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.
1:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bill Casey
We have a little technical issue here.
The legislative clerk has informed me that the proposed section in 17.2 is between clauses 163 and 164, so we have to go back to clause 162. I'm seeking a vote on clause 162.
1:45 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, didn't we just vote on that?
1:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bill Casey
We voted on amendment 17.1, but we didn't vote on clause 162.
(Clause 162 as amended agreed to)
1:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bill Casey
Thank you very much for your patience.
We're going to do clause 163 next, and then we do Liberal amendment 17.2.
(Clause 163 agreed to)
Now we have a new clause in Liberal-17.2.
Ms. Sidhu.
1:45 p.m.
Liberal
1:45 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
I'm sorry, I'm not quite clear. Is this a companion amendment that follows?
I don't want to put you on the spot, Mr. Clare, but perhaps someone from the ministry can explain the purpose of new clause 163.1. Why is this necessary?
1:45 p.m.
Director, Cannabis Legalization and Regulation Branch, Department of Health
I am happy to explain. This is the companion to the motion that just passed. It provides the regulation-making power to designate the outdoor spaces.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
1:45 p.m.
Liberal
1:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bill Casey
All right. We'll knock off there and we'll go and listen to Ms. Sidhu's S. O. 31.
We'll start up again at 3:30. The meeting is suspended.
3:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bill Casey
Back to meeting 72. We've completed clause 164, and now we go to new clause 164.1. I have some bad news. The clerk has determined that this is out of order. You have to move it first.
3:25 p.m.
NDP
3:25 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Chair, the NDP's amendment would amend this bill to provide for a procedure to pardon Canadians who have been convicted of offences that this legislation would no longer make a crime. It does so by amending the Criminal Records Act, eliminating the current wait time in the Criminal Records Act, which I believe is five years, and also by waiving the fee that's payable with respect to the application. The previous Conservative government lengthened the time you had to wait to apply for a pardon, to five years. They increased the pardon fees to a little over $600, both of which have proven to be barriers to Canadians seeking pardons.
My proposal would be to eliminate the waiting period and the fee for those people who have current convictions relating to cannabis that this legislation would no longer deem a crime. The rationale is pretty straightforward. We don't believe that Canadians should be saddled with a criminal record for offences that will no longer be offences under legalization.
We would leave Canadians in the perverse situation that after July 1, 2018, someone could validly and legally possess cannabis but someone could have been convicted two weeks earlier and have a criminal record for five years for engaging in the same act.
Given that the discriminatory impacts of the current law are well documented, pardons are an important means of restitution to those affected most severely by prohibition.
I have a couple of quotes, and then I'll wrap up.
John Conroy said:
The Criminal Records Act is what governs the pardon situation and there have been recent decisions that have pointed out that the ability to get a pardon is determined by the date of the offence. As a result, we've ended up now with a situation where, depending on how old your offence is, different rules apply under the Criminal Records Act compared to what's in the current version of the act.
Dana Larsen said:
I really think that the legalization of cannabis should begin with an apology to the cannabis culture and to cannabis users for a hundred years of punishment and incarceration and harassment and demonization that were entirely undeserved. ...I would like to see not only a pardon but an apology and some kind of restitution made.
That goes much farther than my amendment would.
Finally, Michael Spratt said:
Bill C-45 contains no measures, for example, to address the tens of thousands of Canadians who have been stigmatized through the war on drugs counterproductive imposition of criminal records. Those who have criminal records are less likely to be able to obtain employment, housing, cross international borders, and less able to fully engage in educational opportunities. Bill C-45 should amend the Criminal Records Act to remove the unconstitutional retrospective application of the pardon ineligibility period. It should restore pre-amendment waiting periods, and a further reduction in the waiting period should be available for individuals convicted of marijuana offences... Currently, 18-year-old, first-time offenders who are convicted of simple possession of marijuana the day before Bill C-45 comes into force will be required to wait five years before they're even eligible to apply for a pardon. Bill C-45 must remedy this situation. ...the fee of over $600 that, again, disproportionately and sometimes unfairly limits the availability of pardons to only wealthier members of society could be dealt with directly in this bill.
Mr. Chair, to conclude, I have taken that direct testimony from Michael Spratt and others and drafted that into language that would provide a simple and expedited pathway to pardons for Canadians. If this is ruled out of order or beyond the scope of the bill, then I think it's an egregious omission on behalf of this government to bring in legalized cannabis legislation without having thought of the impact on—I don't think it's tens of thousands, I think it's hundreds of thousands of Canadians who currently have cannabis possession records in this country. I would ask that my colleagues support this so that on July 1, 2018, we can not only correct the future for Canadians but provide a pathway to pardons for those Canadians who have been unfairly stigmatized by what in essence is no longer a criminal act.
3:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bill Casey
Thank you very much. Certainly, your proposal reflects some of the testimony we had. As the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, states, on pages 766 and 767:
An amendment is inadmissible if it proposes to amend a statute that is not before the committee or a section of the parent act unless the latter is specifically amended by the clause of the Bill.
Since section 4 of the Criminal Records Act is not being amended by Bill C-45, it is therefore, the opinion of the chair that the amendment is inadmissible. I'm ruling it inadmissible and we have to move along.
(Clauses 165 to 170 inclusive agreed to)
(On clause 171)
That brings us to LIB-18.
Go ahead, Mr. Eyolfson.
3:30 p.m.
Liberal
Doug Eyolfson Liberal Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This is an amendment with the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act, which needs to be changed because we're removing cannabis from the scope of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. Again, this is a very technical matter, just to put it in sync with the new legislation.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 171 as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clauses 172 to 193 inclusive agreed to)
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bill Casey
That takes us to LIB-19. This is actually a new clause. It's clause 193.1.
Go ahead, Mr. Oliver.
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
John Oliver Liberal Oakville, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This proposed amendment would provide certainty and timing for Canadians and the industry that edibles containing cannabis and cannabis concentrates would be authorized for sale, no more than 12 months after the coming into force date of the proposed cannabis act.
We heard from many witnesses that having edibles as part of the legalization of cannabis was important. We heard from public health that limiting legalized cannabis to dried forms would encourage smoking and there are significant public health consequences associated with smoking cannabis. We also heard from many consumer groups and users that they felt that having edibles was an important method for their proper use of the drug.
We also heard, though, from other jurisdictions that had legalized it that it was important to go slowly to make sure that we had time to get this right. We also heard from representatives of government that there was work to be done in regs and in other bills that would have to be finished and completed to properly implement this. Having said that, I still think we should be making the amendment that edibles would be available 12 months after the bill comes into force.
That's what this motion does. There's a companion motion with it that comes up in a couple of motions to deal with the rest of that.
3:35 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
I appreciate the movement from the Liberals on this.
I have a question and then I'm going to speak to the amendment.
Mr. Oliver, if I understand correctly, you're saying that edibles and concentrates would have to be legalized within one year of the coming into force of the bill?
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
John Oliver Liberal Oakville, ON
They should be authorized for sale no more than 12 months after the coming into force date of the proposed cannabis act.
3:35 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
I'm looking at LIB-19. I see that it simply adds these products to part 12.1, schedule 4.
I don't see the reference to the 12 months.
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
John Oliver Liberal Oakville, ON
This is to understand why we're adding this, otherwise it would look like we're just legalizing it as of the date it comes into force. The accompanying motion, LIB-21, establishes the 12-month time scale.
3:35 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
I see; so this motion here, LIB-19, simply puts them on the schedule, and your companion motion will make it within 12 months.
