Health Committee on Oct. 2nd, 2017

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Thanks very much.

Ms. Gladu.

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

Chair, we heard a lot of testimony. I was specifically interested in this possession amount because I was concerned that it's between 60 and 90 joints. We had testimony from Colorado and Washington that 30 grams is the limit they chose, and the other jurisdictions that have legalized also chose that.

Now, within the bill there is provision for possession of between 30 and 50 grams to be a ticketed offence or some non-criminal intent, which would take you up to 100 or 150 joints. I seriously think, since trafficking is still a criminal offence, you have to really watch where you get from personal possession into an amount that you would be tempted to traffic to others.

Thirty grams certainly is too much, but I accept it based on the evidence we heard.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Mr. Oliver.

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

As Mr. Davies said, this topic comes up several times. I thought that maybe members would jump in and have a conversation about it rather than repeating things each time it comes up. Now might be a good time to have that discussion.

As Ms. Gladu said, both Colorado and Washington have sat, and we've used them as good models of how to carefully and thoughtfully go forward, particularly in the first phase of introduction of what's quite a significant social change for Canada in the act. These are their limits metricized, if I can say it that way. Theirs are a bit different because they were in ounces, but this is metric.

The second thing is that it isn't you're over and you get five years in jail. Officers have a choice to ticket and seize, which is very different and doesn't have the same consequence. They can do it summarily, or they can charge with an indictable offence. There's an open range.

The goal of the legislation, in this phase I believe, is to stop organized crime and to deter the activity of organized crime. We heard from many of the witnesses that it was going to be very difficult for us to step in and deter organized crime in this space. Having some kind of consequence, I think is important, recognizing that if somebody is caught with 30 grams to 50 grams, they can be ticketed. If it's simply somebody, as Mr. Davies said, caught moving across from one province to another for a month's holiday, that would be ticketable at the officer's discretion.

I think those are important considerations.

The other piece with organized crime is that at some point we need to realize that this is not about opening up recreational marijuana. It's not about choice for consumers. It's not about promoting marijuana. It's about restricting youth to access. It's about deterring organized crime, and it's about safe production.

As Mr. Davies said, people can have unlimited amounts in their home. It's simply if they're caught in public with it. The issue about stopping organized crime is that with people carrying amounts that are over 30 grams or 50 grams, that doesn't look like personal use in public. That looks like trafficking.

I don't think it's arbitrary. They've used guidelines from other jurisdictions. I think it's a conservative approach to introducing this particular topic.

Those are the points I want to raise on this one.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Okay, thanks very much.

Mr. Van Kesteren.

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

Mr. Chair, Mr. Davies made a very valid argument. I must say that his argument is very sound, but I don't agree with it.

I would take issue with a number of things that he stated. For instance, he says there isn't a negative effect. We've heard a witness say that with youth right up to age 25, there's very clear science that there may be very negative effects mentally. When I'm listening to this argument, I'm hearing confusion. As we like to say unofficially, we're getting into the weeds. When we do that, we start to see how entangled we've become.

I can't reiterate it enough when I say this is a bad idea. I believe there are many on the Liberal side who know this is a bad idea as well. As we continue to debate this, and as we continue to go clause by clause, we repeatedly hear about the need to protect our youth and to put a stop to organized crime. How shallow and inept an argument, without any legs, that is.

I agree that we either go into this all out and open the whole thing up or we start to look at what this legislation is actually going to open up, which is Pandora's box. Although I agree with his argument, I disagree with the outcome.

I certainly will be voting against this proposal.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Ayoub.

[Ramez Ayoub, Liberal, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

So we are basically caught in the middle.

I heard the opinion that we should go the route of full legalization of cannabis without any restrictions, as is the case for alcohol and tobacco. We have also heard many other arguments to the effect that cannabis is hazardous to health, especially for young people. That is something we want to prevent. We have to protect our young people. That is in fact one of the primary objectives of the bill. To protect our young people, certain guidelines are needed.

We also want to get this market out of the hands of organized crime. Yet if there is no legislative authority to fight organized crime, the black market will not die out. Once that market has been weakened as much as possible—it will not completely disappear—will we not have as great a need for a very strict law that has a major impact on crime.

In the meantime, we have to find the right balance between doing nothing, or maintaining the status quo, and completely throwing open the doors to consumption. I think that is precisely where we are headed. Right now, the bill prohibits young people from possessing more than five grams of cannabis, which will prevent an overload of the court system. It is not the case that we want young people to possess or use cannabis, on the contrary, in fact. We do, however, want them to be aware of the dangers and to be educated and informed.

