to understand what is known about the adverse health effects and extenuating implications of its use in a society. Parliamentarians, in particular, are entrusted with the health and well-being of Canadians and should not overlook these risks.

Recreational marijuana has a very different use from the already legal medicinal marijuana. Recreational marijuana is used with the intention of altering how one feels by achieving an altered state of consciousness by getting high. THC is the main psychoactive or mind-altering chemical in marijuana and the one responsible for the intoxicating effects that people are seeking.

According to an April 2017 paper published by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, advancing an addiction science letter to the director:

When marijuana is smoked, THC and other chemicals in the plant pass from the lungs into the bloodstream, which rapidly carries them...[through the bloodstream and into]...the brain. The person begins to experience effects almost immediately....

If...consumed in foods or beverages, these effects are somewhat delayed—usually appearing after 30 minutes to 1 hour—because the drug must first pass through the digestive system.... Because of the delayed effects, people may inadvertently consume more THC than they intend to.

...THC stimulates neurons...to release the...chemical dopamine at levels higher than [attained normally by the human body. It is this assisted]..."high" that...recreational marijuana [users] seek.

The American Society of Addiction Medicine marijuana fact sheet states that pleasant experiences with marijuana are by no means universal:

Instead of relaxation and euphoria, some users [due to their age, previous exposure, and toxicity levels] experience anxiety, fear, distrust and panic.... People who have taken large doses of marijuana may experience an acute psychosis, which can include hallucinations, delusions and a loss of the sense of personal identity.

Richard Berman, The Washington Times writer, goes on to state in his August 1, 2016, report:

According to research published in the medical journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: “Someone who uses marijuana regularly has, on average, less gray matter in his orbital frontal cortex.”

Another study finds that the hippocampus—the part of the brain responsible for long-term memory—is abnormally shaped in daily marijuana users.... Studies show even casual marijuana use causes abnormalities in the density, volume and shape of the brain.

He concludes his argument by stating:

I don’t want to be associated with the fear-mongering “This is your brain; this is your brain on drugs” commercials from last century, but their underlying message was essentially correct.

In January 21, 2014, John Hawkins, a Townhall columnist, wrote:

A recent Northwestern University study found that marijuana users have abnormal brain structure and poor memory and that chronic marijuana abuse may lead to brain changes resembling schizophrenia. The study also reported that the younger the person starts using marijuana, the worse the effects become.

Marijuana has been shown time and again to distort perception and impair short-term memory and judgment. This reality played out in an even larger legal recreation forum has major future implications for our youth, industry, and government institutions, and the above seems to be just the start of our concerns.

In addition to the various mental health studies cited above, we cannot overlook physical health as well, specifically lung health. The National Institute on Drug Abuse states that because of how it is typically smoked, with deeper inhale and held for longer, marijuana smoking leads to four times the deposition of tar compared to cigarette smoking. Believe me, I am not suggesting that cigarette smoking is a better choice. Further, it stated that people who frequently smoke marijuana had more outpatient medical visits for respiratory problems than those who do not smoke. It states:

Like tobacco smoke, marijuana smoke is an irritant to the throat and lungs and can cause a heavy cough during use. It also contains levels of volatile chemicals and tar that are similar to tobacco smoke, raising concerns about risk for cancer and lung disease.

Marijuana smoking is associated with large airway inflammation, increased airway resistance, and lung hyperinflation, and those who smoke marijuana regularly report more symptoms of chronic bronchitis than those who do not smoke....

Marijuana smoke contains carcinogenic combustion products, including about 50 percent more benzoprene and 75 percent more benzanthracene...than cigarette smoke.

In short, marijuana smoking is terrible for one's physical health. It is even more toxic than cigarette smoke with the side effects manifesting themselves much earlier than found in tobacco users. In addition to lung health concerns, there is also concern for the effect of second-hand smoke and ingestion. Here is just one example of what I mean. We are all aware of the horrendous effects of fetal alcohol syndrome and how it has wracked our society. The same alarm bells can also be raised on marijuana use during and after pregnancy. A U.S. Department of Health and Human Services study published on December 11, 2013, states:

Smoking tobacco or marijuana, taking prescription painkillers, or using...drugs during pregnancy is associated with double or even triple the risk of stillbirth, according to research funded by the National Institutes of Health.

