Bill C-46 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (offences relating to conveyances) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

Part 1 amends the provisions of the Criminal Code that deal with offences and procedures relating to drug-impaired driving. Among other things, the amendments
(a) enact new criminal offences for driving with a blood drug concentration that is equal to or higher than the permitted concentration;
(b) authorize the Governor in Council to establish blood drug concentrations; and
(c) authorize peace officers who suspect a driver has a drug in their body to demand that the driver provide a sample of a bodily substance for analysis by drug screening equipment that is approved by the Attorney General of Canada.
Part 2 repeals the provisions of the Criminal Code that deal with offences and procedures relating to conveyances, including those provisions enacted by Part 1, and replaces them with provisions in a new Part of the Criminal Code that, among other things,
(a) re-enact and modernize offences and procedures relating to conveyances;
(b) authorize mandatory roadside screening for alcohol;
(c) establish the requirements to prove a person’s blood alcohol concentration; and
(d) increase certain maximum penalties and certain minimum fines.
Part 3 contains coordinating amendments and the coming into force provision.

[Norm Keith]

The obligation is still going to be the overriding obligation of the employer to have a safe workplace. If an employer thinks somebody is impaired, are they going to call the police to their workplace to do their job for them? The labour regulator, federal or provincial, will intervene. There will be a union grievance. The matter will be before the courts for years.

If there's not a legislative framework that, from a common-sense perspective, says we want workers to be safe and sober, and we need some tools to do it, that's really all the suggestion is.

I don't think the goal that you're suggesting is any different from mine, but I don't think the companion legislation, Bill C-46, addresses these suggestions that we've made about the Canada Labour Code amendments.

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

I guess I wouldn't characterize it so much as a drug tolerance, but a recognition that criminal sanctions don't work to control drugs and control the markets.

However, I'm still confused a bit. I take your points that certainly the Labour Code needs to address some of this to some degree. People operating a forklift, operating trucks and so forth, in the construction area are already subjected to limitations. They would be affected by Bill C-46, right?

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Keith, you said there's no legislative framework to prevent injury and accidental death. I'm sure you're aware Bill C-46, whose study commences next week, deals extensively with impaired driving offences and provides new tools for detecting and testing. Is that not part of the legislative framework you're looking for?

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

First of all, as a comment to Ms. Sampson and Mr. St-Maurice, you've given us a fair bit of testimony about impairment, measures of impairment, per se limits, and so forth. That's completely out of scope for this bill, but I would advise you to give your information to the justice committee for the study of Bill C-46, which we'll start next week. You've also asked to stop ongoing arrests, and so forth, leading up to legalization, and of course, that is way out of scope for this committee itself.

What I'd like to ask you about is the provisions in this bill for personal cultivation. Do you see those as problematic? Do you see it as a source of diversion to the criminal market? What are your thoughts in terms of the number of plants and the maximum heights of the plants?

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Sorry to interrupt. Impaired driving is a very important topic. It's a concern for all Canadians that we have proper control of it, but we're dealing with Bill C-45. At some point in time, in the future, we're going to have to do a clause-by-clause review of Bill C-45, which does not deal at all with impaired driving. Bill C-46 deals with all of those kinds of questions, concerns, and the training. The justice committee is dealing with that. I'm concerned that we're taking very important time away from being able to question these witnesses about Bill C-45 by directing it to Bill C-46, which is another committee's job and another bill.

I don't know whether it's a point of order, Dr. Carrie, but at the end of the day we have to do a clause-by-clause review of Bill C-45, and it's silent on this topic.

[D/Chief Mike Serr]

We don't have that statistic with us. Certainly in regard in drunk driving or impaired driving we are preparing a response on behalf of the CACP for Bill C-46 in which we'll be able to drill down further into some of those statistics to get a better understanding of that.

[D/Chief Mark Chatterbok, Deputy Chief of Operations, Saskatoon Police Service]

Good morning, distinguished members of this committee.

My name is Mark Chatterbok. I'm the deputy chief of operations for the Saskatoon Police Service. I'm also the co-chair of the human resources and learning committee for the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, along with Steve Schnitzer from the Justice Institute of British Columbia.

I am pleased to be here with you today to offer a perspective from the Saskatoon Police Service, as we, like all municipal police services across the country, look ahead to the implementation of Bill C-45. I would like to begin by telling you a bit about some of the challenges currently faced in our community and province and how the careful and thoughtful implementation of new legislation is vital.

