Health Committee on Oct. 3rd, 2017

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Essentially what this amendment would propose to do, colleagues, is to allow the provinces to license certain producers, in particular, craft growers, small producers, and other classes of growers. It would allow flexibility so that provinces can develop best practices and choose the production model best suited to their jurisdiction.

I note that alcohol and tobacco production, as has been pointed out by our ministry staff, aren't strictly controlled at the federal level, nor is their import illegal. However, if a federal government opposed to legalization were elected, it could constrict cannabis supply by refusing to issue or renew production licences. This would put provinces like Ontario in a position where their cannabis control boards would be unable to access a sufficient licit supply.

This amendment was borne out of testimony we heard before the committee. Jonathan Page from the UBC department of botany said:

Some of the information we have around this is from the current medical system, where we have some very large producers licensed and also some small mom-and-pop-style producers under licence. There's a general feeling that the illicit world, which includes many small growers, primarily in British Columbia but elsewhere, has been excluded. The fact is that they don't have the wherewithal to produce the security or they have legal issues that have been held against them, and there have been delays in licensing that have led mainly to the large producers with very deep investment funds to build facilities. What we need to do in the commercial sense, outside the personal cultivation subject of this hearing, is to have an ecosystem in the same way we have with beer or wine, where you can have Molson and that type of thing as big ones and also have smaller producers that are equally well regulated, with testing applied and securities around there, that we also have regulations and legislation that encourage those small ones to get involved in this industry and not make the cost of start-up so steep or the regulations so strict that we exclude those small producers.

Trina Fraser from Brazeau Seller LLP said:

I would also add that a meaningful opportunity to transition into the legal market involves having regulations which are not so onerous that they effectively exclude small operators. The task force on cannabis legalization and regulation, in fact, recommended that the government encourage market diversity by creating a space for smaller producers. Under the ACMPR—

That is the regulation for medicinal cannabis.

—what I am seeing is that the cost of compliance, in particular relating to security requirements, is a real barrier to small-scale production, and a meaningful opportunity to transition also requires expanding the scope of cannabis products to include edibles and other derivative products. This is what the market wants and demands and it will be required in order to transition the existing producers of these derivative products into the legal market.

The concern is that we haven't seen the regulations under this act, and we all want to have a very well-regulated market that focuses on security and quality and production safety, but we must make sure we achieve that balance where it's not just deep-pocketed big producers who have the ability to get through the regulatory regimen and have the money to fund the kinds of applications that may be required and to build the kinds of facilities that meet the regulations and freeze out the artisanal, craft, and small producers in this country.

My amendment responds to that by saying let's let the provinces be able to issue licences if they want to develop a local market, much the way that, let's say, in British Columbia or Ontario we have developed small wineries. If we can develop a localized production regulatory regime that is sensitive to the provincial market and realities, we should do that.

I'll conclude by saying that already the government has seen fit to share jurisdiction in regulating cannabis. They've done that by delegating distribution to the provinces and letting the provinces make up entirely their own distribution model, which, of course, is a serious part of this act. It involves security. It involves preventing access to underage kids. There are some very serious parts of this bill that we have entrusted the provinces to regulate and determine, so allowing them to develop production licences in a manner that suits their provincial sensibilities I think is important.

Finally, I will conclude by repeating the idea that if you leave production licences in the hands of the federal government, we are assuming that a federal government will always grant those licences. What we saw with the supervised injection sites is that in the hands of a government that doesn't really believe philosophically in supervised injection sites, no licences get issued. The legislation is there but no licences get issued.

The same thing could happen with this legislation if we keep production in the hands of the federal government exclusively. I think this is an amendment that would be responsive to that concern as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Mr. Oliver.

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Davies, for raising the amendment.

One of the intents of the bill is to ensure that product quality and product safety requirements in the production of cannabis are in place. The task force on cannabis legalization and regulation produced almost unequivocal advice, I would say, that the federal regulation of cannabis production is essential, most importantly “to ensure that consumers in all regions of the country have access to quality-controlled products that are free from harmful...substances”. They were quite adamant about that.

The task force arrived at that conclusion following extensive consultation with stakeholders, including provinces and territories. I don't think we heard one province or territory say that they wanted permission or the authority to license production. Based on the advice of the task force, which is quite extensive, and based on the fact that they did talk to provinces and territories while we only heard from Saskatoon, I would support their position on it and would oppose the recommendation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Ms. Gladu.

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

Further to the comments that Mr. Oliver has made about the provinces—and I'm glad he said “territories”, because they're not mentioned in here—we also have indigenous communities in Canada. We had testimony from the indigenous communities that indicated they did want to partake in producing and distributing marijuana. That was one of the comments that I think this amendment doesn't reflect: including the indigenous communities.

