Bill C-93 (Historical)

An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabis

This enactment amends the Criminal Records Act to, among other things, allow persons who have been convicted under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Narcotic Control Act and the National Defence Act only of simple possession of cannabis offences committed before October 17, 2018 to apply for a record suspension without being subject to the period required by the Criminal Records Act for other offences or to the fee that is otherwise payable in applying for a suspension.

Criminal Records Act

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I know it is getting late, but I want to remind members on both sides of the House that they should not be having conversations back and forth when a parliamentary secretary, of all people, is asking a question.

The hon. member for Drummond.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is rather interesting to see the Liberals rise in the House to demand that I not talk about social housing, even though there is a very serious housing crisis in Drummond, and then ask a question on that topic. I am happy to answer that question because, in this Parliament, we moved a motion to quickly call for the creation of 500,000 housing units. The entire country, including Drummond, is facing a housing crisis. We need to take action.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Niagara West.

I rise today to speak to Bill C-93, an act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions to individuals for simple possession of marijuana. As I said last week, the bill is deeply flawed and will not help the people the Liberals have set out to help. This was clear from the limited testimony at committee, the information provided by departments and agencies and answers to our questions about the process and system.

This record suspension, much like the Liberals, is really not as advertised.

Bill C-93, based on what we heard at committee, was rushed, lacked consultations outside of the government and would fail to help those the Liberals said it would, in particular, racialized communities and those who live below the poverty line.

The Liberals suggested the bill would provide a no-cost simple process for those with convictions for simple possession of marijuana to provide a record suspension and it would remove the stigma of a criminal conviction for this offence.

After committee hearings, this bill clearly should have been called “lower cost”, not “no cost”.

No one should have been caught off guard by this legislation, least of all government departments and agencies that have been working on this for years. When the Prime Minister announced his plans for marijuana legalization in 2015, clearly some kind of amnesty or consideration would have had to take place to balance the old and the new realities. The issue was raised in the House and by media as legalization was occurring and after the legislation had passed. The government repeatedly said it would bring in amnesty after legalization.

On October 18, 2018, the Minister of Public Safety said that he would make things fairer, removing the stigma. That is why it was so confusing. No one had a clear idea of how many people would be eligible or benefit, how it would be implemented or how much it would cost. When we asked officials how many people would be eligible, officials and the minister provided a best guess. Why? It is because the work to know who would be eligible would have been a challenging and time-consuming process.

Convictions are not listed as simple possession of marijuana. In order to know who would be eligible, officials would need to know who had a record for possession of an illegal substance, which falls under a specific category, schedule II, and then which of those was the simple possession of marijuana, meaning under 30 grams. That may or may not have been listed.

According to testimony at committee, Canadian conviction records generally do not say “cannabis possession”. That is not the language used in the records. They say something like “possession of a schedule II substance”. Then one has to check police and court documents to find out what the particular substance was.

The blanket, generic approach is not all that obvious, given the way charges are entered and records are kept in the Canadian records system. Doing this for every drug possession charge that potentially involves cannabis would be a considerable undertaking, even if all the documents were in one central computer database. Additionally, many older records are paper copies kept in boxes in courthouses and police departments across this country.

We also do not know how many individuals the government expects to apply for record suspension. Public safety officials said:

[I]t's very difficult to know who has possession for cannabis offences, so we can't just go into a database and say this is how many offences there are. We've extrapolated from statistics collected by the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, and their figure is upwards of 250,000 convictions for the simple possession of cannabis. That is a starting point. The number of people expected to apply is much lower.... Let's remember you can only get that pardon if your only offence is for possession of cannabis. While you may have that offence, if you have others on your record, you would not be eligible. It's not an exact science but we've extrapolated from the figure of 250,000 and estimate 10,000.

Outside experts have told us a significantly higher number, approximately 500,000 who have a record for minor possession. Those who will actually benefit, however, remains unknown.

