Health Committee on Oct. 3rd, 2017

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

Thank you.

In what database will it be stored? Does the database exist or it something that has to be created?

[Paul Saint-Denis]

I can't speak to what databases are going to contain that information. We're talking, though, about judicial records, so at the very least court records would have that information.

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

Yes. It seems that nobody knows that level of detail with 271 days until somebody gets charged, and we need to know.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Seeing no further speakers, I'm going to call for a vote on LIB-10.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 58 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 60)

Ms. Gladu.

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

Clause 60 is the clause that talks about the sharing of the revenue, essentially, from this deal with provinces and municipalities.

I'm disappointed that we didn't see something more concrete in here, because we did hear testimony from all of the municipalities and provinces that showed up that not enough funding was given for them to put all of the mechanisms in place and do all of the work to react to this legislation. I would have liked to have seen something more concrete there.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Davies.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I pass.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Shall clauses 59, 60, and 61 carry?

(Clauses 59 to 61 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 62)

We now go to Liberal amendment 11.

Mr. Davies.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I'm sorry. With my Liberal colleague's indulgence, I'd like to make a motion to amend subclause 62(2), which comes before the LIB-11 amendment. I'm going to move it from the floor, if I might.

It has to do with a conversation we had yesterday about the prohibition in this bill banning the importation or exportation of cannabis except as provided for by this bill. I didn't move my amendment there. I'm going to move my amendment now to subclause 62(2). This is the part of the bill that does authorize the importation and exportation of cannabis. It says currently:

Licences and permits authorizing the importation or exportation of cannabis may be issued only in respect of cannabis for medical or scientific purposes or in respect of industrial hemp.

That's the status quo we have now. My amendment would be to permit the import and export of recreational cannabis. I'll speak to it in a moment and give you the wording that I worked out with the legislative counsel yesterday.

The amendment reads: “Licences and permits authorizing the importation or exportation of cannabis may be issued.” Basically, everything after the word “issued” in line 31 would be struck. I'll speak briefly to that, if I may.

As I said, in my opinion, there are many countries in the world that are looking at legalizing recreational cannabis. I've talked to many people in the industry who tell me that this is a multi-billion dollar industry in which Canada currently stands at the forefront. I talked to a leading manufacturer of medicinal cannabis who said that he is contacted every week by businesses outside of Canada who want to learn about their business and to partner.

I think it's only a matter of time before other jurisdictions—besides Uruguay—legalize recreational cannabis. France could legalize cannabis next year. If they do, I think this legislation should at least permit the exportation and importation of cannabis products between those two countries. If the product is legal in both countries, why would we not want to give our business community and those who are producing cannabis the ability to trade in that commodity?

Interestingly, we're going to allow licensed producers to produce and sell cannabis within Canada. We're going to make that decision. Why would we want to hamstring our business community and say that they can't do that with another country that comes to the same decision?

Finally, of course, it is the case that currently this bill would allow the importation and exportation of cannabis for medical or scientific purposes or for industrial hemp. To me, it makes sense that we maintain Canada's competitive advantage. I think Canada can be a global leader as we develop the intellectual property and more cannabis strains under a very wisely regulated environment, which this bill purports to set out, where we have quality cannabis that's quality controlled and where the dosages are controlled, properly labelled, and not marketed to children. If we can ship wine to France, we should be able to ship cannabis there if, as an example, France decides as a country to take the same approach to legalization that we do.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Mr. Oliver.

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

I'll just come back to the three purposes of the act. One is to remove this from the hands of youth. The second is to deter criminal activity with significant criminal consequences. The third is safe and healthy production so that customer or consumer safety is to the fore. It isn't about retailing, exporting, and creating those business opportunities.

Having said that, I think Mr. Davies does raise some interesting points. I'm wondering if we could have a five-minute sidebar on our side just to talk. We didn't have this before us. It's coming from the floor. We'd like a chance to have a little sidebar.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

There will be a sidebar for five minutes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

We'll reconvene. Now on the speakers list we have Ms. Gladu.

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

I don't support expanding this. The RCMP has already expressed concerns about the medical marijuana system that we have today, where people who don't have a criminal record are applying for licences and are vetted, but are related to those who are members of organized crime. That's how organized crime may be penetrating the medical marijuana market today.

