Debates of Nov. 1st, 2017

Motions in Amendment

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health for being able to deal with what is a very important issue. If I were to best describe it, it is to minimize the impact of cannabis on our young people. Today, we have more young people than virtually any other country in the western world consuming cannabis in some form or another. We finally have a government that recognizes that we need to do something to deal with the criminal element, the hundreds of millions that go toward crime as a direct result.

That said, the leader of the Green Party indicates that she has a problem with the legislation. She is concerned that an 18 year old sitting in a high school could possibly go to jail for 14 years for passing a cigarette to a 17 year old. I am repeating what the leader of the Green Party said.

If that same 18 year old possibly passed it off to someone who was 13 or 14 years old, does she not believe that would also be problematic, if her amendment had passed?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the reality of the way this bill has been drafted is that the sentencing is extreme. This was the expert testimony we heard at committee by those representing the Criminal Lawyers' Association, individuals with day-to-day experience defending people. There are a lot of people in this country whose personal reputations continue to be stigmatized because they are charged with a crime. As the hon. parliamentary secretary pointed out, a far higher proportion of our population than other populations has used recreational cannabis. Many people who are otherwise law abiding have used recreational cannabis over the years and are stigmatized with a criminal record.

This legislation should remove that risk of stigmatization, but it perpetuates it. To my friend from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, the medical evidence from the World Health Organization and the report by the Canadian Senate are really clear. By the way, as I stand here, I am someone who would never want my kids either to ingest cannabis or to smoke cigarettes or access alcohol. These are health risks, but cannabis is no worse a health risk than the others.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am here today in the House to address Bill C-45, the cannabis act, and the amendment I brought forward, which has been grouped together with the amendments from the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

I would have preferred to delete the whole bill, because it is a seriously flawed piece of legislation. However, in addition to deleting the section that I will talk about today, which is the section on home grow, I would point out that the government is rushing ahead with this legislation.

There are 243 days left before the Liberals are going to arbitrarily legalize marijuana, even though the provinces, municipalities, and police have said they will not be ready. There are numerous provinces and territories that have not even come out with a plan on how they will implement it. This legislation has not gone through the House or Senate. There has been no public awareness and education campaign launched. Therefore, I would again encourage the government not to rush forward with an arbitrary date as there are serious implications to this bill.

One of the many flaws in the bill is with respect to the subject of home grow. I will read from the bill what its intent was, and then show how this does not align. The bill states its goal are to:

protect the health of young persons by restricting their access to cannabis;

provide for a...[reduction in] illicit activities in relation to cannabis;

deter illicit activities...

reduce the burden on the criminal justice system in relation to cannabis;

provide access to a quality-controlled supply of cannabis; and

enhance public awareness of the health risks associated with cannabis.

In this legislation, the government is allowing the growth of four plants. We heard testimony at the health committee stating that those four plants, at a height of 100 centimetres, could produce up to 600 grams of marijuana in a house with no provision for storage and lockup. That was when there was a height restriction of 100 centimetres on those four plants, which has since been removed. I am not sure how the 600 grams of marijuana even lines up with the possession maximum of 30 grams. However, failing that, this will absolutely not keep marijuana out of the hands of our children.

In addition, we heard testimony from Colorado and Washington states, which had legalized marijuana. Colorado allowed home grow and the State of Washington did not, except in the case of medical marijuana users who were too fragile to get to a dispensary. In Colorado, where home grow was allowed, organized crime was involved in home grow, and it was a huge factor.

Obviously, if the intent of the bill is to keep it out of the hands of children, and to deter organized crime, home grow is not the way to go about it. The State of Washington saw that, by not allowing home grow, children and young people were having difficulty getting their hands on marijuana, and the organized crime portion of the marijuana trade had been reduced to less than 20% in less than three years. Therefore, with respect to keeping it out of the hands of children and deterring organized crime, we can see that removing home grow is absolutely essential.

Some of the testimony we heard was from the folks who grow medical marijuana. This is a very regulated process that traces all of the production, distribution, and who it goes to. There is also rigorous quality control testing to ensure there is no mould, to look at the potency, and numerous other factors with respect to cannabis. We can see that one of the goals in this bill is to provide access to a quality controlled supply of cannabis, and medical marijuana, as it is regulated today, meets that.