How much will taxpayers pay to provide a record suspension to someone who has committed a minor offence? The minister and officials have guessed about $2.5 million, a nice round figure for an unknown number of people with an unclear amount of work involved. We asked the minister to provide the committee with details of how the costs were reached. The minister committed to provide it before we had to vote on the matter. As we still do not have the breakdown of that cost as it was calculated, we could just add it to another long list of broken promises from the public safety minister.

As of yet, there is no clear mechanism to deal with higher costs. Will it be passed on to other applicants or will taxpayers pick up the difference?

One thing we heard from almost all our legal witnesses was the challenges of obtaining a record suspension, especially for individuals who could benefit the most. The application process can be quite challenging for those with limited legal or administrative skills. It requires getting a record of conviction from the court of jurisdiction, meaning people may need to travel to the courts to get the records removed; proof that fines and all sentencing conditions have been met; and a records check from a police agency, along with an identity confirmation by way of fingerprints. All of this will cost potentially several hundred dollars. Therefore, the no-cost application suggested in the bill's title is clearly misleading.

It became quite clear that the people the minister and his colleagues say they are trying to help could continue to face potentially insurmountable hurdles.

What we heard at committee supported that statement.

The Native Women's Association of Canada said, “the effects of the bill will go unrealized for many indigenous women with criminal records for simple possession of cannabis. Simply put, the bill remains inaccessible for indigenous women who are poor.”

The Canadian Association of Black Lawyers said, “The suspension of the record will almost seem like a token gesture...for many who are coming from extremely poor areas and families who don't have the means to push them forward, this is a huge stumbling block.”

This is yet another promise that is not as advertised.

To deal with this issue, legal experts advised the committee that convictions should be expunged. Expungements eliminate the records while record suspensions mean they can be reversed. An expungement would certainly be more closely aligned to the what the Liberal government promised in its statements. It would be simpler than this process, cost applicants less and ensure that whatever barriers they experienced would be eliminated. However, the Liberals voted against the NDP's Private Member's bill to do just that. Ironically, the Liberal members introduced amendments to make these record suspensions as close to expunged records as possible.

This is like the Liberals' claims about how legalizing marijuana would remove the black market, decrease use by children and reduce consumption, all of which is not actually happening. We also know Bill C-93 would not accomplish anything the minister claimed.

I believe in redemption, but I know that redemption is not earned through the generosity of the minister; it is earned by the person who seeks it. I am not sure that the redemption in these cases will result in any benefit for many Canadians.

I was pleased that the committee agreed to make some minor improvements to deeply flawed legislation. Originally, a Conservative amendment addressed what could happen if the court records were lost, destroyed or otherwise not found. The Liberals chose to amend this issue and provided the ability for the Parole Board to review when information was missing. However, that is not much help to those who can not get information to apply in the first place.

The Liberals continue to put in processes that serve the government, but not the people intended to benefit from the legislation.

Ultimately, we were not able to eliminate clause 6, which would limit the considerations by the Parole Board when examining these applications. We should not be giving records suspensions to people who do not deserve them. The only way to accomplish that is to ensure a thorough review. That was the only request of the Canadian Police Association, to ensure that anyone who received these record suspensions met the criteria. That aligns with good administration and instills the trust of Canadians that the system works effectively. The Liberals sadly disagreed with that.

This is not a good bill. It only makes things slightly better for a very small number of Canadians who will benefit.

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

Madam Speaker, in his statement, the member said that our new policy on the legalization of marijuana had done nothing. I want to remind the member that according to Statistics Canada, one out of every 10 young people between the ages of 15 and 17 will smoke cigarettes. The reason for that is that we injected a lot of money into educating our youth on the effects of smoking, the harms of it and the reasons it was bad for their health. It has been drilled into young people at schools.

This is exactly what we want to do with the legalization of cannabis. We want to ensure that the money we receive from that is invested in education programs to make safer consumption for youth. Often cannabis has been mixed with other products. We want to ensure we educate youth so we bring the consumption rate down to the numbers I just mentioned. Those are Statistics Canada numbers from 2011. We want to ensure we reduce the consumption and this is the way to do it.

