Health Committee on Oct. 3rd, 2017

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I'll just take a moment to explain what the penalty provision relates to. It relates to the prohibition in this bill to possess, produce, sell, distribute, or import anything with the intention that it would be used to produce, sell, or distribute illicit cannabis.

The part that is most confusing to me about this bill is that after Prime Minister Trudeau promised legalization to Canadians in 2015, as I've said repeatedly, this bill contains a heavily criminalized approach to cannabis. Leaving aside the philosophical or policy differences to that, I think simply in terms of efficacy the one thing we know is that the criminalized approach to cannabis has not worked.

Why are we then continuing a model of prohibition, when Prime Minister Trudeau and the government on one hand will speak very strongly out of one side of their mouths that they are changing the prohibition model because prohibition doesn't work and criminalization simply drives things underground and puts things into the black market and harms our children, but then retain in many respects in this bill sections that continue to criminalize, continue to drive it underground, continue to threaten, I guess, illicit production?

The penalties here for any violation of that are proceeding by indictable offence and liable to imprisonment of a term of up to seven years or both. Now, if you think about this, that's the penalty for possessing, producing, or distributing anything that will be used to produce cannabis. You could have two people in their twenties who share an illicit seed with each other or share a clone with each other, or are selling some cannabis production equipment to each other. How do we appropriately deal with that? Second, what is the appropriate penalty for it?

Once again, I think it's inappropriate to criminalize that act. I think you can prohibit it and regulate it and you can put fines on it. That would be the decriminalized approach to it.

The second question is whether that is really something that anybody thinks a seven-year jail sentence is appropriate for, or will have any deterrent effect upon. I will point out one more time, if life sentences didn't deter people in this country from doing those very activities, I don't think a seven-year sentence will. This amendment would replace the penalty provisions and substitute, instead of a seven-year jail sentence, a fine of not more than $300,000, or imprisonment for a term of not more than two years less a day, or both.

By the way, if you want to effectively control behaviour, then hitting someone with a $300,000 fine for importing or distributing or selling material to produce illicit cannabis will have a greater deterrent effect than a potential jail sentence, and of course, my amendment does preserve the ability to have a jail sentence of two years less a day. They do face that as well, but I still think that a jail sentence is much more proportionate to the offence under question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Thank you.

Ms. Sidhu.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

I respect Mr. Davies' passion, but like Mr. Trudeau said, we are strictly regulating it. We want to protect our kids. One purpose of Bill C-45 is to deter illicit cannabis activity through the right sanctions, too. We really want to protect our kids and that's why we're strictly regulating it.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Thank you. Mr. Fortin.

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

Mr. Chairman, as an MP from a party that is not recognized and who does not have the right to speak, I do not intend to address a substantive issue. I would simply point out a typo in the amendment proposed by my NDP colleague. In comparing the French and English versions, I notice that it is lines 10 and 11, and not lines 9 and 10, that should be replaced. I simply wanted to draw your attention to that minor typo.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Our legislative clerk will check that out to make sure that if it's incorrect we'll fix it.

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

It was the same in the previous proposition from PV, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Thanks very much, and welcome to the committee.

Seeing no further speakers, I call for a vote on NDP-19.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

May I have a recorded vote?

(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1)

(Clause 13 agreed to)

(On clause 14)

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

On PV-14, does anyone want to debate or comment?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

On NDP-20, if this adopted, PV-15, NDP-21, and NDP-22 cannot be moved.

Mr. Davies.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

For the benefit of my colleagues, essentially, it removes the 14-year penalty and replaces it with the $300,000 fine or imprisonment for two years less a day for indictable proceedings, and in the case of proceeding by summary conviction to fines of not more than $300,000 for first offence, or not more than $50,000 for second offence.

I would also like a recorded vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

We're not there yet.

Mr. Oliver.

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

I would like to thank Mr. Davies for his continued efforts in this regard, but the same response will come from our side. One of the purposes of the bill is to deter illicit cannabis activities and have serious criminal consequences in place for those who are outside of the intended purposes of the act. These amendments would restrict the court's ability to apply that judgment.

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

Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I would also point out that, in the French version, it should be lines 25 and 26, and not lines 24 and 25.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

We're advised it's because the English and the French paragraphs don't always line up, but we're going to follow up and make sure it's correct.

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

There is no problem in the English version. The French version, however, does not match the English version or what we are discussing. The wording of the French version of the bill does not make sense as drafted. I encourage you to make the necessary amendments. It is simply a typo because the lines do not match up. It completely changes the meaning of the passage.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Would you like to explain that?

[Olivier Champagne, Legislative Clerk, House of Commons]

I think you are looking at the line numbering in the centre of the document. It is the numbering on the right that applies to the French. Paragraph 14(2)a) begins at line 24, as indicated in the amendment.

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

In the French version, line 24 says, “une infraction et encourt, sur déclaration de culpabilité”.

[Olivier Champagne]

That is not what I see.

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

Perhaps we do not have the same document. Let me compare mine to yours. I probably do not have the right document. My apologies if that is the case.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Thanks very much.

Seeing no further speakers on NDP-20, I call for a vote on NDP-20.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Could we have a recorded vote, please, Mr. Chair?

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

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Now we go to PV-15.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Now we go to NDP-21. If this is adopted, NDP-22 cannot be moved.

Mr. Davies, go ahead.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Briefly, this is the second tier of amendments to try to amend the criminal sanctions in this bill to a more reasonable view. This would reduce the jail sentence from 14 years down to two years less a day for indictment, and for offences that are under 14 years currently in the bill, it would replace it with summary conviction only.

This is a difficult area of the bill, as are others, and I do have some empathy for the government's attempt to struggle with this, but what animates these amendments is the prospect of.... In a province like Alberta, Manitoba, or Quebec, where the drinking age is 18, and I expect that the age for consumption of marijuana would be 18, we'll have a situation where a 19-year-old could give some illicit cannabis to a 17-year-old, and that 19-year-old would face, under this act, up to 14 years in prison.

While I am empathetic to the arguments of trying to protect our children, and none of us want to see underage people have cannabis, the reality in this country is that they do. The reality is that after this bill takes place, there is still going to be illicit cannabis produced. The question is what the appropriate policy response is. What is the appropriate regulatory regime?

Having a 19-year-old face a potential jail sentence of 14 years for exchanging illicit cannabis with someone who is 17 strikes me as a continuation of the very prohibitionist, criminalized model, which hasn't worked to date and which the majority of Canadians don't feel is appropriate. It is not going to work as an effective deterrent, in any event.

I would take this opportunity to bring up something that I think is very important, which is education. If we really don't want kids under the age of 18 or 19 to use cannabis, then we should be pouring money into educating them about cannabis use and what its impacts and effects may be on the developing brain and otherwise.

We've heard in the testimony that this government, so far, has committed to education what can only be described as a paltry $9 million over five years. We heard testimony from Chief Isadore Day, from Ontario, that, as far as he knows, there is no money given to indigenous communities in this country for education. Compare that with Colorado or Washington state, where they are spending that amount every year on one-fifth or one-seventh the population of Canada.

We did hear the Minister of Health say that this is just the beginning and that there will be more money, but we are about nine and a half months, maybe 10 months from legalization on July 1. I am waiting for my colleague Ms. Gladu to tell us how many days we have.