However, let us talk about that criteria with respect to home grow. There is absolutely no quality control testing in home grow. In fact, there are serious issues related to mould and ventilation. We heard testimony as well that home grow-type operations are 24 times more likely to have a fire. Therefore, there are hazards associated with these operations.

I had people from the Real Estate Association come and visit me in my office, to talk to me about what is required for them today when they sell a house that has had a marijuana grow op inside of it. They have to do a certification to make sure there is not any mould, and to address any of the issues that may have arisen. Their question was around what would be required when the bill passes. They wanted to know if they had to do that on every house where somebody had grown marijuana.

Those answers do not exist, because this flawed legislation is not well thought out, and nobody has the implementation plan that will occur at the provincial and municipal detailed levels. Of course, with 243 days left to go, we would think those answers and that information would be well in hand, but they are not. These issues continue not to be addressed by the government by having home grow in the bill.

With respect to the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, her amendment is talking about all of the extra criminal charges that exist in this bill. For example, if people have four plants, they are well within the law; if they have five, they then are criminals. If people possess 30 grams, they are okay; if they have 31 grams, they are criminals.

The member talked about some of the sentences of up to 14 years, which are not in alignment with other judgments on the possession of alcohol and drugs, which are more like two to three years. There are a huge number of issues with respect to that criminality, but all of those different charges will continue to plug up the courts. One of the things this bill was supposed to do was to off-load the courts, because there are murderers, rapists, and all kinds of court cases being dismissed because the Minister of Justice has not appointed enough judges. The courts are clogged up with these minor possession-type charges.

Again, this legislation is not meeting its goal in any way, but especially within the home grow area. I am really disturbed the government thought it was going to improve the legislation by removing the height requirement on home grow plants. Originally, it was a maximum of 100 centimetres, and if a plant got to 150 centimetres, then of course, that meant another criminal charge. The government took that away.

It is really disturbing, because right now there are videos out on YouTube that will show people how they can grow their marijuana plants with chicken wire, so that it can be stretched out and moved around. We saw pictures of trees from the folks who came and testified at committee. If four plants of 100 centimetre-size could bring 600 grams of marijuana, then how much more could we get if we grew four trees of marijuana. There is no specification now in the bill to restrict that amount.

The member for Saanich—Gulf Islands is quite correct when she said there were issues with break-ins. There is a lot of evidence of that from Colorado, where organized crime would break into and raid various grow ops. The police have testified they are unable to police this home grow section. They cannot see into people's houses. They believe they will receive a lot of nuisance calls from Joe, the neighbour, saying his neighbour has five plants not four plants, or there is a smell, or there is a mould problem.

All of these kinds of things will put a lot of burden on the police force. They did not feel this should be part of the bill. The testimony they provided was that it was not enforceable, and they did not have the resources.

For the numerous reasons I have stated, this home grow section of the bill that I would like to see deleted does not protect children. It does not keep marijuana out of the hands of children. I would argue it makes it easier for children to access. It certainly does not keep organized crime out, as we saw in Colorado. It certainly does not provide access to a quality controlled supply of cannabis, which we see with the medical marijuana business, but not in home grow. There was no public awareness done.

The time is ticking away. There are 243 days remaining before the arbitrary legalization of this flawed bill by the government.

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Sarnia—Lambton for her actions and activities on the committee, to which she is a well-contributing member.

Under Bill C-45, the act would create an offence in criminal law for the cultivation of more than four plants. It would also create an offence for the distribution of any portion of that. It is only for personal cultivation, and any attempt to commercialize it, sell it, or distribute any of it to other persons would result in a criminal charge. Those controls are in place.

The law would also allow for provinces, territories, and municipalities to implement such regulations as they deem appropriate for their jurisdictions and circumstances which may be necessary to exercise control on the circumstances under which those plants may be grown, to place additional limits on the number of plants, to put in regulations and requirements with respect to safety, security, sanitation, air quality, and its access to children.

There is also provision within provincial regulations for restrictions on where that can take place, whether it can take place, for example, in multi-use dwellings, such as apartment buildings or condo buildings. Given that, the criminal law addresses an offence for growing more plants, and contains provisions to prevent people from selling what is being produced, along with the appropriate level of legal jurisdiction for other restrictions and controls at the provincial, territorial, or municipal levels.

Does the member feel that level of control could be appropriately exercised to address the concerns she raised in her speech?

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

Mr. Speaker, there was a lot in that question, and I will try to address all the points.