I note that the previous speaker commented on some of the health concerns and also talked about packaging and what would be on that packaging for adults purchasing it. I did not hear about anything on that packaging that would indicate any of the health concerns that we are mentioning here today. The American Society of Addiction Medicine marijuana-use fact sheet says two alarming facts that parliamentarians need to take particular note of:

Brain development may be negatively affected by THC exposure very early in life. Research in rats suggests that exposure to even low concentrations of THC late in pregnancy could have profound and long-term consequences for both brain development and behavior of offspring.

Evidence from human studies shows that pregnant women who use marijuana have babies that respond differently to visual stimuli, tremble more and have a high-pitched cry, suggesting problems with neurological development.

Although laws will be put in place respecting age restrictions for the drug, we are all not so naive in this day and age as to expect that, with increased accessibility, those younger and below the legal age will not also access it. The April 2017 National Institute on Drug Abuse study raised additional concern for increased potential for youth exposure to the drug:

Considerable evidence suggests that students who smoke marijuana have poorer educational outcomes than their nonsmoking peers. For example, a review of 48 relevant studies found marijuana use to be associated with reduced educational attainment.... A recent analysis using data from three large studies in Australia and New Zealand found that adolescents who used marijuana regularly were significantly less likely than their non-using peers to finish high school or obtain a degree. They also had a much higher chance of developing dependence, using other drugs, and attempting suicide.

In the face of these revelations, for my fellow Liberal parliamentarians to want to rush to legalize this drug by July 2018 is deeply concerning.

Whose needs are truly being met here? As Townhall columnist John Hawkins further states:

Movies portray potheads as harmless, fun-loving people who spend their time giggling and munching Cheetos, but they don't show these people when they are flunking out of school, losing their jobs, frustrated because they can't concentrate or losing the love of their lives because [of their addictions].

Denver Post writer, Joanne Davidson, wrote, and quotes Dr. Drew Pinsky in a September 19, 2014, article:

Make no mistake, says addictions specialist Drew Pinsky, marijuana is addictive—and the earlier one starts to use it, the greater the consequences. “It acts like an opiate and causes severe addiction,” Pinsky said during a Colorado visit this week. “It affects the white matter of the brain, and for kids who start using marijuana when they are 12, or even younger, those bad consequences tend not to reverse.”

Do we need that to deal with as well?

It is not lost on anyone here that potency levels are a lot higher than they were 20 to 40 years ago. Not only are legalization alarm bells being raised by our respected health and youth institutions but also by industry.

As Tim Bradley writes in his October 2016 article, “No, We Should Not Legalize Recreational Marijuana Use”:

Some argue that marijuana use is merely a private vice—if it is a vice at all—and that it does not have much of an effect on others. But...private acts of vice can imperil important public interests when the private acts begin to multiply.

No one sits down to smoke a joint hoping to avoid getting high. No one ever seeks out a seller and says, “I want some marijuana, but not enough to get high on.” Even those who might try marijuana experimentally are intending to get high.

With legalization of this drug will come increased use by our workforce and with that, unintended consequences and costs for others, with increased risks for injury or accidents.

The National Institute on Drug Abuse, in April 2017, said:

One study among postal workers found that employees who tested positive for marijuana on pre-employment urine drug tests had 55 percent more industrial accidents, 85 percent more injuries, and 75 percent greater absenteeism compared with those who tested negative for marijuana use.

On February 17, 2017, on CBC News, Newfoundland and Labrador Radio One, Stephanie Kinsella interviewed Dan Demers, an occupational health operations manager at CannAmm Occupational Testing Services. It is well reported that detectable amounts of THC remain in the body for days or even weeks after use. Mr. Demers states:

Marijuana and dangerous activities, safety-sensitive duties, can't mix. The issue is, the use the night before work actually affects performance the next morning.... reaction time and depth perception can be affected even if someone uses marijuana the night before. If you're working at heights in the construction industry, your ability, for instance, to take into account somebody beside you, their facial expression changed because something is falling, the part of the brain that's responsible for recognizing facial expressions gets impeded for over 12 hours....

It's going to become much easier to access and there's going to be less cultural stigma towards it...

Which is what will happen,

... and the consequence is we're going to see it more frequently on our roadways, more frequently on our work sites...that's going to have some consequences.

Mr. Demers is right in citing this concern. According to a May 10 2017, CBC News report, Saskatoon police handed out over $18,000 in speeding tickets to 50 drivers in construction zones in one day over two hours. That is a lot of workers lives needlessly already in danger, without additional marijuana impairments added to the mix.