Saskatoon has been a city of rapid growth and economic boom, largely due to its resource sector, but in recent years the growth and the economy have slowed. This has resulted in changing pressures on policing. We have seen an increase in property-related offences. Much of this increase is related to the illicit drug trade, specifically methamphetamine.

We have seen a consistency in the percentage of our citizens who live each day at a socio-economic disadvantage. Some become subject to addiction and criminal victimization, become involved in criminal activity, and live in poor housing conditions or become homeless. While this is a larger and broader community issue, it contributes to the overall environment in which we police.

I would like to address the topic of impaired driving. We anticipate that as a result of new legislation the number of impaired drivers will only increase. This increase will be realized in a city and a province where impaired statistics are already far too high.

Saskatchewan has had a long and unfortunate distinction of having the highest rates of impaired driving in the country. In an effort to reduce those numbers, the province introduced new legislation to toughen penalties for impaired driving, including a zero tolerance for motorists under 21 years of age who are impaired by alcohol or drugs.

As a police service, we are already proactive in terms of impaired driving enforcement. Each year, we conduct numerous impaired driving spot checks and openly communicate these spot checks to the public through traditional and social media, yet our numbers still remain high.

As a result, the Saskatoon Police Service has concerns about an increase in impaired driving due to drugs or a combination of alcohol and drugs. As our chief of police, Clive Weighill, has publicly stated, he would like to know what happens when a driver already found to have a blood alcohol content of 0.07 also has the presence of THC in his or her blood. Technically, this driver may be under the legal limit for both individual substances, but what effect does the presence of both of these drugs have on impairment?

There were 43 homicides in 2015 in Saskatchewan. That compares to 53 people killed as a result of impaired driving in Saskatchewan for the same year. In a province with a population the size of Saskatchewan's, those numbers are very concerning. Unfortunately, our police service has yet to see a significant shift in behaviour when it comes to alcohol-impaired driving. As a result, we strongly recommend considerable federal investment in public education prior to legislative implementation.

We support the proposed amendments in Bill C-46, and the Saskatoon Police Service wants to be a part of the successful implementation for legislative change. We believe this will require continued collaboration by all levels of government and support for law enforcement agencies, especially for our front-line officers, who will be facing the impact of these changes on a day-to-day basis.

As we move closer to the date for legalization, the importance of creating a strategy to educate the public is becoming increasingly important. We echo the CACP's position that the development of such a strategy should begin immediately.

A public education strategy should focus specifically on information for youth, parents, and vulnerable populations. This component needs to be developed with input from all appropriate agencies, and the police would like to be a part of this conversation and preparation. Such a strategy should be non-judgmental, relatable, open-minded, and understandable. Education programs should provide real information, and evidence needs to be developed to resonate with this target audience.

We will need to work closely with health and the school boards to adequately deliver this information to youth in our communities. Achieving a unified position will require close co-operation. Resources in our schools are already at capacity in terms of delivering drug awareness and other programming to youth, and this legislation will only increase the demand for delivery of more education.

I would now like to discuss the impact this legislation will have on police training. Considerable training will be needed in order to have specially trained officers able to detect persons who are impaired from drugs.

According to the Colorado State Patrol, drivers who were stopped and found to be impaired by marijuana had been pulled over 91% of the time as a result of speeding. Studies in Colorado also showed that the number of drivers testing positive for THC was highest during daytime hours. We know that daytime is considered the peak time, when the highest number of vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians are using the roadways.

Both of these statistics verify the need for specialized training for our front-line officers.

The Saskatoon Police Service currently has 11 drug recognition experts trained, and I anticipate that we will need to at least double this number in the very near future. I expect this will also be the case for many other police agencies across the country. However, this training is expensive; it is currently offered only in the United States; and there is limited capacity, which means this training is often delayed until a space becomes available.

For many agencies this training will be cost prohibitive, which may ultimately result in delays at the roadside, yet the courts—and justifiably so—will not see this as a bona fide reason to deny people their charter rights. As a result, I would strongly recommend that the federal government provide the funding and assistance required to implement a DRE program here in Canada, which will help to address the training costs and capacity issues I have mentioned.