First, in the discussion about landlords of apartment buildings, one point that ought to be raised has to do with homeowners in Ontario and Quebec. Today, with the existing laws, people who own homes and rent out part of or the entire home to somebody else, under the provisions of this bill, would not have the right to prevent tenants from growing or consuming marijuana in the house. That would be a concern to many homeowners.

In terms of the criminality in the bill, we know that organized crime has a $9 billion industry in Canada. It is a typical naïveté of the government to put laws in place when it is clear that criminals are not going to obey the laws. They are going to do what was done in Colorado. They are going to have multiple grow ops, break into grow ops, and that is the way that is going to go.

With respect to the provinces and municipalities being able to put their own extra criteria in place, it is a total abdication of leadership on the part of the Liberal government. This was its campaign promise. This was its promise to Canadians, and it has totally not nailed down the details of anything on how this should be done in a standard way across the country in order to protect our children.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague touched on an issue that was a major focus of this bill. It emanates from section 7 of the bill, which sets out the purposes of the legislation, one of which is to transfer the production and distribution of cannabis from the illegal world, and bring it into the legal, regulated world. My hon. colleague commented on her concern of organized crime still being involved in this industry.

My question has to do with edibles and concentrates. This legislation, once passed, would still leave illegal edibles, concentrates, and other non-smokable forms of cannabis. Leaving aside the health issues, those products would be left to the black market and organized crime, which will not be distributing cannabis products in child-proof packages, let me assure everyone.

Does my hon. colleague have any comments on the wisdom of the Liberal government leaving those products to the illicit market when one of the purposes of the bill is to actually stop the illegal black market production of cannabis products?

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

Mr. Speaker, if the purpose of the bill as stated is to get organized crime out of the picture, then it should be noted that if we look at all the jurisdictions where marijuana has been legalized and we look at the one that has had the best outcome with respect to getting organized crime out, it would be Washington State. That state had a very regulated system, with state dispensaries, that included edible products. It could control the amount of marijuana in the edible products as opposed to homegrown products, such as baked brownies, where one could not be sure how well distributed the marijuana would be through the brownies and whether children would eat them.

A lot of hazards were not addressed by the government.

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to the motions before us. I will focus my remarks primarily on the motion from the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, that Bill C-45 be amended by deleting clause 9 in its entity.

I would like to first begin by acknowledging and thanking the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for her thoughtful contribution to this ongoing debate and to this important issue. She has made a very significant contribution, and I very much value her opinion and her advice.

I would also like to commend the work of all members on the Standing Committee on Health for their study of Bill C-45, an act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other acts.

The health committee returned to Ottawa in advance of the commencement of our fall session of Parliament, worked extensively throughout the month of September, and heard from many learned witnesses who provided their perspective on a wide range of issues from law enforcement to public health.

I would remind all hon. members that Bill C-45 would provide a legislative framework for legal and regulated access to cannabis when it would be provided by authorized sources. Beyond that, cannabis would be subject to certain prohibitions.

With that in mind, I would like to point out a number of important features of the bill that relate to the criminal law.

The architecture of the legislation is such that cannabis remains a controlled substance. It cannot be accessed legally by youth and it can only be accessed legally by adults by way of an authorized source.

Division 1 of part 1 of Bill C-45 shows that many of the offences that currently apply to cannabis under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act will continue to exist under the proposed cannabis act. This is very much in keeping with the final report of the task force on cannabis legalization and regulation, which recommended to the government that criminal offences should be maintained for illicit production, trafficking, possession for the purposes of trafficking, and possession for the purposes of importing and exporting cannabis.

Clause 9, the proposed distribution clause, is also consistent with the task force's recommendations that our government seek to limit criminal prosecution for less serious offences and create exclusions for social sharing. The proposed clause allows adults to share cannabis privately and to share up to 30 grams of cannabis in a public place. It exempts young persons from criminal liability for sharing very small amounts, up to 5 grams of cannabis.

It is important to recognize that every province and territory will also enact provincial legislation, which will enable those jurisdictions to enforce an absolute prohibition for the possession, purchase, and consumption of cannabis by a person under the age of majority in those jurisdictions. However, the enforcement of that will result in a provincial offences ticket and not a criminal record for that child, thereby eliminating one of the significant harms the task force and Canadians have recognized can be occasioned upon our young people as a result of enforcement of the current law.