Does the hon. member agree that if we use the example of smoking cigarettes and apply that to cannabis we can reduce the rate?

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Madam Speaker, I agree that education is a critical component of any sort of public policy. I unfortunately would have to disagree that in this case the desired outcomes from what the government has proposed or expected from the legalization of marijuana have not played out in reality, as was proposed in policy or in principle.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, what is my colleague's perception and what feedback has he heard from stakeholders, including police associations and other groups, about the ability of police to do their jobs and for law enforcement agencies to protect against drug-impaired driving? As we have seen in jurisdictions with the legalization of cannabis, robust methods were required to equip the police to do proper roadside screening. My understanding is that the equipment that has been approved is insufficient and produces many false positives.

Could my colleague speak to that, based on the study of this legislation and also based on his professional experience?

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Madam Speaker, in conversation with law enforcement officials over the last year or thereabouts, since the legislation was put in place, significant challenges continue to exist with the application of the law as well as the inability for officers to have the equipment necessary to perform the required roadside screening tests. It is an issue of public safety and those challenges continue to exist at this point in time.

We knew when this legislation was proposed that there would be significant court challenges for a lot of the aspects of the legislation. The results hopefully will play out soon and we will get some resolution to it. Right now, there are challenges with law enforcement and the ability to enforce this across the country.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to start by saying that Conservatives will be supporting the bill.

Bill C-93 would make changes to the pardon process and waive the fee for Canadians with a past conviction of simple cannabis possession. It would allow people convicted of possession of less than 30 grams of cannabis to apply for free to have their record suspended. It typically costs $631 for someone to apply for a record suspension. In light of the legalization of cannabis in October of last year, the bill seeks to assist Canadians who were criminally charged for something that has now been rendered legal.

Having said that, it is important to discuss some concerns we have had with the bill along the way.

The government has received significant criticism as to how it has handled matters relating to cannabis in the aftermath of legalizing it. For example, last year, the government confirmed there is no conclusive way to determine if someone is driving high. This left our law enforcement officials in limbo, with several police forces across the country refusing to use government-approved testers.

In addition, the safety concerns of employers, workers and indigenous communities have not been addressed. To add to that, the Prime Minister has failed to explain how his plan would keep marijuana out of the hands of children and profits out of the hands of criminals. Also, the lack of public education has left many Canadians unsure of the new rules and how this would impact border crossings between Canada and the United States.

The uneven rules by the government for every province, territory, and municipality have created uncertainty and confusion from coast to coast. The bill is an attempt to address the record suspension issue that was left outstanding since the legalization of cannabis, but there are still many other aspects of the legalization of cannabis that need the government's attention. However, I am glad to see it is finally starting somewhere.

With respect to these issues, the end result the government has come up with is a new category of record suspensions that cannot be easily revoked and can be granted automatically without much insight into an individual's history. To be more specific, if an individual were to reoffend, the record suspension received for the charge of simple possession is difficult to reverse.

On this side of the House, we support the idea of expedited pardons, but we want to ensure that the process is fair and accountable.

We are also happy the government accepted two Conservative amendments, which help to improve the bill's procedural fairness and require the Parole Board to include a review of this program in its annual report. This review process would allow the legislation to be improved upon if necessary.

I would like to note a specific concern expressed by law enforcement agencies about the bill that I find to have a lot of merit. Although they generally support the bill and what it aims to achieve, law enforcement agencies have expressed concerns that an individual could have been charged with a more serious infraction but pleaded it down to simple possession. This makes the individual still eligible for record suspension, making the process very problematic.

The President of the Canadian Police Association has expressed his opinion on this, saying:

In those circumstances, it is possible that both the Crown and the court may have accepted the plea agreement based on the assumption that the conviction would be a permanent record of the offence and would not have accepted the lesser charge if they knew this would be cleared without any possibility of review at a future date.