One of our concerns is regarding the unknown; specifically, not knowing to a great degree what impact this new legislation will have on our existing resources. Our resources are already stretched in many different directions. The Saskatoon Board of Police Commissioners recently hired a consulting firm to conduct a review of our operations, and the study found that the amount of time our front-line officers have available to conduct proactive activities is 29%, with a suggested goal of 40%.

We already know that major drug investigations take considerable time and specialized resources and they are very expensive to conduct. Can we expect that the number of major drug investigations will increase with this legislation? I believe we can.

There is the potential for an increase in what I would describe as regular complaints to the police; for example, neighbour disputes, domestic disputes, suspicious activity, and so on. We know that alcohol is often a contributing factor in these types of complaints. The unanswered question is whether or not the usage of marijuana will have similar results.

Many municipal agencies, including in Saskatchewan, have identified possible hidden costs that may arise with the new legislation. They would come in the form of social issues, which typically fall to the front-line police officers to deal with.

I will end my time by commenting on the proposed legislation around personal cultivation and possession within a dwelling. The Saskatoon Police Service supports the concerns raised by the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and recommends that personal cultivation be reconsidered. We do not support home growing regardless of size and number of plants, as this will create opportunities for diversion, and it will increase complaints of overproduction, which will be difficult to investigate and will have a negative impact on our existing resources. Arguably, home growing will provide more opportunity for cannabis to get into the hands of children.

In closing, as a municipal police agency that will be on the front lines of the implementation and impact of Bill C-45, the Saskatoon Police Service wishes to express its appreciation for the government's commitment to consultation of stakeholders. We support the government's desire to implement the most effective legislation possible. We are committed to protect the public safety and to serve our citizens on a daily basis no matter what challenges we face.

On behalf of the Saskatoon Police Service, I appreciate your kind invitation to present our comments to you here this morning.

Thank you.

[D/Chief Mike Serr]

Thank you very much.

Distinguished members of this committee, on behalf of director Mario Harel, president of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, I am pleased today to be given the opportunity to meet with you. In addition to my role as deputy chief of the Abbotsford Police Department, I am chair of the CACP drug advisory committee. I am joined by York regional deputy police chief, Thomas Carrique, who is chair of the organized crime committee, and Lara Malashenko, a member of the CACP law amendments committee and legal counsel for the Ottawa Police Service.

The mandate of the CACP is safety and security for all Canadians through innovative police leadership. This mandate is accomplished through the activities and special projects of some 20 CACP committees and through active liaison with various levels of government. Ensuring the safety of our citizens and our communities is central to the mission of our membership and their police services. Bill C-45 is a comprehensive bill, and we will address it from a high level in our opening statement. In addition to our appearance today, we are providing you with a detailed written brief for your consideration.

Our role from the beginning has been to share our expertise with the government to help mitigate the impact of this legislation on public safety. Extensive discussions within the CACP membership and various committees form the basis of our advice. We participated in a number of government-held consultations and provided a submission to the federal task force. We produced two discussion papers, entitled “CACP: Recommendations of the Task Force on Cannabis Legalization and Regulation” on February 8, 2017, and “Government Introduces Legislation to Legalize Cannabis” on April 28, 2017. Themes from both discussion papers have been included in our written brief.

Police leadership across Canada identified seven key themes specific to this bill that impact policing. These are: training and the impact on police resourcing, personal cultivation and possession, organized crime, medical marijuana, packaging and labelling, return of property, and youth and public education. Police leadership also identified that drug-impaired driving and our ability to effectively manage it will impact policing. However, we will leave this theme to be addressed under Bill C-46.

We would like to acknowledge the announcement made by the federal government on September 8, 2017 with respect to the allocation of funding. We are interested in learning the details related to the distribution of funds dedicated to our federal, provincial, and municipal police resources. We wish to emphasize that administering police services requires the necessary training, tools, and technology to assist with addressing public safety concerns, and disrupting the involvement of organized crime in the illicit cannabis market.