When speaking to industry stakeholders in my own constituency, similar concerns are being levelled. As Dean Beeby, senior reporter for the CBC Parliamentary Bureau, notes in a March 15, 2017 article:

“More stoned workers will be showing up in Canada's workplaces with the coming legalization of marijuana, but companies have few tools to cope with potential safety risks.... We're caught in a potential Catch 22: how do you protect the worker and those around them as well as deal with legalized marijuana?” said Cameron MacGillivray, president of Enform, a Calgary-based oil-and-gas safety group. “It is a pressing concern for the industry because of the...catastrophic impacts of somebody doing a critical safety job when they're impaired.” The Liberal government is expected to introduce legislation by the summer making recreational marijuana legal, at a time when the science of detecting and measuring impairment is incomplete.

Even more disturbing is a news development cited, on April 17, 2017, in The Globe and Mail, in an article by Robert Weir and Adam Pennell, “How Canada’s marijuana legislation will affect employers”. It says:

In the meantime, Canadian employers have questions about how to respond to this changing legal landscape. This uncertainty also extends, to a somewhat lesser degree, to the Canadian judicial system. Coincidentally, on April 3, 2017, an Ontario Superior Court judge declined to grant an injunction striking down a random drug testing policy sought by the union representing employees of the Toronto Transit Commission.

Think about that. With legalization, what challenges will existing employee protection laws be under? It is alarming to think that safety laws are already starting to be questioned and challenged. Although marijuana users will be subject to similar rules as alcohol users, the propensity of THC to remain in the system and impair judgment long after use remains in play.

The article goes on to say:

...section 25 of the Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act requires that employers take every precaution reasonable in the circumstances for the protection of a worker. Safety-sensitive positions, such as those involving the operation of heavy machinery, may include essential duties or requirements that create safety concerns when a proposed accommodation plan includes marijuana use.

Right now, workers' compensation rates for Saskatchewan for injury time losses are down. What toll on these otherwise encouraging statistics, personal and economic, will legalized marijuana have in this instance? We need to think about the added time and cost for both small and large businesses to monitor marijuana toxicity in their work sites. As well, there are looming safety implications for workers in industries like Alberta's oil sands plants and Saskatchewan's potash industry, industries that require thousands of operators a day to run some of the largest equipment on earth. I have to shudder at how at ease the Liberal government is putting this additional weight on our industry stakeholders to fulfill a poorly thought through election promise to garner the votes of a special interest group. Is that the priority of the Liberal government? Is this worth putting at risk the health and safety of Canadians impacted by illness, addiction, injuries, and death on our roads and in the Canadian workforce?

Two junior high boys stopped me on the street while I was campaigning for the election and asked if I was supporting the guy who wants to legalize marijuana. The response to my “No, definitely not”, was “Good, we don't want that in our town.”

At every school I have visited since becoming the MP for Yorkton—Melville, classrooms have always asked why the government wants to legalize marijuana. These concerned young people told me that they know doing so will increase access, use, and negative repercussions for their generation. I share their concern with the government today, and on their behalf, indicate that the common sense and concern they have toward this issue is refreshing and affirming and should be heeded by the government.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP seems to be saying that there is currently no prevention campaign in Canada and that the rate of cannabis use is suddenly going to skyrocket all across the country because of Bill C-45. That is not what is happening and that is not what the evidence shows.

I attended two sessions in schools designed to prevent the use of cannabis and other drugs. There are already measures in place. What we are proposing is a partnership between the federal government, the provinces and the municipalities.

The NDP likes to say that it wants us to spend more money, but it wanted to balance the budget. If it had balanced the budget, it would not have had any money left for health transfers, which also play a big role.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am a little baffled to hear the member opposite saying that the Liberals want to protect our young people and public health by focusing on prevention, and that they are doing so by imposing sanctions. That is not what prevention means to me.

The Minister of Health and my colleague said several times that awareness campaigns were a priority in Bill C-45. I am happy to hear that, but there is no new funding associated with this bill for prevention programs in our schools or in community groups that work directly on the ground with young people in the areas of addictions, crime and mental health.