Committee members are aware of this. At their appearance, officials said they could not discern between plea deals to lesser charges and people convicted of the genuine offence. This is one of several issues the government has encountered in its rush to meet the Prime Minister's own self-imposed political deadline. It is also strange that the Liberals have left this consequential legislation to the final weeks of our Parliament and have failed to consult key stakeholders.

The concerns are still very real and need to be dealt with. I would like to highlight some of them here.

At the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, Conservative members asked officials about how unpaid fines would be dealt with at the provincial level when a record suspension can be granted under this law at the federal level, while those fines are still outstanding. They could not answer. This needs to be dealt with since the provinces could lose money if they cannot enforce the payment of fines once these records have been deleted. It is an important detail of this legislation that needs the government's attention.

I am also concerned as to why the government changed this law so that a record suspension could not be revoked on the grounds of bad conduct. Does it want record suspensions or expungement? It is very unclear.

The bill lacks the public safety considerations that come with a proper record suspension and the accessibility of an expungement. It is almost as if the Liberals got lost somewhere along the way in the creation of this legislation and did not think of several important details.

There is also a cost to this legislation that needs to be considered, which officials have estimated would be around $2.5 million. The calculation is based on the idea that over 250,000 people are eligible for record suspensions but only 10,000 would make use of it. What if all 250,000 apply; does the government have a plan for that? The cost would then be around $62 million and not the anticipated $2.5 million, which is a big gap that needs to be accounted for. It is an amount that the government does not seem to have a plan for.

In addition, the government has overlooked another important cost, which is the full cost estimate of the process for the Parole Board to to run a query of its database to determine who is eligible for record suspensions while providing it with the necessary information. This is a process, like any other bureaucratic one, that will require significant resources depending on how many people submit a query.

Another area of concern was brought up by witnesses who testified that this law would impact different communities differently. Generally, those less well-off and those with lower education levels are more likely to have convictions for simple possession of cannabis. Legal experts have said that the people who do not have record suspensions today are unlikely to be able to sort through the challenging paperwork needed just to apply.

In addition to the paperwork, to make matters worse, the government calls this a no-cost bill when that is not the case. There would be a $2.5-million price tag for taxpayers and likely between $50 and $200 in fees and complex paperwork for applicants. This process seems designed to ensure as few people as possible apply. It does not look like the government is interested in making it more accessible either. It took out a proposed Conservative amendment that would have made it easier for individuals to access these pardons. As with other types of government applications, this could be complex and time-consuming to fill out.

In these cases, we have also seen the emergence of predatory application experts online, who charge up to $1,600 for their services. There are also no meaningful protections in this bill that would prevent this sort of predatory behaviour in order to protect those who are trying to get a record suspension.

The Liberals have said to Canadians that smoking marijuana should be accepted and accessible, and they have implemented legislation to that effect. That is why it seems odd that they are not interested in making the record suspension process just as accessible.

The last concern I would like to bring up on the topic of cannabis is one that is very relevant to my riding of Niagara West, and that is the smell produced by cannabis cultivation facilities. This is especially an issue in the town of Pelham, where families avoid opening their windows in the summer due to the extremely strong odours coming from two cannabis-producing facilities located more than five kilometres away from their houses.

David Ireland, a resident of Pelham, recently said that on hot, humid days it is worse because the production facilities have to vent more often. Because of this, he cannot open any windows without his whole house smelling like cannabis. The situation has become so bad that the Town of Lincoln in my riding has temporarily halted new cannabis-production facilities and put existing operations on notice.

At a special council meeting earlier this year, councillors approved a staff recommendation to pass an interim control bylaw that will effectively stop any new cannabis facilities until the town can update its zoning bylaws. The bylaws come at the behest of local residents, who have complained about cannabis greenhouses popping up where they should not and causing light and odour concerns in residential communities.

Kristen Dias, a resident from the town of Jordan, was quoted in one of our local papers saying, “Daily, my kids ask about the dead skunks.” Ms. Dias has since moved her children to a different school, saying that the cannabis odour from the production facilities is part of the reason for the move.