In order to support the successful implementation of this comprehensive legislation, the CACP urges the Government of Canada to first consider extending the July 2018 commencement date to allow police services to obtain sufficient resources and proper training, both of which are critical to the successful implementation of the proposed cannabis act. Second, we ask that an established legislative framework be put in place prior to legalization that will provide law enforcement with clear direction and assistance regarding funding and training. Third, provide sufficient detail to allow law enforcement to assess the availability of funding, recognizing the need for a more standardized and consistent approach among provinces and territories, vis-à-vis the implementation of police resources necessary for the legalization of marijuana, and the need to obtain further guidance regarding the training of front-line officers, which would include plant seizure and identification of illicit cannabis. Fourth, increase funding for public education and youth programs and the issuance of tickets under the ticketing provisions of the act. Fifth, due to the foreseeable concerns surrounding personal cultivation and enforcement, we ask the provisions permitting adults to grow up to four marijuana plants be revoked. The CACP predicts that these provisions would be problematic to enforce, would provide additional opportunities for the illegal sale of marijuana, and would pose a further risk to youth due to increased exposure and accessibility.

We were pleased to see in the September 8, 2017 announcement that Finance Canada will consult on a new tax regime on cannabis. This is critically important because, despite the proposed cannabis act, organized crime will continue to look for opportunities to exploit the market and to profit. We will continue to advocate that the cost of legal cannabis remain as low, or lower, than cannabis sold on the black market in order to discourage price undercutting and illicit sales. We would also ask the federal government to enact strict security clearance requirements, which would ensure that criminal organizations do not become involved as licensed growers, which has been observed under the medical regime.

Police agencies must prioritize drug investigations on the basis of public safety. It is well documented that many police agencies are currently concentrating on the opioids that are responsible for an unprecedented number of overdose deaths. However, it is important, as we move to a regulated regime for cannabis, to recognize that strict enforcement is necessary at the onset to protect youth and help disrupt organized crime.

While the commitment made on September 8 to provide funding to policing to enforce a proposed cannabis act is positive, questions still remain in regard to how this money will be allocated. We wish to reiterate that dedicated police cannabis enforcement teams are necessary to disrupt organized crime and keep cannabis out of the hands of our youth.

Given the infiltration of organized crime into the medical marijuana industry, the CACP recommends merging the cannabis act with the access to cannabis for medical purposes regulations to avoid confusion, to align the efforts of Health Canada and law enforcement agencies, and to limit organized crime activity by reducing the number of licensed producers and distributors.

The CACP recommends that packaging requirements be stringent, in order to provide clear labelling to allow police to identify between legal and illegal cannabis, and to give users adequate information to make informed choices about their cannabis consumption. We further recommend that labelling include notice regarding penalties for providing cannabis to youth as a further protection mechanism and deterrent.

The CACP has concerns regarding the return of property provisions that appear to require the police to maintain and return seized cannabis plants. Police services across Canada do not have the facilities or resources to accomplish this. Accordingly, we ask the act to address these concerns by relieving police services of any responsibility associated with the deterioration of seized cannabis plants or having to provide compensation.

Lastly, there should be a continued focus on protecting youth through education and other non-Criminal Code means. The cannabis act, for example, will permit youth to possess or social-share five grams or less, which is inconsistent with the bill's intended objectives. Examples from Colorado and Washington have demonstrated that legalization may encourage increased marijuana consumption among youth. Therefore, police-driven education on the effects of marijuana use is critical to discourage consumption by youth.

Our recommendations are not intended to dispute the government's intention of restricting, regulating, and legalizing cannabis use in Canada. Instead, we bring these issues forward because the answers remain unknown. We are concerned about the impact of this act and, as previously stated, we have the responsibility to mitigate the impact on public safety, which is our primary goal from a policing perspective.

We certainly commend the government for its commitment to consultation with stakeholders and the public. We also commend the efforts of ministers, parliamentarians, and public servants who are dedicated to bring forward the most comprehensive legislation with a mutual goal of putting forward a responsible framework prior to legalization and recognizing that the world is watching Canada throughout this process.

In the interests of public safety and preserving the quality of life that we are fortunate to enjoy in Canada, we appreciate the opportunity to share our crime prevention and law enforcement experience with the government. We recognize that illicit drugs are a global issue that dramatically affects local communities, families, and individuals. As the world watches Canada throughout this complex process, we are committed to working with the government and the Canadian public to ensure that comprehensive regulations that mitigate the public safety concerns associated with cannabis are established prior to legalization. We support many of the overall goals of the act while recognizing that other stakeholders are better equipped to provide specialized knowledge in the area of public health and in social services. We also support efforts to deter and reduce criminal activity by imposing serious criminal penalties for those breaking the law, especially those who import and export cannabis and who provide cannabis to youth.

