Health Committee on Oct. 2nd, 2017

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Welcome everyone. This is meeting 71 of the Standing Committee of Health. We're going to continue our study on Bill C-45, pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, June 8, 2017.

There are a couple of little housekeeping things I want to cover. We're scheduled today to be here from 3:30 to 5:30, tomorrow from 9:00 until 6:00, Wednesday from 1:00 until 6:00, and Thursday from 9:00 until 6:00, if we haven't completed. There is a little glitch. We've asked for televised sessions, but we can't get a room for televised sessions for Thursday. We'll still try to get it, but we may not have a televised session.

As we go through the clause-by-clause consideration, we have agreed that we will have a five-minute limit per party to discuss proposed amendments. We have clocks here for each party. We'll make sure that everybody fits in that time appropriately.

There is one other issue. There are quite a few clauses that have no proposed amendments at the moment. I may try to group them together, but if anybody wants to talk about a particular clause, don't hesitate to raise it.

Mr. Kesteren.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Mr. Chair, I have a motion which concerns the issue at hand, and as such, I believe it's admissible. I wonder if you would hear me at this time.

When the Liberal government first introduced Bill C-45, it presented three central goals that this legislation would achieve. The bill would propose to protect youth; regulate and legalize a marijuana industry in order reduce to illicit activity; and reduce the burden on the judicial system. I'd like to make it clear that Bill C-45 would accomplish none of these goals.

This bill would allow youth to possess up to five grams of dried marijuana, and permit the growth and cultivation of marijuana in the home. I'm not in favour of criminalizing youth for the possession of marijuana; however, giving youth free rein to possess as of age 12 will cause immense mental and social harm to our younger generations. This would not protect our youth, and certainly not protect our kids.

This bill would also have little effect on the illicit markets, as it does not cover the entire scope of marijuana products, and it grows home grown. Home grow creates the ideal environment for organized crime to thrive in our communities. That many witnesses have stated Bill C-45 would reduce the size of the black market is simply naive.

Several witness stated that the criminal charges in Bill C-45 are, in fact, more severe than the status quo. This bill proposes that growing four plants is legal, but if you grow five, you are a criminal, or having a plant that is 99 centimetres tall is legal, but if it's 100 centimetres tall, you are a criminal.

With more severe charges, and with an increased number of smaller charges, often left up to the discretion of the officer, the number of judicial cases would only increase. In fact, witnesses clearly stated that this legislation would put even more pressure on our justice system. I attested to that at the last meeting. I was informed by my sons, who are also police officers.

This is a fundamentally flawed piece of legislation that would not protect our youth, would not eliminate organized crime, and would only increase the burden on both the judiciary and law enforcement officials in our country. With no education program in place, and with far less than a year to go until the arbitrary date of July 1, 2018, I, along with my Conservative colleagues, move that this bill proceed no further through the legislative process.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Mr. Oliver.

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

I would move that the debate be now adjourned.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

All in favour of the motion to adjourn debate?

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Chair, can we have a recorded vote?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Yes, we can have a recorded vote.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 5; nays 4)

The motion passes.

Now I want to go back to my introduction for the meeting. We have some guests today.

Mr. Davies.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Chair, I don't want to hold things up. I don't have a motion, but I just want to clarify a couple of things.

First, I understand there are a number of clauses of the bill that don't have amendments, so I would suggest that where you can move groups for which nobody has any amendments proposed, you do so. I suppose that's subject to whether any of my colleagues really want to discuss a particular clause, in which case they can. I note that the Conservatives have put in no amendments. The NDP have effectively 11 different amendments. They're expressed in 37 different places, because three of our amendments are repeated, and after I introduce those amendments a few times, I won't belabour the point or repeat the arguments, because my colleagues will start seeing what the rationale is.

The other point is that the motion that was adopted was that the chair reserved the discretion to limit debate to five minutes. It wasn't an automatic five minutes, and the way you expressed it at the beginning of this meeting was that people would be limited to five minutes. That is not what the motion was. I would suggest that you, of course, keep the discretion to do that. If you feel that any party is abusing that privilege or if debate has gone on far too long on one amendment, then by all means exercise that. But I don't think we should start off with a clock of five minutes on each amendment, particularly since some of my amendments may take a little more than five minutes to introduce at the beginning, but then, as I've said, once they become repetitive, I won't repeat that. That would be my suggestion, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

All right. Thanks very much.

