Health Committee on Oct. 3rd, 2017

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

Everything in French is on my shoulders. It's a big burden to carry.

Once again, these are merely grammatical changes.

The proposed amendment reads as follows: “[...] tout employé d'une personne autorisée à posséder, à vendre, à distribuer ou à produire du cannabis sous le [...]”. This is in clause 71, line 8 on page 40 of the French version. I do not know if my colleague Mr. Fortin has the same lines as we do.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

It should be. There is no problem.

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

Very good.

It is really just a grammar issue, once again. It is to ensure that the elements in the English and French versions match.

If there are no other questions, that is the proposed amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

All in favour of Liberal amendment 13?

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 94 as amended agreed to)

On clauses 95 to 138. I have no notifications of amendments.

(Clauses 95 to 138 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 139)

That brings us to Liberal-14.

Mr. Ayoub.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Through this amendment, we want to allow the government to monitor and regulate all aspects of chemical substances, whether we are talking about burning or vaporizing cannabis, and all of the accessories used in connection with cannabis. This amendment would give the government the authority to regulate the emissions produced by these products and accessories, such as, for instance, through the imposition of limits on chemical concentration.

This is also related to Bill S-5, which intends to allow the governor in council to regulate vaping product characteristics and emissions.

For all of these good reasons, we are moving the amendment which is before you. I will not read it because it is very technical. It concerns clause 139, lines 25 to 27 on page 81 of the English version.

I am at your disposal to answer questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Go ahead, Marilyn Gladu.

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

When we heard testimony from a lot of the medical marijuana proponents, I know that they also identified the importance of respecting the characteristics, composition, design, construction, performance, intended use, sensory attributes, appearance, shape, purity, quality, etc., of marijuana. That's another good reason why home grow should never be allowed because none of those properties are controlled in any way in home grow. For that reason, I won't support it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Yes, Mr. Davies.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

It's more than just a technical amendment. I would say it adds some significant substantive changes to the current act.

The current bill allows the Governor in Council to make regulations “respecting the composition, strength, concentration, potency, purity or quality or any other property of cannabis or any class of cannabis”. This, the amendment of paragraph 139(1)(k), says:

respecting the characteristics, composition, strength, concentration, potency, intended use, sensory attributes—such as appearance and shape—purity, quality or any other property of cannabis or any class of cannabis;

When you have the words “or any other property of cannabis”, is it really necessary to add the extra words that are proposed to be added by the amendment? I guess “intended use” is a little bit different. However, that's quite a substantive change. Regarding “sensory attributes”, I'm not quite sure what that means, but I would say sensory attributes would probably be a property of cannabis. I think appearance and shape are properties of cannabis.

I'm just wondering if my friend can explain to us why he thinks that language is necessary. How is that different than the current language?

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

In fact, it is simply to be a little more specific.

It refers to the use that will be made of it, and its sensory properties. The purpose is really to focus more on the use that may be made of it. It refers among other things to quality, purity and the monitoring of production, elements that will allow us to ensure control and will allow citizens to know what they are consuming, quite simply.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Seeing no more speakers, I'm going to call for a vote on Liberal-14.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Now, we go to Liberal-15. Go ahead, Mr. Eyolfson.

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

This is basically some changing of the wording in the act in part of the legislation that provides the minister with the authority to make orders to exempt persons, as well as classes of cannabis, with the provisions of the act. It's a clarification of some of the language to make it consistent.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Now, we come to Bloc Québécois amendment 1. You have the floor, Mr. Fortin.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In fact, this is the only amendment the Bloc Québécois is moving to this bill, but we think it is extremely important.

Since yesterday I have been following the work of the committee, and I note that a great deal of importance is rightly being given to the matter of penalties and sanctions for breaching the law in any way.

However, if you read clause 139, you see that almost of the details of this act will be decided by regulation.

I refer among others to paragraph 139(1)(b), which permits the establishment of other classes of cannabis. What will be done with those other classes? We see that provisions will apply differently according to the category in question.

Further on, the issuance of licences and permits are mentioned, as well as all of the related conditions.

Clause 139 also discusses the composition, content, concentration and purity of the cannabis. In fact, we were just talking about that. In our opinion, these are all questions that should be discussed in committee and submitted to the entire House. We don't agree that these decisions be made in camera by public servants of the department.

The bill also discusses the classification of violations. This is in paragraph 139(1)(z.3), where it refers to classifying “each violation as a minor violation, a serious violation or a very serious violation”. Afterwards, paragraph 139(1)(z.4) discusses modulating the penalties in light of that classification. Thus if the decision is made to establish new levels of violations, they could be minor, serious or very serious, and penalties would be adjusted accordingly. This means that the work we are currently doing in committee may be somewhat superfluous.

In addition, as I was saying, according to paragraph 139(1)(z.5) and the following ones, the criteria according to which a penalty for a violation may be increased or reduced will be set by regulations. The clause discusses amounts, agreements, ranges of amounts and so on.

We all agree that this is an important bill, because it is going to change a lot of things throughout Canada. We think that a bill as important as this one has to be managed properly. These matters are important and should be discussed in committee. That is why we move that clause139 be amended as proposed in amendment BQ-1 which is before us now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Davies.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I would like to thank my Bloc colleague for taking interest in the bill and proposing these amendments. I wonder if he could just describe for me a little bit more what he thinks the benefits of his amendments are. How does he think the legislation will be stronger with these amendments, and what exactly does he believe these amendments will do to enhance the bill?

