Evidence of meeting #72 for Health in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was cannabis.
A video is available from Parliament.
10:25 a.m.
Diane Labelle General Counsel, Health Canada Legal Services, Department of Justice
When it comes to alcohol-related items, the federal government does not regulate at that level. Alcohol is regulated as a food under the Food and Drugs Act, but when it comes to promotion, advertising, and restrictions on advertising, that is not done by the Department of Health.
10:30 a.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
If I could follow up, this section says that it is prohibited to display:
directly or indirectly in a promotion that is used in the sponsorship of a person, entity, event, activity, or facility: (a) a brand element of cannabis, of a cannabis accessory or of a service
I take it that would cover things like athletic events. In this country, can we do that for alcohol, to your knowledge?
10:30 a.m.
General Counsel, Health Canada Legal Services, Department of Justice
I don't know all the rules with respect to alcohol. I do believe that the CRTC has guidelines on the promotion of alcohol in terms of telecommunications. More than that, I do not know.
10:30 a.m.
Conservative
Marilyn Gladu Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
I have one further point on this one with respect to an initiative we discussed earlier with Mr. Davies in talking about exporting. Especially with the medical marijuana, there are companies that are expanding and shipping globally, and they have branding. Will this prohibit them from being able to brand their products in foreign countries?
10:30 a.m.
John Clare Director, Cannabis Legalization and Regulation Branch, Department of Health
The promotion restrictions set out in the legislation apply to promotion in Canada, so in whatever foreign jurisdiction that company is operating, they would need to comply with those rules in that jurisdiction.
10:30 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bill Casey
Seeing no further speakers, I'm going to call for a vote on Liberal-4.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 21 as amended agreed to)
We have no amendments for clauses 22 to 33.
10:30 a.m.
Conservative
Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON
Mr. Chair, can I suggest that we take a health break?
10:30 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bill Casey
Yes. That's a good point. We'll just take five minutes.
We're going to break for lunch from 12 to 12:30. We're going to stop this operation and have a little bite to eat. Then we are going to question period at 1:50 p.m. Ms. Gladu has an S.O. 31. Just so we all know, we'll be back at 3:30. Now I'll suspend for five minutes.
10:40 a.m.
Conservative
Marilyn Gladu Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
Chair, I think you're doing a fabulous job of leading us through in an expedient fashion. To the clerk and the legislative clerks, you're doing a very good job.
10:40 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bill Casey
It's working well.
Thank you. I appreciate that.
Let's reconvene, and carry on so we're not here on Saturday and Sunday.
10:40 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bill Casey
When we broke, we were considering clauses 22 to 33. There are no amendments; I was seeking approval for all those clauses 22 to 33.
(Clauses 22 to 33 agreed to)
(On clause 34)
Now we go to Liberal-5. This was moved by Dr. Eyolfson.
10:40 a.m.
Liberal
Doug Eyolfson Liberal Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB
This is technical. It provides clarity with respect to the prohibition of any mixture of substances. Much the way we've seen the trend with alcohol and caffeine; vodka and Red Bull are coming up.
It's a clearer description so you can't sell cannabis in combination with nicotine, caffeine, or alcohol.
10:40 a.m.
Conservative
Marilyn Gladu Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
Dr. Eyolfson, the hemp producers asked to be exempted from all this regulation. I know people can sometimes cut their cannabis with hemp. What do we intend to do with that recommendation that came to committee?
10:40 a.m.
Liberal
Doug Eyolfson Liberal Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB
I would have to get back to you on that particular clarification. That's not in this one here.
10:40 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bill Casey
I have a point of clarification.
If Liberal-5 is adopted, Liberal-22 is also adopted at the same time.
Mr. Davies, I have you on the list.
10:40 a.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Dr. Eyolfson, I just want to be clear.
This is referring to substances infused with cannabis? Not the selling of cannabis alongside....
10:40 a.m.
Liberal
Doug Eyolfson Liberal Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB
This is a substance infused with cannabis. Something like a given product, which contains cannabis, nicotine, caffeine, or alcohol.
10:40 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bill Casey
Seeing no further speakers, I'm going to call for a vote on Liberal-5.
(Amendment agreed to)
(Clause 34 as amended agreed to)
We have no amendments from clause 35 to clause 43.
(Clauses 35 to 43 agreed to)
(On clause 44)
10:45 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bill Casey
Now we come to NDP-23.
If NDP-23 is moved, NDP-24 can't be moved. Does anybody have a comment?
Mr. Davies.
10:45 a.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
This is a miscellaneous penalty provision of the bill that basically talks about “every person that contravenes a provision of this Act for which no punishment is otherwise provided”. It specifies then that automatically these provisions will apply.
The first part is that a person could be “guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to a fine of not more than $5,000,000 or imprisonment for a term of not more than three years, or to both”.
If they're proceeded with on summary conviction on a first offence, they are subject “to a fine of not more than $250,000 or imprisonment for a term of not more than six months, or to both, and, for any subsequent offence, to a fine of not more than $500,000 or imprisonment for a term of not more than 18 months, or to both.”
Interestingly, this is the catch-all provision that says that anybody who violates this act is automatically liable to potential imprisonment. I just want to go on record as saying that it is inconsistent, and in fact, I think it's incompatible with an approach that claims to be legalizing. I think it clearly is an approach that maintains the criminalized approach to cannabis.
My amendment would seek, in keeping with that, to change the regulation of cannabis, as we move to commercializing this product, to make them “guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction” only, and “liable, for a first offence, to a fine of not more than $3,000 and, for any subsequent offence, to a fine of not more than $50,000”.
The interesting part about this clause is that I would assume that, for every offence under this act that the government thought was a significant offence, they specified a penalty. This clause obviously is for anything else in the act that the government didn't even, after studying the bill and drafting it, think that an offence was necessarily appropriate to maintain or even to specify a penalty for. I find it instructive that the scheme of this legislation by the Liberal government is to say that any violation of this act in any way results in a criminalized approach with a jail sentence.
If the purpose of this bill is to legalize cannabis and to, as we've heard time and time again, move away from a prohibitionist approach, which the Minister of Health and the Minister of Justice say doesn't work, and which evidence before this committee showed creates much harm.... That's why the purpose of my amendment is to punish people who don't follow the scheme of the act by monetary fines, much like the way we regulate tobacco and alcohol.