Before we go any further, I'd like to introduce our guests, who are here to help us. Then we're going to go to Dr. Eyolfson.

From the Department of Health, we have John Clare, director, cannabis legalization and regulation branch. From the Department of Justice, we have Carole Morency, director general and senior general counsel, criminal law policy section; Paul Saint-Denis, senior counsel, criminal law policy section; and Diane Labelle, general counsel, Health Canada. From the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, we have Rachel Huggins, manager, policy development, serious and organized crime strategies division, community safety branch. We have Michael Holmes with us as well to help us with any questions we have as far as legal issues go. Mr. Eric Costen has also been added to the list.

Welcome, everyone.

We also have additional legislative clerks, and our analysts are here to help us. So as we proceed through this marathon clause-by-clause consideration, we have lots of help.

Dr. Eyolfson, you are on our list. Do you want to talk?

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

That's withdrawn.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Okay.

Ms. Gladu, you are on our list.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I would like to ask for a recorded vote on each clause as we go forward. We've been clear that we are opposed to the legalization of marijuana, so as my colleague said, we're not bringing any amendments. It would be hypocritical for us to pretend to try to fix a bill that we wish didn't exist. That's it. I was very engaged during the testimonies that we heard pointing out the flaws in the bill, and I will continue to do that, but if we could have a recorded vote, I would appreciate that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

All right.

Does that have to come to a vote as a motion, to have a recorded vote on all clauses?

We have a motion on the floor to deal with every clause with a recorded vote.

Is there any debate on that?

Mr. Davies.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I'm wondering if that's really necessary on a bill of this length. It's over 100 pages and I can't remember how many clauses, almost 200 clauses. I respect very much the right of my colleagues in the Conservative Party to state unqualifiably their opposition to the bill, but I don't know if it's necessary to do that by slowing down this process that much by doing that with every single clause of the bill. I think Ms. Gladu and others will make their position very abundantly clear throughout the bill. It seems to be a rather time-consuming and unnecessary way to achieve her objective to slow us down. I would oppose having a recorded vote for every single clause. I would simply ask that maybe a representative of the Conservative Party at each clause take the floor and express their opposition to that clause.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

I'm advised that a member can ask for a recorded vote at any time, but carte blanche for all the clauses is not in order.

We'll start and see how it goes.

The Conservative Party has registered its position. Nobody misunderstands your position.

We're going to start our clause-by-clause study.

I'll start with clause 2 through clause 6. Clause 1 is postponed. We'll come back to that. That's the short title. We always come back to that at the end.

We're going to do clause 2 through clause 6. I see no amendments to them.

(Clauses 2 to 6 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 7)

On clause 7 we have an NDP amendment.

Would one of the NDP members like to elaborate on it?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

One of the NDP members would be delighted, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Go ahead.

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

The only one there.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Briefly, colleagues, this amendment would add another provision to the purposes section of the bill, a new paragraph 7(h), so it would read that the purpose of the act is to protect public health and public safety, and in particular, to:

recognize that criminal prohibitions on certain activities in relation to cannabis may have a negative impact on social determinants of health.

For decades evidence has been mounting that the so-called war on drugs has been a clear failure from a variety of perspectives, but particularly from a public health perspective. New Democrats have long understood that cannabis use isn't a moral failing or an issue of character and that its criminal prohibition has, in most contexts, and some would argue in all contexts, been more harmful than the substance itself.

Most tellingly, colleagues, we've heard a lot of evidence at this committee about discretion being applied by police officers in enforcing this act and in applying penalties, and I think adding this purpose will serve as a guidepost to those officers in exercising their discretion. We heard evidence from officers and I think from the department officials that there's discretion in terms of giving tickets or sometimes arresting; there's sometimes proceeding by summary conviction, and sometimes by indictment. I think having a clear statement of purpose in this bill that recognizes that criminal prohibitions in respect to cannabis can have a negative impact on social determinants of health will help those officers and the people charged with administering this bill and exercising that discretion.

I want to give a couple of quotes to the committee.

Dr. Eileen de Villa, the medical officer of health, Toronto Public Health, said:

Criminalization of cannabis use and possession impacts social determinants of health such as access to employment and housing. Given that cannabis possession will soon be made lawful in Canada, I urge you to immediately decriminalize the possession of non-medical cannabis for personal use.

That latter sentence speaks to a different issue, of course, but I think her main sentence is clear.