Why is the government not allocating the necessary funding? Colorado allocates $45 million a year, whereas this government plans to allocate less than $2 million. In five years, it will be only $1 million a year. That is not nearly enough to run a decent and much-needed prevention campaign. The provinces, teachers, and community groups are asking for funding for prevention, as are all of the experts who work with young marijuana users.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise and speak today in support of Bill C-45, the cannabis act. I want to explain that the objectives of this act are to put in place a national system that better protects our young Canadians, keeps profits out of the hands of criminals and organized crime, and where responsible adults will have controlled access to a strictly regulated source of cannabis.

Before I go on, I want to explain some of the options that we previously had. They were the status quo, which we know does not work; the Peter MacKay approach, where he wanted to ticket people until former prime minister Stephen Harper ticketed him for even saying so in public; or the advertising economic action plan approach, which does a lot of advertising with very little benefit to society.

We chose a different approach and a key feature of Bill C-45 is to protect youth and public health by restricting the advertising and promotion of cannabis.

Our government knows that there are very real health risks associated with cannabis consumption. Scientific data do not lie. Those risks increase considerably when cannabis consumption begins in early adolescence. For instance, research shows that the brain does not fully develop until the age of about 25. Young people are particularly vulnerable to the effects of cannabis on brain development and brain function. THC affects the biological mechanisms of the brain that allow it to develop.

Canadian youth have one of the highest rates of cannabis use in the world. In 2015, 21% of youth aged 15 to 19 reported using cannabis in the past year. Given the high rates of cannabis use among young Canadians today, protecting youth and minimizing harm are paramount objectives for government, along with keeping profits out of the hands of criminals and organized crime. This is a key reason why our government has committed to legalizing, strictly regulating, and restricting access to cannabis in partnership with the provinces and territories with the goal of keeping it out of the hands of Canadian youth.

I would like to point out that young people often find it easier to buy cannabis than cigarettes. I remember this well, for it was not all that long ago that I was young. We believe that creating a strong regulatory framework based on the lessons we have learned from regulating tobacco and alcohol will lead to better results, particularly regarding our children.

In particular, the way the federal government regulates tobacco advertising provides a sound basis for dealing with cannabis. The Tobacco Act sets out a comprehensive framework for limiting advertising and promotion in a reasonable and promotional manner to ensure that young people are protected from strong inducements to consume tobacco.

The proposed advertising and promotion restrictions proposed in Bill C-45 are similar to these existing restrictions dealing with tobacco where promotional activities are prohibited except in certain circumstances. Let us face it. The advertising and promotion of consumer products is a valuable tool for industry so they can generate demand for their products and increase their revenue. We have a responsibility to establish reasonable checks and balances on these activities to ensure that important public policy objectives such as protecting the health and well-being of our young persons are achieved.

I strongly believe the promotion restrictions proposed in Bill C-45 represent a balanced approach. These measures will help protect youth from being encouraged or tempted to use cannabis while also providing responsible adult users with factual information so that they can make informed decisions about the cannabis they choose to purchase and consume.

The approach our government is taking to limit promotional activities was developed in response to the influence and the impact of advertising on the general population. We know that advertising influences consumers' decisions and behaviours. Public health research confirmed that advertising can have a significant impact on the appeal, social acceptance, and normalization of a particular product and, at the same time, on the frequency of use, especially among youth.

It has also been proven that promotion can foster use by youth exposed to advertising that primarily targets adults.

In addition, there is evidence that some interventions, such as partial restrictions on promotional activities and public information campaigns, may not be effective, especially when they are competing with industry marketing and advertising campaigns. In light of this evidence, our government is proposing a comprehensive set of restrictions in Bill C-45 for the promotion of cannabis, which will protect youth and adults from being persuaded or attracted to using cannabis.

However, businesses will still be able to provide factual information to adult consumers about the products they have available so that adults will be able to make informed choices. As well, businesses will be able to provide information that allows them to distinguish themselves and their products from others in the legal cannabis market.

The prevention and reduction of inducements to cannabis consumption by youth and others is an important public health objective for our government. This objective is clearly articulated in the section dealing with the purpose of Bill C-45 and is confirmed by tough, new penalties for those who break the law, including those who target youth in their promotion of cannabis.

The following are some key measures proposed in Bill C-45 to support our government in meeting the objectives of keeping cannabis out of the hands of youth and protecting them from being encouraged to consume it. Bill C-45 proposes to prohibit the promotion of cannabis in any manner that is appealing to youth. This would include promotions featuring cartoon characters, animals, or celebrities. The use of testimonials or endorsements that are popular these days in social media or sponsorships would also be banned. The bill would also prohibit the branding of merchandise that could be considered appealing to youth, such as skateboards and lunch boxes.