For adults, the bill sets a limit of 30 grams. That is what is deemed to be a reasonable amount. If an adult user does not go over that limit, they will not have a criminal record or face consequences. If they have a larger amount in their possession, however, whether because of cannabis cultivation or drug trafficking, that is what we want to avoid. That is the purpose of the bill.

We do not want to completely change the approach. The possession of marijuana will not suddenly become legal overnight. The change will in fact take place over many months, perhaps many years. Later on, we will have to review the bill again to see whether any improvements are needed. In my opinion, our approach is middle of the road.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

You've used a lot of time, Mr. Davies, but go ahead for a short comment.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

We are talking about people over 18, so this subclause does not talk about young people at all. We talked about Colorado and Washington being used as models. Well, we didn't use Colorado and Washington for models in several other very important respects. For instance, they legalized edibles and this government didn't. So you can't really pick and choose. You can't really refer to other jurisdictions and say we use them as models, but only when it suits your argument. The punishment section of this clause is very clear. In the very first part, it says that “every person that contravenes subsection (1)...is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable” to a term of imprisonment of “not more than five years less a day”. It then has “summary conviction” possibilities as well.

Make no mistake. If you're caught with more than 30 grams, you are liable, under this legislation, to up to five years in jail. You may not get that the first time, I agree, with discretion, but you could. The thing about trafficking and using the argument that if someone has 40 grams of cannabis, we're going to make the assumption that they must be traffickers, that's actually not consistent with the way the law is now. You can't make an assumption just because someone has a certain amount of cannabis that they're going to do something. That's why the law currently requires other evidence of trafficking like scales, baggies, or other accoutrements of trafficking. If you have a trunk full of scotch, nobody assumes that you're going to sell it on a black market just because you have a lot of scotch. I would say, leave the law to the discretion of the courts and judges on that.

Mr. Van Kesteren, I want to be clear. Cannabis is not without health impacts, for sure, but the evidence was very clear that it is not as harmful as alcohol or tobacco. There's no known overdose limit for cannabis and it's not a carcinogen like tobacco is. That's why there's the argument, in my view, that cannabis should be as proportionally regulated as tobacco and alcohol. We don't have five-year jail terms from having 50 cartons of cigarettes in your trunk. You can go to the store and you can buy as many cartons of cigarettes as you want. You can buy as much alcohol as you want. So why would we put a limit on cannabis?

Finally, if Canadians find that there are arbitrary elements in this law, then they will disrespect the law and they will ignore the law just as they have been doing for decades. Unless you have a good argument to tell adult Canadians why they can't have 35 grams as opposed to 25 grams, and one can go to jail for five years, and one person is a law-abiding citizen, you're running the risk that people will flout the law and disrespect it. That's really what's happened. If there's no rational basis for 30 grams, then we shouldn't be restricting adults that way.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

You'll have to wind it up now.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I will wind it up. If someone's caught with a lot of cannabis, Mr. Chair, and if there's other evidence of trafficking, then charge them under that bill, but don't make that assumption simply by the amount of cannabis they have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

All right, thanks very much.

I'm going to call for a vote on NDP-2.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I'd like a recorded vote, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

We'll have a recorded vote, Mr. Clerk.

(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Now we're going to the Green Party's amendment PV-1. Is there any discussion or debate on PV-1?

Ms. Gladu.

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

Yes, this is where she proposes to increase the amount that a young person could have from five grams, which is already the wrong message. Zero is the right amount for a young person to have. Up to 30 grams is just unbelievable, so I would definitely be opposed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Ms. Sidhu.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Yes, Mr. Chair, supporting that amendment is not consistent with the government's response because the government doesn't want to convey the message that a young person using cannabis is acceptable, normal, or healthy behaviour.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

All right. Seeing no more comments, I'm going to call for a vote.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Now we go to NDP-3.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Did clause 8 pass?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

No, it didn't. We're still on clause 8.

If NDP-3 is adopted, NDP-4 cannot be moved.

Would you like to make a comment on NDP-3?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Yes, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Try to restrict it to make it a little shorter.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Chair, this is one where I would ask for a little indulgence because this is the one that comes up repeatedly, and I'm not going to repeat the arguments when they come up.