Michael DeVillaer, assistant professor at McMaster University, said:

Issuing of more criminal records will continue to have a devastating impact on the social determinants of health of these mostly young Canadians. Prohibition also poses a problem for those who are dependent on cannabis and are seeking treatment to improve their lives. In my experience as a counsellor, I never encountered a patient who was helped by a criminal record. It actually impeded their efforts.

Kirk Tousaw said:

Public health isn't just about the health consequences or benefits of using a particular substance. Public health also includes considerations of undue and unnecessary criminalization of people, use of the courts, use of the legal regime, misuse of police resources, distrust between the police...and all of those things are amplified by taking some sort of restrictive approach to people accessing relatively safe products like cannabis.

Finally, I want to quote two ministers who came.

The Minister of Health, Honourable Ginette Petitpas Taylor, said:

Protecting the health and safety of Canadians is a priority for our government and the focus of this bill. Canadians use cannabis at some of the highest rates in the world and decades of criminal prohibition have not reduced these rates. In fact, cannabis has become the most commonly used illegal substance in Canada.

She continued:

Our youth have the highest prevalence of cannabis use when compared with peers in other developed countries. This clearly shows that the current approach to cannabis is not working.

To echo what my colleagues have indicated, the evidence is clear that prohibition, the status quo, is just not working.

Finally, Mr. Chair, Honourable Jody Wilson-Raybould, the Minister of Justice, said this:

There is a broad consensus among Canadians that our current approach to cannabis is not working. Our system of criminal prohibition fosters an environment where organized crime reaps billions of dollars in profits from its sale, where thousands of Canadians each year end up with criminal records for non-violent cannabis offences, and where cannabis is not being kept out of the hands of young people.

In conclusion, Mr. Chair, I think a clear statement that one of the purposes of this act is to recognize that criminal prohibitions on certain activities in relation to cannabis may have a negative impact on social determinants of health is not only a profoundly accurate statement, it's one borne by the evidence this committee heard, one that was reinforced by the Minister of Health and the Minister of Justice, and one that I think will have the helpful impact of reminding those entrusted and charged with enforcing this legislation in the future that whenever possible, to not use a criminal approach to cannabis is preferable, and a criminal approach should be avoided at all costs, given the negative health consequences of criminalization on our population, particularly on young people.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Thank you. You're right on time.

Mr. McKinnon.

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

Thank you, Chair.

First, I'd like to thank Mr. Davies. I agree with many aspects of what he has said. The war on drugs is a failure, a failure of prohibition. I'd like to compliment Mr. Davies on the enthusiasm, care and concern with which he has addressed this file. Having said that, I think the purpose of this bill has already been very well stated. It is inherent in the existing purpose, and in that respect I think Mr. Davies' amendment is redundant and will in the end add no value.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Is there any other debate?

Mr. Davies.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I call for a recorded vote on this amendment, please.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 7 agreed to)

(On clause 8)

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

We have an amendment from the NDP. I have a note here from the legislative clerk which says that if adopted, then NDP-25 is also adopted as a consequential impact. That is if NDP-2 is carried.

Would you like to introduce it, Mr. Davies?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Chair, clause 8 of the bill sets out a limit of Canadians possessing no more than 30 grams of dried cannabis in public. The purpose of my amendment would be to delete that, so that there is not a limit of possession of 30 grams distinguishing a Canadian who is not a criminal from one who is a criminal.

The rationale for this again comes largely from the evidence, and I think from logic as well. It's completely arbitrary to restrict possession to 30 grams. This legislation would say that someone in public who has 29 grams of cannabis is a law-abiding citizen, and someone who has 31 grams of cannabis is a criminal who is subject to a jail sentence of up to five years.

There is no clear policy goal satisfied by that distinction. I don't think anybody in this room—frankly, anybody in the country—could make a compelling argument that someone with 31 grams of cannabis in public is doing anything inherently more criminal than someone with 29 grams.

Even worse, this measure will continue to impose all of the harms of criminalization that the purpose of the bill that the Liberal government has just passed claims to ameliorate or to enforce. We know that taking up police resources, clogging up our courts, and criminalizing Canadians for simply possessing cannabis in amounts that are clearly for personal use or for use among friends serves no valid purpose and in fact does a great deal of harm. It costs our society billions of dollars. It makes our court time valuable so that more serious crimes get shifted into the future. In some cases, people facing serious crimes don't even have a trial at all because of the Jordan principle and because our courts are clogged up with minor and petty cannabis offences.