I certainly wouldn't want to see us expand the opportunity and have Canada turn into the organized crime capital for exporting to other countries. For that reason, I wouldn't be supporting this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

All right. Thanks very much.

Ms. Sidhu.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

I just want to make one point, Mr. Chair.

This bill is about public health, not economic development. We have been clear that the intent of this legislation is to keep it as a domestic issue. Medical cannabis producers will continue to be able to import and export for medical purposes.

So this is not about economic development right now. That's my point of view.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Oliver.

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

I would echo Ms. Sidhu's comments. I would also add that the advice we had from everybody else was to go slow on this. I think you'll see a motion coming later for a review of the bill—in fairly short order, in terms of parliamentary time—that may then allow this kind of consideration. At this juncture, as Ms. Sidhu said, the purpose of the bill is not about retail and business opportunities. It is about deterring crime, getting this stuff out of the hands of our youth, and having a safe production capacity, a licenced capacity.

I'll be voting against the motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Mr. Van Kesteren.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I find it fascinating that the conversation is moving in this direction. It seems that within the Liberal Party, as well as the NDP, there's this opinion that there's amazing capacity for the government and the economy to have this incredible opportunity of wealth.

The problem is that we don't read our history books. China is probably the greatest civilization that's ever existed on this planet, if one looks at their accomplishments. However, if you read what took place, it began in the 1700s with opium. Opium was introduced for the same reason. Governments became involved. The British saw a lucrative trade there. There was one prime minister who condemned the British government for becoming part of this whole act. In essence, it destroyed a whole society.

If you read your history books, you'll find that people began to lose their livelihoods. The family unit was completely destroyed. Crime and lawlessness increased.

This isn't some exercise in trying to scare people. The reality of the situation is that we have learned lessons in the past, and it's not for no reason that governments have put together laws that have restricted drugs.

I thought it would be interesting. I looked on the Internet. I wanted to see what the drug culture, those who.... I have to confess that maybe I'm the wrong person to talk about this, because I've never smoked the stuff. I wanted to find out what people who indulged in smoking marijuana said about marijuana, as opposed to opium. Opium is an interesting drug. Almost without exception, the responses were that opium is a whole lot better. I'm paraphrasing. They pontificate. They go into reasons why and such.

The point is that this is a stepping-stone drug. The people who smoke marijuana aren't going to be content just to.... I'm not painting everybody with the same brush, but I can assure you that we will see the same thing happening in our society. Why, for the life of me, would we...?

You know, even without proper dialogue, even without thinking this through, this is a dangerous precedent. I can't reinforce this enough. It took the brutality of Mao Zedong to stamp out drug usage in China. There were probably 10 million people who were addicted to opium.

Now people will say we're dated, that we're talking about marijuana. There's a difference.

Mr. Davies, you referred to alcohol. It's not the same thing. Yes, it's a drug, to a degree I suppose, one would argue. You drink alcohol. You might like beer; you might be hooked on vodka. It's alcohol. Whereas with drugs, you open up a whole world of possibilities. If we think we're going to become a prosperous nation, that there's opportunity economically with the pursuit of marijuana in our society, we are so sadly mistaken. We need to talk about this.

I am convinced that there are people—and not just old fuddy-duddies like me—and there are people in the Liberal Party too, who have some reservations. I implore you to start talking to your leadership, to stop this crazy notion that this is a good idea.

I was going to leave this for closing remarks, but you opened it up. The fact that we somehow imagine this whole marijuana business is going to be advantageous and we're going to protect youth—we're going to keep a lid on this thing—is foolhardy at best.

I appreciate your time, and I ask my Liberal colleagues to look at this, really look at this, because this is a disaster waiting to happen.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Davies.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I know my Liberal colleagues don't need to jump to their defence on that, but I think, with respect to Mr. Van Kesteren's comments, there is clearly a very large philosophical difference between the Conservatives and other parties on the proper way to regulate this. Unfortunately, Mr. Van Kesteren wasn't here, I don't think, to have the benefit of hearing the evidence we heard for five days, but we heard a massive amount of evidence about the harms of criminalization, and I want to speak to my motion a little more pointedly.