I will discuss momentarily how the penalties proposed in Bill C-45 are already less stringent than the current penalties for cannabis offences under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. Before I do that, I would like to review how clause 9 is designed to operate.

Clause 9 of Bill C-45 provides for the distribution offence. The term "distribute", as defined in clause 2 of the bill, includes administering, giving, transferring, transporting, sending, delivering, providing or otherwise making available in any manner, whether directly or indirectly, and offering to distribute.

Subclause 9(1) sets out prohibitions respecting the distribution of cannabis. Unless authorized under the act, for instance under a license or permit, the legislation would prohibit an adult 18 years of age or older from distributing more than 30 grams of any dried cannabis or its equivalent to another adult, any amount of cannabis to an individual who is under 18 years of age, any cannabis to an organization or any cannabis that he or she knows to be illicit cannabis.

The proposed clause 9 will also prohibit a young person from distributing more than five grams of any dried cannabis or its equivalent to another person or from distributing cannabis to an organization.

Subclause 9(1) includes prohibitions related to the distribution of plants as well as distribution by organizations.

Subclause 9(2) would prohibit the possession of cannabis for the purpose of distributing it contrary to any of the prohibitions described above, and again, unless such possession would be authorized under the act.

The penalties for adults who commit an offence under clause 9 would range from a ticket up to a maximum of 14 years imprisonment, depending entirely on the circumstances. Young persons who offend would be subject to a youth sentence under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The distribution provisions, along with other offence provisions in the proposed cannabis act, represent a marked departure for how cannabis is currently dealt with under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

Whereas most cannabis related offences under the CDSA are straight indictable offences, including the offence of trafficking, which includes most of the activities contained in the new definition of “distribute” under the cannabis act, and are punishable by up to life imprisonment, the criminal offences proposed in Bill C-45 are all what are commonly referred to as “hybrid offences”. This means they can be prosecuted by way of an indictment or as a summary conviction offence. In most cases under the proposed legislation, the maximum penalties, when prosecuted by indictment, will be up to 14 years imprisonment and up to six months imprisonment for prosecution on summary conviction.

It is very helpful for the members to understand that the maximum penalty, up to 14 years, is not for those circumstances that have previously been described as some young person passing a joint to another person who they mistakenly believe to be of age but might be under the age of 18. It is for those offenders and those offences that are deemed to be the worst case. The worst offence would be distribution to a very young child and the worst offender would be a repeat offender, someone who has done it many times.

The maximum penalty in our criminal justice system is deemed to be appropriate for those individuals who are the worst offenders and for those offences which are deemed to be the worst. In an overwhelming majority of circumstances, and certainly in the one described earlier by the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, those would be dealt with in a more appropriate and proportional way by the police, the prosecutors, and the criminal justice system.

I would also point out that the cannabis act proposes, as an alternative to the summary conviction and indictment procedures contained in the Criminal Code, a ticketing scheme for minor violations of certain criminal offences, including some of the distribution offences. This is entirely consistent with what law enforcement asked us in 2013, by its resolution at the CACP convention seeking such a ticketing scheme.

During clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-45, clause 9 was the subject of seven motions to amend, none of which were carried. Several of these clause 9 motions sought to lower the penalties proposed for the distribution offences. One of these motions sought to remove the defence of mistake of fact where the mistake was as to age. These defences are necessary. They ensure that an accused who wants to raise the defence of mistake of fact as to age must show that he or she took reasonable steps to ascertain the age of the young person. Removing these defences would be contrary to the bill's purpose of protecting the health of young persons by restricting their access to cannabis.

The present motion from the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands proposes simply to remove all prohibitions and accompanying penalties. If passed, it will serve to defeat many of the key objectives of Bill C-45, which is to deter illicit activity in relation to cannabis through appropriate sanctions and enforcement measures, and to protect the health of young persons by restricting their access to cannabis.

By removing the offence of distribution, this amendment would allow for the unlimited distribution of cannabis between adults. Perhaps more concerning, it would allow adults to distribute cannabis to young persons under the age of 18.