Sincere thanks are extended to all members of this committee for allowing the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police the opportunity to offer comment and suggestions on Bill C-45. We look forward to answering your questions.

Thank you.

[Dale Tesarowski]

I apologize in advance for asking more questions than I'm answering today.

We've just engaged Saskatchewan residents in an online survey respecting the various provincial responsibilities. Once we get our results, we'll have a better idea about where to go from here. Over 20,000 people have completed surveys over the last three and a half days. It's a staggering number, which only points to the importance of what we're doing today.

The other point I'd like to make at this time is that legalizing cannabis—or really, legalizing certain people over a certain age to have, use, share, or grow certain amounts of cannabis—wasn't something on our provincial agenda. While we're not being dragged kicking and screaming to the dance, putting on our dancing shoes wasn't something we had planned on doing. There are a lot of responsibilities the federal government has put on our provincial plates, without giving us a lot of time to get things ready for implementation.

Among other things, a province is responsible for designing and licensing the distribution and retail sale in their jurisdictions as well as carrying out associated compliance, taxation, and enforcement activities. Provinces are also responsible for setting additional regulatory requirements to address issues of local concern such as setting a higher minimum age or a more restrictive possession or personal cultivation limit. Provinces and municipalities are responsible for establishing zoning rules for cannabis-based businesses, restricting where cannabis may be consumed, and amending provincial traffic safety laws to further address drugged driving. Saskatchewan already has laws in place in respect of licence suspension for drug impairment by new or experienced drivers and zero tolerance for drug use by new drivers.

We must engage with our people, businesses, communities, partners, and other stakeholders regarding these issues and implement processes and practices before July 1, 2018. We must be ready to implement or deal with minimum age of purchase; legislation, regulation, and statute changes; and regulating personal cannabis cultivation and potency rates. We will have to maintain quality control at the point of sale. We will need to ensure that what consumers are getting is what they're supposed to be getting and not something that might be harmful. We have to regulate distribution, retail sales, consumption, and possession, by which I mean where cannabis may be permitted, how it may be consumed, and how to price and tax it.

A taxation framework for cannabis must carefully consider the distribution model and methods of administration and enforcement to ensure that tax is appropriately applied and collected. In setting a rate of tax to be applied to cannabis, the government must consider a rate that is high enough to deter the use of cannabis from a social acceptability perspective but not so high that individuals choose to purchase it illegally to avoid payment of the tax. I call this the “sweet spot”.

In addition, we must address issues such as engagement, public education, and awareness strategies, occupational health and safety, workplace safety issues, and drug-impaired driving laws. We have to engage in regulation of cannabis sales and distribution to and from our first nations communities. We have to provide oversight for municipal authority respecting zoning, licensing, taxation, and fees. And we need to participate in inter-jurisdictional collaboration and analysis regarding age, retail models, taxation, and pricing. We want to have a landscape that's as familiar across the country as possible, so that we don't have different jurisdictions with widely different laws.

The real question is, can all this be done in time? We hope so, but there is much to accomplish in a very short time. Having 12 to 18 months post royal assent would have been an easily attainable time frame. Instead, that was reduced to 14 months after the introduction of the bill.

One of the problems we have in Saskatchewan is that we have set legislative sessions for the spring and the fall as well as a relatively strict timetable for introducing legislation. We give notice in January, get approval in the spring, and then introduce legislation in the fall session. Any bill is then debated and voted during the following spring session.

Cannabis legalization, as proposed, takes us so far away from this timetable that they are complete strangers. We must go outside our normal practice rules in order to meet the July 2018 deadline. Although we're doing our best to do so, there are no guarantees we'll be able to meet this federal deadline.

In addition, we've had to begin our processes without a federal bill in its final form. While we know today what Bill C-45 says, will it look like this by the time it gets to royal assent? There are innumerable examples of other bills where changes, sometimes significant ones, are made during the legislative approval process. Canadian jurisdictions, however, are being asked to proceed without a safety net in the expectation that there will be no major changes en route or that we'll have to be flexible enough to be able to respond to those changes once we embark on our own implementation strategies.

Saskatchewan has some concerns about cannabis legalization. To name a few: ticketable offences; enforcement and regulation generally; public education, awareness, prevention, and treatment; minimum age; labelling and packaging; workplace safety; and whether a phased-in or staged approach would work better.