The other thing I would say is that we heard testimony that some of the indigenous communities wanted to have a dry zone for marijuana.

Ms. Morency and Ms. Labelle, I believe you were both there, but I'm not sure which one of you said that if we implemented this federal framework, they would not be able to designate their communities as dry communities. Did I understand that correctly or did I get that wrong?

[Carole Morency]

I don't recall responding to that question. I think the question might have been put to the Minister of Justice. My recollection of how she would have answered that is to the effect that certainly, as you're saying, the provinces and territories would have the ability to enact legislation within their areas of responsibility to deal with different aspects of what Bill C-45 proposes to address.

I think the minister spoke, too, with respect to the issue of indigenous communities, in that they derive their authority from a number of sources, whether that's the Indian Act, self-government agreements, or section 35 of the Constitution, so there isn't a blanket answer on that, but discussions are continuing with indigenous communities as to how to implement these measures moving forward.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Are you satisfied?

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

This clearly says that the question hasn't been answered, but we're rushing forward with the legislation anyway, and I thought—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

I didn't hear them say that.

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

The point was made that they're not sure because they're covered under a bunch of different rules. If this is a right that we're granting to all Canadians and they're Canadians, I think it could be contested if some indigenous community decided they wanted to be dry and that kept certain persons in their community from being able to exercise their right.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Mr. Davies.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I just have a couple of remarks in response to some of the points that were made.

I don't think anybody in this room would suggest that provinces are any less sensitive to ensuring that their populations have access to safe, quality-controlled cannabis. Certainly, that's not the exclusive purview of the federal government. I think it would be unfair to suggest to provinces that they would take any less rigorous of an approach to licensing production in their province than the federal government would.

It is true, as Mr. Oliver pointed out, that, unfortunately, despite inviting a number of provinces, this committee has heard from precisely one province. One province agreed to appear before this committee. I would argue that, in keeping with Ms. Gladu's statement, part of it was that they weren't prepared to appear. Surely, there is some reason why, after this committee had two panels on federal-provincial relations, we couldn't get more than one provincial government to appear before this committee and tell us about their preparations for this bill.

Also, this is the second time I've heard the Liberal side refer to scrupulously adhering to the recommendations of the task force. You can't suck and blow, or pick and choose, at the same time. The task force, equally, recommended clearly that this government regulate edibles, concentrates, and other non-smokable forms, and the government mysteriously and inexplicably chose not to proceed with that, with some vague reference that we need to go slowly, even though there is absolutely no rational basis for moving slowly and it's contrary to the purposes of the act.

Just like provinces regulate small craft breweries and wine production—that's not the federal government; that's the provincial government—we want to make sure that we give the flexibility to provinces to do that. That's the basis of this amendment. Also, perhaps, there could be a sort of second tier of production regulation that is responsive to those small growers, where we can construct a regulatory regime that preserves the safety and quality controls that we want, but is not so onerous of a system that it freezes them out from participating.

My final point is that, as we've heard time and time again, if we do not craft a legislation that is successful in bringing those out of the dark into the light, they will continue to produce illegally. That's not what we want and it's not what the bill proposes to do.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Seeing no further speakers, I will call for a vote on NDP-31.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I'd like to have a recorded vote, please.

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

(Clause 69 agreed to)

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Chair, I noticed that we are past 10 to one, and you said we would stop at that point.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

I said 10 to two.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Pardon me, I am ahead of myself.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

No problem. You're on British Columbia time.

On clause 70, I have no notice of amendments.

(Clause 70 agreed to)

(On clause 71)

That takes us to amendment Liberal-12.

Dr. Eyolfson, you're up.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Again, this is technical in nature. It basically just clarifies the language regarding what the employees of licensed producers might do. It clarifies that as long as they are working within their duties under the permit, they may possess cannabis beyond what would be the normal possession limits—if they are possessing it in their workplace for the purpose of production and transfer at the workplace.

It's just clarifying the language to make sure that licensed producers aren't breaking the law as part of their duties.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 71 as amended agreed to)

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

From clause 72 to clause 93, I have no notice of amendments.

Ms. Gladu, go ahead.

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

I have a question regarding clause 74, which is about tests and studies. This part talks about how the minister may order, or require a person who's authorized under the act, to conduct any activity in relation to cannabis and to conduct tests or studies on cannabis.

We heard testimony about the types of testing that are done for potency, THC content, mould, and a bunch of different things. Would people that are doing home grow be subject to this? Could the minister say to individuals who have four plants growing in their house that they need to test them for potency, mould, or anything like that?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Mr. Clare.

[John Clare]

The answer is no.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

That's the shortest answer we've had.

(Clauses 72 to 93 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 94)

That brings us to Liberal-13.

Mr. Eyolfson.

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

It involves the wording in French.