Lifestyle promotions would also be banned. This would include any promotion that creates an association with cannabis that, for example, evokes a way of life that is trendy, active, or exciting. For example, cannabis advertisements would not be able to associate cannabis with success in sports or daring stunts. I do not believe we will be seeing any Crashed Ice events anytime soon.

Bill C-45 would also prohibit any promotion that includes false, misleading, or deceptive information. This measure is important because such promotion could result in a false impression about important matters, such as potency of the product or potential health effects.

The proposed measures are consistent with the advice of the expert task force our government established last year. They told us that an overwhelming majority of stakeholders strongly recommended that the government take a public health approach and impose reasonable restrictions on efforts to promote cannabis. By adopting a public health approach, our government is acknowledging this recommendation.

These measures are necessary to protect youth and others from any inducement or temptation to consume cannabis. They will be even more important given the health risks associated with cannabis consumption which, as we know, are even greater for Canadian youth.

I am pleased to say that the legislative measures proposed in Bill C-45 will be supported by investments and efforts to increase cannabis-specific public health awareness and education that will target young Canadians and other groups. Our government is committed to early and sustained public awareness and education activities. As we know, in budget 2017, our government committed $9.6 million over five years to a public education and awareness campaign and surveillance activities. I believe this is vital to increase awareness and understanding the risks associated with cannabis use and to promote responsible consumption.

As I previously mentioned, Bill C-45 does strike the right balance by allowing industry to promote its products and brands in an appropriate and controlled manner. For example, Bill C-45 would allow information-type promotion directed at adults. This type of information would include factual and accurate information about cannabis products, such as price, THC levels, ingredients, and the use of pesticides. It would also allow the promotion of information for the purpose of distinguishing brands. This would include information about the characteristics of a cannabis brand.

This type of promotion would be permitted in places where it cannot be seen by anyone under the age of 18. This would include places young people cannot access by law or a website where there is an appropriate tool to verify age. For the packaging and labelling of cannabis, the cannabis act would also work to protect youth and Canadians. The restrictions would include measures to ban any packaging appealing to children and the use of false or misleading information on a package.

I am confident that the proposed approach for the advertising and promotion of cannabis provides the best balance of protecting youth and public health while enabling adults to make educated and informed decisions.

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague again for his work on this file, and in particular for coming to Whitby and talking to our municipal leaders.

We have taken a comprehensive approach to the legalization of marijuana with Bill C-45 and also with Bill C-46 to ensure that our communities are safe, to ensure that drugs stay out of the hands of children, to ensure that the packaging is done in a way that does not promote the use of marijuana, and to ensure that it becomes illegal to sell or use children to sell or promote the use of cannabis.

Having the community involved in this discussion and present questions is critically important. I thank the parliamentary secretary for his duty in doing so.

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to talk about Bill C-45. Before I begin, I would like to let you know I will be splitting my time with the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell.

I am thrilled to speak about this piece of legislation, because I had the opportunity in March to invite the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and member for Scarborough Southwest to my riding, to the wonderful town of Whitby. I would like to thank him for his dedication to this file, for coming to speak to community groups, and especially for coming to Whitby.

When he came to Whitby in March, he had the opportunity to have a round table with various individuals in our community. There were mayors and councillors from Whitby and the Durham region. There were police, fire, EMS, bylaw enforcement officers, health organizations and departments, mental health professionals, nurses, and individuals from Durham College and UOIT, which is the university in Durham region.

During that round table they had a number of questions, which I highlighted and which we indicated that with the tabling of the legislation should be answered. I want to answer seven of those questions today in my speech, but I also want to speak to the parents in Whitby. Whitby is a bedroom community and there are a lot of families within Whitby, and I would like to speak to the parents because I am a parent myself.

The first question they asked was about resources to the municipalities and how they would be compensated for security, safety, and building resilience. I want to let my colleagues within Whitby and the Durham region know that we will be investing additional resources to make sure there is capacity within Health Canada, the RCMP, the CBSA, and the Department of Public Health and Emergency Preparedness to license, inspect, and enforce all aspects of the proposed legislation. Some might be saying, “That's not municipalities, Celina.” I understand. I will get there.