My constituents have made dozens of complains about the odour coming from these factories to no avail. Health Canada has not been helpful because it says it is the town's jurisdiction, while the town says it is Health Canada's problem. We have been caught in this constant loop for over a year now with no resolution in sight.

Our community of Niagara West needs to be clear as to who is responsible for regulating the odour because something needs to be done. Cannabis odour issues produced by production facilities are yet another oversight of the government with respect to rushed marijuana legislation.

To get back to the bill in question, we will monitor the implementation of it and commit to reviewing it for its effectiveness and fairness. Now that cannabis is legal, Conservatives understand Canadians should not be unfairly burdened by criminal records for something that is no longer illegal. On this side of the House, we agree that Canadians should have expedited access to record suspensions at no cost. That is why we will be supporting this bill.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, as my colleague knows, the NDP put forward a bill on expunging criminal records for marijuana possession, which the Liberals trashed and voted against. Now, instead, we have a very complicated and costly process someone would have to undertake to hopefully get a pardon. As my colleague from Drummond said a little earlier tonight, it is better than nothing, but barely better than nothing, as many witnesses testified.

I wanted to ask the member why he thinks the government has been so poor in approaching this issue. Rather than looking for something that would allow people who have criminal records to actually look to the future with some certainty, it would impose a very complicated and costly process they would have to go through.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Madam Speaker, we are going to be rising in the next couple of weeks. We knew this was coming down the pipe, and quite frankly, consultations probably should have started a lot earlier. As I said, in some cases, there has not been a whole lot of consultation at all. I think that is the challenge.

We are grateful that the government accepted a couple of our amendments. It would have been nice if it had accepted a few more. In the rush to get this through before the end of this term, I feel that maybe more consultation could have happened.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that the member brought up a new aspect in the debate. He made reference to communities that are impacted by people growing cannabis.

Whether it is rural or urban communities, what we witnessed in the past was the substantial growth of grow-ops, which have been very damaging to communities in many different ways. I believe that with legalization, we will see the number of grow-ops diminish as the criminal element is taken out of the sale of cannabis. I think there is a silver lining.

Just to get an affirmation from across the way, I understand that the Conservative Party is actually supporting the legislation. The NDP is not supporting it, because it wants expungement. Am I then to believe that the Conservative Party supports pardoning over expungement?

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to talk about the community aspect he raised. One of the issues we have seen with legalization, first with medical marijuana and then with individual licences cobbled together, and I realize that they are not necessarily illegal grow-ops, is that what ends up happening is that the standard is not set as high as it is for commercially regulated medical marijuana.

The challenge I have in my community is that there are literally dozens of legitimate greenhouses that produce a huge odour. We had a story in one of the local papers. An individual actually had that smell in his car and claimed that he was pulled over when crossing the border, because they thought he had something going on in his car or on his premises. He tried to explain. There were emails to my office and a number of other councillors.

I hope that we are able to see the illicit stuff gone. I am still concerned about whether that will happen, because of the price comparisons and what is going on. However, we are in early stages. I would suggest that as we move forward on this, we need to do something about the odour with regard to additional facilities, outdoor growing and things like that. We have to take care of that to make sure that our residents are not bothered by these smells.

Bill C-93—Notice of time allocation motion

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the third reading stage of Bill C-93, an act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabis.

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

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabis, be read the third time and passed.

Third Reading

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate on Bill C-93 on record suspensions for simple possession of cannabis. I will be sharing my time with one of my colleagues.

From the outset I would like to say a few words about Bill C-45 because it is impossible to forget. It was no great feat of the government opposite, but it was one of the Prime Minister's rare accomplishments. That should be noted.

Nonetheless, no one will forget that Bill C-45 was bungled from the start and now that it has been in effect since last October, it certainly has not been a resounding success. Many of the projected outcomes of legalizing marijuana did not come to fruition, including reducing the sale of cannabis on the black market to curb organized crime. In fact, the opposite happened. Cannabis sales on the black market have increased.