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Chair, the amendment we are proposing will not strengthen the future act, but it will make it better understood and better adapted to the realities of Quebec and Canada as a whole. Parliamentarians will be called on to discuss these important matters as the need arises. We agree that certain decisions may be made by public servants. That is always the way things are done, and I am aware of that. However, under clause 139, some important decisions are going to be made by officials.

As I just said, paragraph 139(1)(z.3) of the bill refers to the classification of violations as “minor, serious or very serious”. Paragraph 139(1)(z.4) refers to setting “a maximum amount as the penalty for minor violations, for serious violations, or for very serious violations”. This means that everything that has been done in committee since yesterday regarding penalties will be practically useless, since officials will be able to set the categories of violations of the law and modulate the penalties to be applied in consequence. This seems important to us.

The same thing applies to paragraphs 139(1)(z.5) and (z.6), which discuss “circumstances under which [...] a penalty for a violation may be increased or reduced”. Isn't that what we have been doing since yesterday? My colleague from Vancouver Kingsway Mr. Davies has rightly insisted on the importance that needs to be given to penalties in the bill. Do we want them to be serious, less serious? How will we adjust those penalties with regard to all of the violations listed in the Criminal Code and according to the relative seriousness of the different violations? It is important that we examine all that.

Regarding the issues raised by Mr. Davies, I see now that a public servant sitting in his office will be able to set aside all of the work we have done and decide which violations are minor, serious or very serious, and adjust the penalties in any way he or she deems appropriate.

If the act is to be accepted by all of the population and adapted to the realities of Canada as a whole, it seems important to us that it be discussed by parliamentarians, at the very least regarding issues that appear to me to be of critical importance.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Ayoub.

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

I thank my colleague Mr. Fortin for his contribution and the questions he raises. This gives me an opportunity to reiterate that all through this process, the government carried out consultations in order to allow all Canadians to express themselves and their fears and recommendations, so that we may adopt the best possible act, while remaining as open as possible. That is what we are currently doing and will continue to do until the act is implemented.

However, we have a very clear goal: the act has to be passed by July 2018. If we accept your amendment, the process will be delayed by several months in order to allow parliamentarians to prepare regulations.

We want the public service to make certain decisions in connection with the act once the law has been passed. The essence of this act will be determined by the members of Parliament and by Parliament, but public servants may always assist us regarding the more technical aspects.

For that reason, I cannot accept the amendment as it stands.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Thank you very much, Mr. Ayoub.

Mr. Davies.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I'd like to thank Mr. Fortin for bringing up what I think is a very important part of this bill. I think that is well laid out in the substance of his amendment.

As I understand this amendment, it really would allow and compel the government to bring the regulations, which will be made behind closed doors by the ministry, into the House of Commons for scrutiny by Parliament and specifically to be sent to committees for our scrutiny in public hearings. I think that's not only a very democratic way to proceed but also very important.

This bill—I don't think this has been said enough—changes a century of legal, social, cultural, and political attitudes towards cannabis, yet a lot of the details of how this bill will be implemented in practice will be determined by regulation.

This amendment says the Governor in Council may make a regulation:

only if the Minister has first laid the proposed regulation before the House of Commons.

It further says:

A proposed regulation that is laid before the House of Commons is deemed to be automatically referred to the appropriate committee of the House, as determined by the rules of the House, and the committee may conduct inquiries or public hearings with respect to the proposed regulation and report its findings to the House.

Then it talks about the process in which those regulations may be passed by the House of Commons and then referred to the Governor in Council being within 60 sitting days.

I wholeheartedly agree with this approach, particularly when we know that the regulations, for instance around production, are going to determine whether someone can or cannot produce cannabis in this country. We have no idea what those regulations are going to be. I know there is great interest by the business community and by industries across this country in that issue for one, and there are many other issues like that in this legislation that will be determined by regulation.

I really like the idea of making the government put those regulations before the House and before committee, and most importantly, allowing at least the possibility of an opportunity for committees such as this to call witnesses from particular provinces or particular stakeholder groups to comment on those regulations prior to their coming to us.

My final point is that we keep hearing over and over again from the Liberal side that it's important to get it right. They want to get it right. They want to slow this down, because they want to get it right. That's why they won't bring in legislation around edibles, because they want to get it right.

Certainly the regulatory structure of this bill, I would argue, is very important to get right, and getting it right involves not just a decision by the minister or an order in council by cabinet. Getting it right means having the full scrutiny of this House of Commons and the benefit of testimony from stakeholders across the country and the public, so that we can make sure that the regulatory structure brings us the best legislation we can get.

I'm going to be supporting these really well-thought-out amendments by the Bloc Québécois.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Mr. Oliver.

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

May I add to the comments of Mr. Ayoub? We've heard a lot of concerns from Mr. Davies in particular and from the Conservatives about things that they feel aren't right in the bill. We've been consistently saying we need to move slowly with this and we need to understand how we're proceeding with it.

The motion, as I understand it and as Mr. Ayoub has said, would quite restrict the ability for regulations to be made. It would require, for the next three to five years, regulations to be tabled in the House and the whole House review cycle to be gone through, and it would significantly limit the Governor in Council's flexibility in making regulations.

To the extent that some of these issues that Mr. Davies outlined do become evident, the bill, as it's written, is a way to begin to address them on a more timely basis. For that reason, I wouldn't be supporting this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Ms. Gladu.

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

Mr. Chair, I want to thank my colleague from the Bloc Québécois for bringing this forward. One of the concerns that I've had, in addition to hating the whole bill, is the fact that many parts were left out of this, such as the edibles. The intent is to just let the regulators regulate and doing that could certainly introduce things that would be not to parliamentarians' liking.

While I really agree with the principle of parliamentary oversight, unfortunately it's applied to legalizing marijuana, which I'm dead set against.