The task force recommended that we work with provincial and territorial governments to determine a tax regime that includes equitable distribution of revenues. The bill provides legislation and authority via the various acts, but the government is committed to ensuring that law enforcement and our courts have the legislation, technology, training, and resources required to keep our roadways and communities safe. We have committed to invest the revenue into research, prevention, public education, treatment, and rehabilitation. I think that addresses some of the concerns we have in terms of our municipalities getting the resources.

The second question was around effectively enforcing the four-plant rule. The legislation would allow the municipalities to set conditions as to where and how cannabis can be grown within their jurisdiction. Whitby, as I mentioned, is a bedroom community. It is different from other communities, and not all communities are the same. It is a growing community. Therefore, giving the municipality the capacity to determine where and how cannabis can be grown is an important part of this piece of legislation.

The third question asks about the resources for public education for cannabis. We heard some of that debate here in the House. I would like to quote the Minister of Health.

She said yesterday and in her speech again today that our emphasis is on a public health approach to the introduction of the legalization of cannabis, and it is based on a strict regulatory regime. A public health approach means that we are sure to maximize education and minimize harm. Our government is committed to having a broad public education campaign for Canadians of all ages to the proposed legislation, including the penalties for providing cannabis to youth and the risks involved with consuming cannabis. We have committed $9.6 million in budget 2017 over five years, with $1 million per year in ongoing support of public education. The campaign will be focused on helping young Canadians to make the best choices for their future and to understand the risks and consequences of cannabis.

I would also like to quote the parliamentary secretary, who said, “Under decriminalization, cannabis remains unregulated and this means that users know little or nothing about the potency or the quality. ... As long as cannabis use is illegal, it is difficult [and often impossible] for health care or educational professionals to effectively address and prevent problematic use.”

This speaks to the task force recommendation for a comprehensive public education campaign. We have learned lessons from Colorado and from Washington, where their education campaigns used the revenues from cannabis to support that education campaign, and it happened too late. We are following the recommendations, and while I agree that we could have a more robust campaign, we are committed to public education.

The fourth question related to the additional revenues from cannabis going to treatment facilities. The Prime Minister has said that cash that flows to the public coffers from cannabis taxation should go to treatment of addiction, mental health support, and education programs, and not to general revenues. As a very strong advocate for mental health, I am particularly pleased with this approach, because we know that there is a slippery slope between mental health and addiction, and it is important to ensure that we are looking at treatment.

The fifth question was around setting the age at 18. I am a mom of an 18-year-old, as well as a 13-year-old and a nine-year-old, for that matter. Earlier this week, I had the opportunity to go back to Whitby and help my daughter get ready for her prom. It was a great moment, and I want to say congratulations to all the students across the country who are graduating, but in particular to the ones from All Saints in Whitby who attended prom with my daughter. Also, this weekend is the Brooklin Spring Fair, and while, like many others, I would be at the fair with my family during the day, many of our young people tend to go to the fair at night. The message that I have to my daughter and to all young people is not to use drugs.

I say so because currently it is untested, unregulated, and potentially unsafe. We would be naive to think that if we said, “Don't use drugs”, our kids would not use them, because we know that in Canada a high percentage of 18- to 24-year-olds use cannabis. In fact, it is 30% of the population. We want to make sure that when we are talking about 18-year-olds or above using cannabis, we understand that these individuals have reached the age of majority. They can vote. They can join the military. My daughter, in a couple of months, is going to be flying to England to go to school, and she will be living on her own. They have the capacity to make choices.

We are not encouraging the use of cannabis; we are saying that well-informed adults have the ability to make a decision on their own.

The sixth question was about data collection and surveillance. We have learned from Colorado's experience to establish good baseline data. The bill would permit the establishment of a cannabis tracking system. The minister spoke about surveys that would be going out, so there is that investment in research.

Last, what did we learn from other jurisdictions? Number one, we learned that we should take a public health approach and not a commercialization approach to cannabis. We have looked at making sure that we limit our young people's access to promotion of cannabis. We saw a couple of days ago that a young girl in Fredericton drank vaping fluid that was in a package that had rainbows on it. That would not be allowed with this legislation. Our public health approach is directed entirely at reducing both the social harms and the health harms.

As a parent, I firmly support this piece of legislation and I am thankful to the parliamentary secretary, the Minister of Health, and the Minister of Justice for putting forward this piece of legislation.