I cannot ignore the fact that the government opposite also rejected our amendment to create a public registry of investors in the cannabis industry. However, since many of them have direct ties to the Liberal Party and since the money comes from tax havens, we are not holding our breath for the government to set up a public registry. The Liberals said that they would do politics differently and transparently. Fortunately their time is coming to an end.

When the Prime Minister came to power, he decided that his 2015 election promise to pass Bill C-45 at any cost was a national priority, even though other priorities could have easily come before Bill C-45. Like many Canadians, I still have a hard time believing that there was absolutely nothing more important in Canada than legalizing marijuana. Too many people put their trust in the Prime Minister in 2015, believing that he was creating hope in many respects for Canadians. Now, in 2019, it is plain to see that he made a lot of promises and did not follow through on much.

Was legalization truly more important than the economy, safety and security, justice and the future of our children? I believe the history books will confirm that that was indeed the case in this 42nd Parliament.

Getting back to Bill C-93, I want to point out that it can lead to confusion with respect to the use of the term “suspension” in the notion of the record suspension for simple cannabis possession. I want to highlight the importance of thoroughly understanding everything about this notion because many people are surprised to learn about the consequences this could eventually have when they wish to cross the border into the United States.

As we know, U.S. customs have always been very strict when checking the records of Canadians seeking to cross the border and enter their country. They have become even stricter with the legalization of cannabis. When they see that a Canadian has a suspended record for simple possession of marijuana, I am convinced, as are others, that this will have negative rather than positive repercussions. The expungement of criminal records for the simple possession of cannabis would have avoided all of this.

This leads me to wonder about the effectiveness and the goal of this measure. If they wanted to do something about this, record expungement would potentially have been much more effective.

Furthermore, we are debating this matter because after the government legalized marijuana, many Canadians were left with a criminal record for simple possession and inevitably wanted this record expunged. They know very well that a suspension is not as good as an expungement.

Many Canadians have this offence on their criminal records, which prevents them from travelling to the United States. This could be why a powerful lobby asked the Liberal government to suspend the records. Funnily enough, this demand was very much a ploy to win votes, as there are not many days left before the end of this Parliament.

Bill C-45 took effect in October 2018, and the Prime Minister chose to ignore the concerns about the legalization of cannabis expressed by municipalities, police forces, employers, doctors and a number of concerned parents. The Liberals rushed to introduce Bill C-93 at the last minute, at the end of this Parliament, just before the upcoming election. This makes me think that they are desperately trying to pad their record, which is currently light on positives.

The Liberals already promised to legalize cannabis so now they want to please another consumer group, those who were charged with simple possession of cannabis, by quickly getting rid of their criminal record. Still today, an offender with a criminal record for simple possession of cannabis has no choice but to wait between five and 10 years to apply for a pardon. The application costs $631. It is important to reiterate that the cost associated with applying for a pardon was determined based on the cost to the Canadian government and taxpayers, which is fair and equitable. We always felt that is was not up to law-abiding taxpayers to pay for those who break the law.

Bill C-93 is a fait accompli. That being said, even though sound management of public funds is a Conservative priority, we agreed to make pardon applications for simple possession of marijuana free of charge. We know that some verifications were made, that roughly 10,000 people would be eligible to apply for a pardon and that the cost associated with these applications, which would be covered by taxpayers, would be roughly $2.5 million.

It is important to remind those tuning in at this late hour that the purpose of Bill C-93 is to pardon individuals accused of simple possession of cannabis. These are not people with long and colourful rap sheets. As many people have pointed out, the charges usually stem from youthful indiscretions, and in most cases, that is something we can understand.

As such, we believe that Canadians should have timely access to no-fee record suspension. However, as with any bill, it is vital that we ensure it is enforced intelligently, fairly and realistically so that it becomes a good law once passed.

Conservatives understand perfectly well that criminal records for simple possession of cannabis should not create an unjust burden for Canadians now that cannabis use is legal.

Nevertheless, as a responsible party that respects law enforcement, the justice system and public safety, we will always take it upon ourselves to closely monitor the implementation of Bill C-93.