Nobody is talking about cannabis being some sort of economic action plan for the future. I'm going to quote Kirk Tousaw again. “It's not the creation of an industry. The industry exists.” There's a $7-billion to $10-billion market in Canada right now, and that's in a criminalized context with jail terms. After spending billions of dollars trying to pursue a criminalized approach to cannabis, where are we? We have a $7-billion to $10-billion industry that's controlled by the black market, and our youth are among the highest users of cannabis in the world. That's what a hundred years of a criminalized approach has gotten us. That's the evidence.

I want to comment on a few things. The point of this is, if you have willing jurisdictions, let's say another country adopts Canada's model of recreational cannabis, I see no reason why we wouldn't want to be trading, as we are with medicinal. What's the difference between our exporting medicinal cannabis and our exporting recreational cannabis to a willing jurisdiction that is prepared to receive it?

I know the U.S. federally does not currently legalize marijuana but right now eight states in the U.S. have legalized cannabis; 14 states have decriminalized; and another 30 have legalized medicinal cannabis. Even in the United States, perhaps the toughest jurisdiction on drugs in the developed world, they are moving in that direction.

Mr. Oliver referred to three of the purposes, but there are seven purposes in this legislation, and one of them is to provide for the licit production of cannabis to reduce illicit activities in relation to cannabis. If you don't legalize exporting, if you don't let responsible licensed Canadian business people and producers export, who do you think is going to export? I'll tell you who's exporting now: organized crime. I live in British Columbia where the cannabis drug trade to the United States and other countries is controlled by the Hells Angels.

If we're supposed to be trying to provide for the licit production and reduce illicit activities, wouldn't you want to bring the regulated production of that cannabis out of the hands of organized crime and put it in the hands of legitimate Canadian business people who can then deal with it in a responsible, regulated way? By leaving exports in the hands of organized crime, we're hamstringing legitimate Canadian business people and producers who are going to start producing recreational cannabis, just as they have been producing medicinal cannabis, and we're allowing them to export.

Again, if medicinal cannabis is allowed, I fail to see what the difference is with recreational cannabis if it's properly regulated, properly labelled, etc.

I won't get into the philosophical position as to why I think this is a more productive and responsible way to regulate cannabis, other than to say that in the last election, more than 60% of Canadians voted for the Liberals or the NDP together. Both parties pursued very explicit policies of legalizing or decriminalizing cannabis. There was a reference to a referendum, and there's no greater referendum than a federal election, I don't think.

I congratulate the government for pursuing this. I think the legislation is a good first step. It reads to me like an excellent first draft, and I believe we're rushing this a little too much. I agree with my Conservative colleagues that we're going to see holes in this bill, and we're going to see unintended consequences for sure, because of the rushing, but that's what we're trying to do here today, as the NDP. We're trying to do our best to improve this bill, and propose amendments that we think are going to help, and to allow the importation and exportation of recreational products between willing jurisdictions that have well-regulated recreational cannabis industries, just like the medicinal side, makes total sense to me.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Ayoub.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I feel compelled to take a moment to respond to my colleague, Mr. Van Kesteren.

My colleague Mr. Davies has in fact summarized much of my thinking in many respects. From a philosophical point of view, the opinions are diametrically opposed. I must say, however, that not all Conservatives think that way. Contrary to what you said, that was an integral part of the Liberal and NDP platforms. My colleague Mr. Davies said that. Even the Bloc Québécois and Ms. May subscribed to that idea. So 70% of Parliament intended to find a way to legalize marijuana.

I would invite my colleague opposite to read the record of the last five days of consultations. A tremendous amount of information was presented.

Unfortunately, we can see that your approach is partisan and that you are missing a large part of the information presented by people with the full range of opinions on the legalization of marijuana. It is extremely interesting to read the testimony, gather information, and look beyond the philosophy that leads certain people to not want to know anything or do anything because they see the planned legalization of marijuana in July 2018 as the apocalypse. That smacks of the politics of fear and trying to hide things. As we are saying, however, there is currently a market, it is in the news, and it is part of reality. For your part, you are proposing that nothing be done, but that is not how we are going to proceed.

I have had discussions with other Conservatives who are much more open to the idea of legislation and finding a way to protect young people rather than doing nothing. On the contrary, I think we are achieving what we have to. That being said, we want to do things well and properly regulate the use of marijuana, while being mindful of the safety of our children and of the population as a whole.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Ms. Gladu.