We don't treat alcohol or tobacco this way. We don't criminalize adult possession of amounts of alcohol because that is inconsistent with the concept of a legalized market. Anyone in this room could back a van up to a liquor store and fill up the van with cases and cases of scotch. In fact, you could fill up a semi-trailer with cases of scotch and drive away. That's not an offence in this country. We heard evidence—it's clear—that alcohol and tobacco are clearly more dangerous to health than cannabis is. Nobody who looks at the evidence even disputes that anymore, yet this legislation says that if you have 31 grams in public, you're a criminal. It makes no sense.

I want to talk briefly about a theme, because it is important for Canadians. This may be a distinction without a difference, but Mr. Trudeau and the Liberals campaigned in the last election on legalizing cannabis. This bill has more sections on criminalization of cannabis than exist in the current Criminal Code. It does not legalize cannabis; it makes it less illegal. It is still a criminal offence punishable by jail to have 31 grams or more in your possession. That's not legalization. We could argue that it's better than the status quo, and I would probably agree with that, but it's not legalization.

There is no argument that we heard in five days of hearings with some 90 witnesses that cogently explained why 30 grams exists, why that number was chosen, and why anybody with more than that or less than that is a criminal or not. Neil Boyd testified:

The idea that we would pass legislation that would retain a criminal offence of possession of cannabis seems to me to be inconsistent with at least part of the logic of this. I know that the Prime Minister has repeatedly said it's about eliminating the black market and reducing access, but part of it is also about recognizing that people who have used cannabis, or who use cannabis, do not deserve the label of “criminal”.

Kirk Tousaw said:

Bill C-45...contemplates criminal penalties being applied to adult Canadians who possess more than 30 grams of cannabis or grow more than four 100-centimetre plants per household. These are [completely] arbitrary numbers. These criminal restrictions are decidedly unlike the way our country regulates alcohol, a vastly and inarguably more dangerous substance than cannabis. At this moment in Canada, a 19-year-old can walk into a liquor store and purchase enough alcohol to kill that person and all that person's friends and acquaintances. Indeed, there is enough alcohol in one bottle of vodka to kill the consumer.

We don't tell that person they can't have 40 bottles of it.

Paul Renaud, the communications director of Educators for Sensible Drug Policy, said, “Youth cannot be criminalized for alcohol possession. What sense does it make to criminalize them for cannabis?”

Mr. Chair, I'll conclude just by saying that if we truly believe the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Health that prohibition doesn't work, then why are we persisting with provisions in the bill that continue to prohibit based on an arbitrary number that serves absolutely no logical purpose whatsoever other than just to say that Canadians can have 30 grams or under, but not more, for no logical, compelling, science-based reason?

I'm going to conclude by saying that I've heard this government talk repeatedly, and I congratulate them for claiming to take, and in some cases taking, an evidence-based approach to legislation. This is not an evidence-based approach to legislation. This is an arbitrary approach to legislation, with no basis in science or fact.

I'm going to ask my colleagues to support the removal of the limit of 30 grams of dried cannabis, and start treating adults in this country like adults. Certainly adults can determine how much cannabis they want to have in their possession. There are other sections in this act that control trafficking, sale, production, and distribution, which will completely take care of any issue around those concepts. Let's let Canadians start being able to make the mature decision of how much cannabis they want to have.

My final point is this. In terms of medicinal cannabis or people who are using cannabis for other reasons, someone may decide to go on a two-month trip or a one-month trip across Canada. When we get to the cultivation parts, we'll see that Canadians can grow their own. Ironically, you can have four plants, so you might be in possession of 160 grams of cannabis in your house, and that's okay, but you can't have more than 30 grams in public. What if someone wants to take 50 grams of cannabis with them for a month-long trip across Canada? Are they criminals? What if someone is moving apartments and harvests their plants and has 100 grams? What do they do? Do they make three trips? This is an absurd limit. It's arbitrary and absurd.

The harm and the amount of police time that'll be taken up in having to continue to police what is essentially a criminalized approach to possession of cannabis in this country is as wrong after this bill as it is before the bill.

If my colleagues on the Liberal side really believe in the purposes of this bill—that we want to deter illicit activities in relation to cannabis, reduce the burden on the criminal justice system, and protect the health of young persons—then why don't we come up with evidence-based provisions in this act and make it consistent with those purposes? This 30 gram limit does not meet that test now.