With respect to ticketable offences, Saskatchewan agrees that a cannabis ticket, as set out in part 2, is a criminal matter. A conviction for such an offence is a criminal conviction, and that is where the issue lies. We appreciate the effort at increasing justice efficiencies by using a ticket, but does that format lead an individual to believe that their payment of the fine is the end of the matter? Is it like a traffic ticket? Do they appreciate that they would then have a criminal conviction that would affect their ability to cross a border, for example? The ticket itself must make this very clear. As provinces, we are engaging in discussions with our federal colleagues about these issues. Perhaps proposed sections 51(3), 52, or 53 should also include a provision that a conviction is a criminal one.

A second issue, and perhaps a more important one about ticketing, concerns proposed subsection 52(b) respecting its requirement that the judicial record kept by a province must be separate and apart from other judicial records. As the conviction is a criminal one, we don't see the need for this requirement. Should we have to create a separate record-keeping system for just these offences? Not only will Saskatchewan have to redesign our system at great cost, it will take considerable time to do so, and for what purpose in the end? An offender must still disclose the conviction if they cross a border. The conviction will still show up in a criminal record check.

With respect to enforcement and regulation, while laudable, cannabis legislation is being implemented without enough scientific foundation. I think we heard from Dr. Ware this morning in that respect. Is there a consistent blood/drug concentration that equates to an individual's impairment? Can all of the toxicology experts agree that at x nanogram percent of THC in blood, everyone is impaired? They can with alcohol. My discussions with the toxicologists suggest that they are aren't at .08 on that point. We are designing a criminal law system through the interactions of Bill C-45 and Bill C-46, yet the science hasn't quite caught up to us.

We're also concerned that drug-impaired driving will increase due to legalization, and significantly higher numbers of standard field sobriety testers, SSFT, or drug recognition evaluators, DRE, must be trained and in the field when legalization takes effect very soon from today. Not only does it take time to train officers, doing so comes at significant cost. While in Saskatchewan we're reducing these costs as much as possible, by doing the DRE two-week classroom training at home—we're doing that in Saskatchewan—we still have to send our officers to either Florida or Arizona for their third week of training, and that's expensive.

Moreover, roadside testing is still in its infancy. Recognized practice rules are not yet in place, nor are there any approved roadside devices. Again, our scientific friends and those in the Department of Justice are working very hard in that respect. We're 292 days away, and we don't have any instruments that are being approved at this time.

The costs of these devices are likely to be significant, and our law enforcement and municipal officials are very concerned that the combination of training needs, device procurement, and the ongoing per-test and analysis costs will be much greater than they can absorb.

Let's put this into perspective. Recent funding announcements from Public Safety Canada will help. They've offered $81 million over five years for provinces to share. But what does that mean? There's $81 million over 13 provinces and territories. That's $6.231 million each over five years, which is $1.246 million per year, per jurisdiction.

To put that into context, we estimate the cost for a device, an approved screening device, will be $3,500. We also know that it costs us about $3,500 to send an officer to Arizona or Florida for the week-long training. It costs $1,000 to train an officer for SSFT. I'm not an accountant, so forgive me, but if we take $1.246 million divided by $3,500, that comes to 356. So we can purchase 356 devices or train 356 officers or some combination of both with the money that's being offered. We'll have to absorb the rest.

On another point, in requiring blood analysis—and we see the scientific reason for having to do so—are our laboratories capable of handling such a large influx of samples? Are there enough labs? Are there enough lab techs to conduct testing in a timely manner? We're left with a situation where a sample may be taken one day and take weeks or months to be analyzed.

Last, our police authorities are concerned that enforcing a four-plant personal grow provision will be very difficult, especially if the cultivation is inside or away from view. There's virtually no way to regulate this. Our officers are very concerned about this.

With respect to public education, awareness, prevention, and treatment, we found that a position shared across ministries and agencies in Saskatchewan is that the primary focus for this topic has to be youth and young adults. Safe use and awareness of potential consequences caused by the drug must be addressed, and although this is an area of joint responsibility, the federal government must lead the way well before implementation.

We know that cannabis use by young people in our country is amongst the highest in the developed world, yet our youth appear to be ill-informed regarding its dangers. For example, the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse and Addiction in its recent report, “Canadian Youth Perceptions on Cannabis”, noted that youth consider cannabis less harmful than alcohol, yet cannabis use significantly increases the risk of injury or death in vehicular accidents. The health risks associated with cannabis are also little known. We can likely expect, however, that there will be increased demands for our health resources from addictions, mental health, and medical perspectives.

