Health Committee on Sept. 11th, 2017

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

I believe I can phone a winery in British Columbia and order wine from them. They would ship it to me, and it would come through Canada Post. Taxes would be paid. Why would you not be recognizing that ability to ship from a local producer instead of limiting it to different provincial and territorial distribution strategies? Why don't you allow that Canada Post delivery system?

[Eric Costen]

You're asking why that provision would—

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Why didn't you continue it?

[Eric Costen]

—perhaps only exist as a transitional measure?

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

No, I meant as an ongoing strategy for access to different markets.

[Eric Costen]

As the bill is designed, that possibility is allowable. My comments recognize the Ontario announcement. As a part of their announcement, they described wanting to enable an online sales platform much as you just described, pursuant to their legislation. The bigger policy design is that retail experience would be described by and defined by the provincial legislation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Thank you very much.

As interesting as this is, the time is up.

Ms. Gladu.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

I think my colleague brings up some points worth looking into—but in any case I think it's illegal to buy B.C. wine and ship it to Ontario.

I want to talk a little bit about one of the outcomes Canadians wanted from this legislation. I think we were trying to, in some way, off-load the huge number of possession charges that were clogging up the courts. In this legislation I see a lot of protections that are trying to prevent trafficking, and trafficking to younger people. But there's one thing I don't see—maybe it's in here and I just haven't seen it. Young persons are described as people between 12 and 18. There's really nothing in this legislation that prohibits people from trafficking, or being charged for trafficking, to people younger than 12 years old.

Ms. Labelle?

[Diane Labelle]

This is a criminal law question and my colleague Ms. Morency is best placed to respond to it.

[Carole Morency]

Bill C-45 prohibits distributing, providing, or selling cannabis to any young person under the age of 18. A young person between the ages of 12 and 17 would not be criminalized for possessing five grams or less. They could also share it, without being criminalized, with another youth the same age. The age of criminal responsibility is 12 to below 18 under the Youth Criminal Justice Act , so any adult who gives it to any young person is criminalized, but a youth is dealt with differently.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Yes, but the problem is that in the definition in the bill a young person is defined as being between 12 and 18, so the definition needs to be fixed, otherwise there's no protection for anybody under 12.

[Carole Morency]

The age you're referring to is for the purpose of charging a young person with a cannabis-related offence. Bill C-45 clearly prohibits any adult organization from providing, selling, or distributing cannabis in any form to any young person.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Where is it defined that “young person” means everybody below 18 in the bill? That's what I didn't see.

[Carole Morency]

If you look at the offence provisions in the bill, for example, article 9 on page 8 of the bill, which deals with the offence against distribution, you'll see that it's an offence to distribute cannabis to an individual under the age of 18 years. It would be the same for selling or providing.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thank you.

The other thing I wanted to talk about was the possession quantities. It sounds like a lot to me, 30 grams possession. Depending on how you roll it—I don't have any experience in this area—I'm told that this could be between 60 joints and 90 joints. That sounds like a lot. I'm interested in what we would typically find with people we think are trafficking. What's a typical amount? How did we come to the 30-gram amount?

Maybe I'll start with Ms. Crampton.

[A/Commr Joanne Crampton]

I wouldn't be able to speak to how the 30-gram amount was established. I believe Ms. Bogden would be best to answer that piece.

[Jacqueline Bogden]

The 30-gram amount that you find in the legislation is one of the recommendations of the task force on cannabis legalization. This was one of the key design questions that the government asked the task force to consider. After extensive consultations and careful consideration and deliberation, the task force, as it noted in its report, also looked at measures that other jurisdictions such as Colorado and Washington had taken. Its recommendation to the government was that 30 grams was a reasonable amount that individuals could possess for personal purposes.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

One other question has to do with packaging and regulations for cannabis versus packaging and regulations for the tobacco industry. It seems to me that there are a lot of similarities in terms of how we would want to protect the public by using some of the learning we've had. We've spent billions of dollars trying to prevent people from smoking. We know that the toxicity of cannabis smoke is about five times as much as tobacco.

Ms. Thompson, perhaps you could comment on why there are differences in the legislation between how we package and regulate tobacco versus cannabis.

[Jacqueline Bogden]

That would be more in Health Canada's jurisdiction.

The point that the honourable member makes is a very important one about the role that packaging and labelling, or promotion and advertising, may play in encouraging youth to use these. The legislation before the committee provides the government with the authority to establish regulations that would put in place additional controls around, for example, packaging, labelling, and other measures such as childproof, child-resistant packaging that would better protect youth.

With the experience that we've had with the regulation of tobacco, we are continuing to learn important lessons about how to regulate these substances in a way that will discourage use among youth. We will draw from those lessons as we develop those regulations for consultation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Your time is up.

Mr. Davies.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you.

The statistics that we heard about 23,000 people being charged in 2016 for cannabis, 76% for possession, obviously leads to the conclusion that there are hundreds of thousands of Canadians who have convictions for cannabis-related offences, many for things the legislation would make legal.

Does the Department of Justice have any plans to deal with some sort of streamlined pardon process for Canadians who have been convicted of offences that will no longer be illegal under the legislation? I'm reminded of the fact that the previous Harper government raised the price of pardons. It's over $600 to apply for a pardon and you have to wait five years. Is there any contemplation or consideration to helping Canadians receive pardons for offences that the bill would no longer make offences?

[Jacqueline Bogden]

I would ask my colleague Ms. Thompson to respond to the honourable member's question.

[Kathy Thompson]

As the honourable member noted, there is currently a process whereby Canadians who have been convicted of sole, single possession, can apply to the national Parole Board for a pardon five years after serving their sentence. That is the process currently in place. There are no plans at this time to introduce an automatic pardon.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you.

I want to go back to the sentences that are proposed under the legislation. If I understand correctly, the penalties for which someone may be subjected for a contravention of the act range up to 14 years in prison. If you have a 19-year-old who sells cannabis to a 17-year-old, am I correct that the bill would subject them to that potential penalty? Would they have the possibility of being sentenced to prison for up to 14 years?

[Carole Morency]

As you have noted, the bill proposes a range of penalties for the offences. The offence you're referring to in terms of selling is currently under the Controlled Drugs and Substance Act. It's a trafficking offence, and it carries a maximum of life imprisonment. It imposes mandatory minimal penalties.

Under Bill C-45, the offence of distribution or selling would be a hybrid offence, meaning that the crown would have the right to elect to proceed summarily for less serious offences, and to proceed on indictment for more serious offences.

On indictment, the premise is correct that it would be a maximum of 14 years. However, on summary conviction, for an adult who sells to a young person, the maximum penalty would be 18 months, whereas for an adult who sells to an adult, the maximum penalty would be six months.

What Bill C-45 does is provide greater flexibility to the criminal justice system, including the crown and the courts, in terms of sentencing, to proceed in a manner that best reflects the seriousness of the offence. It provides the courts with more flexibility at sentencing to deal with a range of possibilities, instead of an indictable-only offence with a maximum of life imprisonment.