[Anne McLellan]

The legislation has similarities with tobacco regulation. Keep in mind that my colleague Mark Ware and I are here to talk about the task force report and explain why we made the recommendations we did. Government chose in C-45 and C-46 to accept some but not all of our recommendations.

In respect of tobacco regulation, we looked at tobacco regulatory provisions, especially around marketing, advertising, branding, and sponsorship. We felt that the approach taken was a reasonably good one for the promotion of public health, especially as it relates to young people, but not exclusively to young people. Therefore, what you see reflected in the legislation is a desire not to be in the business of permitting promotion or lifestyle advertising in relation to cannabis when it's legalized. In that respect, it's quite similar to the tobacco regulatory regime that you see presently at the federal level.

In relation to alcohol, I think it's fair to say that a lot of the regulatory regime you see around alcohol, whether it is in relation to public education or prevention, outside the driving milieu, is largely within provincial jurisdiction.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I know there were 90 witnesses proposed for Bill C-46 and I think that almost that number have been approved to come before committee for Bill C-46, which is a much smaller bill. Bill C-46 deals only with the impaired driving provisions. This is the major legislation that has major chunks.

To put it in perspective, this proposal as it stands, if we left it at 72, would actually have fewer witnesses testifying at this committee than would the bill on impaired driving, if that's what the justice committee ultimately decides on.

I'm really concerned that we be able to have really fulsome stakeholder and public input on this bill. The number 72 sounds like a large number, but it actually isn't when you consider all of the different subject areas and how much public interest there is in this. In terms of the commercial interest in this, there are dozens and dozens and dozens or organizations and companies and legal representatives that really want to have their say on this, so I want to really emphasize that.

From my point of view, after waiting a hundred years for this legalization, allowing the public to comment on legislation for only four days is not doing justice to this bill.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Certainly, I would be very interested in any study, because let's not underestimate the fact that this is a significant infringement on individual liberty when we're talking about taking a bodily sample with even the slightest hint of suspicion that someone is breaking the law.

I think Mr. Yost brought up the point about the success that Ireland has had. The system in Ireland differs from what is proposed in Bill C-46 in the sense that the mandatory breath testing can only take place at regulated check stops. I would be curious as to why that was not considered. It would seem to me that a lot of people would be a little more comfortable with that than a mandatory roadside testing system whereby a police officer can stop any vehicle, anywhere, under any circumstances, albeit a lawful stop to check registration, insurance, etc.

Before you comment on that, I would just note, Madam Minister, because you had mentioned and the point had been raised by others, that right now police can stop a vehicle to check insurance, registration, or sobriety by engaging in a conversation with an individual, and if they have a reasonable suspicion, they can take further steps. I would note that when we're talking about taking a breath sample, a bodily sample from an individual, we're talking about something that's much more significant. To that point, I would draw your attention to the Goodwin decision from the Supreme Court wherein Madam Justice Karakatsanis stated that taking breath samples remained “more intrusive than a demand for documents” and clearly amounts to what Justice La Forest said, “The use of a person's body without his consent to obtain information about him invades an area of privacy essential to the maintenance of his human dignity.” That is a fairly significant statement for the Supreme Court.

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

Again, it's an important question. We're putting in place a very strong regime around impaired driving and introducing new tools. In my conversations with the Minister of Public Safety, in addition to the money that's already been provided to provinces and territories, we need to ensure that we provide the necessary resources for law enforcement officers to have access to tools, and have the necessary training around the administration of those tools, to ensure we achieve the objectives laid out in Bill C-46.

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

In terms of Bill C-46, we have worked and will continue to work with the provinces and territories in ensuring that the Criminal Code is applied in their jurisdictions. Certainly the provinces have highway traffic acts and have instituted various measures to do their part within their jurisdiction to ensure their highways are safe. A majority of the provinces have instituted a lower level of alcohol concentration to 50, as opposed to what is federally within the Criminal Code at 80. We're gong to continue to ensure that we work with the provinces and territories to provide them with the ability to adapt their current approaches. Provinces and territories have been quite innovative in impaired driving, instituting administrative penalties like in the province of British Columbia, for example, that have significantly reduced delays. They take a car away from a driver who's impaired and have various other means to prevent or deter people from driving.