I urge all hon. members to oppose the amendment. It is contrary to the purposes of Bill C-45. It would create a means whereby children and young persons could legally access cannabis from adults. It would result in what could only be described as a free-for-all in relation to cannabis in Canada. That is not the intent of Bill C-45 and it does not accord with our government's intentions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a question with regard to the possession amount. We know in the bill 12 to 17 year olds are allowed to possess up to five grams. We know that adults over 18 are allowed to possess up to 30 grams. We know that a single dwelling, a single person living in a house, could grow four plants, which could be of any size because there is no limit to that now. We heard testimony at committee that even four plants at 100 metres high could grow up to 600 grams. One could conceivably have quite a number of grams. Therefore, if someone is only allowed to possess 30 grams, or if one is 12 to 17, only five grams, and that person is in his or her house, he or she actually can possess way more than that. I am not sure how that could be reconciled.

Also, I wonder why the member ignored the input of representatives of the police at committee who said they opposed home grow.

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me address the first thing the member said. It was not only completely incorrect, but, with respect, it was also a dangerous thing to say. The law is very clear. Under the cannabis act, we will not be creating a criminal offence for young people between the ages of 12 and 18 to possess cannabis. We have also been crystal clear that a prohibition for the possession, purchase, and the consumption of cannabis will be enforceable through provincial legislation.

We have worked very closely with our provincial and territorial counterparts. We have met with their justice officials and their first ministers. There is a common agreement and understanding that the appropriate level of control to keep cannabis out of the hands of our kids is not to criminalize them, not to give them a criminal record that can have devastating effects on their futures and their outcomes, but rather to enforce that law through provincial regulation, exactly, by the way, as we do with alcohol.

I will simply remind the member opposite, and all members of the House, that every province and territory has a liquor licence act. It contains provisions to prohibit the purchase, possession and consumption of alcohol for persons under the age of majority. That offence is enforceable under the provincial offences act and it does not result in a criminal record. This is the appropriate level of governance to enforce that prohibition.

I am very concerned when a rather misleading statement is made, I am sure completely unintentionally, by the member for Sarnia—Lambton. To leave the impression with young people that the law will allow them to possess is a dangerous proposition. I would remind all young people that there are very serious health and social consequences for the use of cannabis. The possession of that cannabis will be contrary to provincial regulation, which will be enforced.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister Health just pointed out something that was very true. Criminal convictions, particularly for young people, have, in his words, “devastating effects” on their lives. The Prime Minister has admitted to smoking marijuana while he was an elected official. His brother did so and through family connections was not charged. Notwithstanding the fact that the NDP has called on the government to instruct prosecutors under federal jurisdiction to not prosecute Canadians right now for simple possession when a bill will come forward to make that behaviour legal, the government has refused.

If criminal records are so devastating, why is the hon. member and his government so content to let 50,000 Canadians be charged in the last 12 months for simple cannabis possession, which will have devastating effects? Why does the bill not have a single provision that deals with pardoning those people once the bill becomes law?

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway for his very strong contribution to the health committee and the discussions around this issue and this debate.

I pointed out in my earlier remarks that cannabis was a controlled substance. With the passage of Bill C-45, it will remain a controlled substance. We propose to control it through strict regulation rather than criminal law. However, until we have lifted the criminal prohibition and put in place a well-structured framework of strong regulation for the production, distribution, and the consumption of cannabis, until we replace that current prohibition, the law remains in effect so we maintain control.

The member has suggested that we should also deal with issues of record suspension and pardons within this bill. With great respect to the member opposite, there is other legislation. I have heard him speak against omnibus bills, and I am confident he would want us to deal with the cannabis control regulations in this bill separately. If he wanted us to turn to a different discussion on legislation that would control licence suspension and pardons, that would be a discussion for a future date.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start with the general context within which this bill comes before this House. That is that we in Canada, like other states, have spent the better part of the last 150 years pursuing a criminalized and prohibitionist model toward the regulation of cannabis. Colloquially, it is known as the war on drugs, where successive governments have regarded cannabis as a substance that is dangerous and that citizens do not have a right to access, possess, or use in any way. The official policy of successive Liberal and Conservative governments for the last 150 years has been to make it a crime to possess or use cannabis.

We all know, through long experience and reams of data, that this approach to regulating cannabis is a completely failed policy and it failed for a variety of reasons. Some people believe that what folks choose to ingest is fundamentally an individual decision, that as long as it does not affect others, the state really does not have a right to tell citizens what they should or should not put in their body. Others believe that if it is a crime it is a truly victimless crime. If someone chooses to smoke a joint on a Friday night, people have great difficulty regarding that in any way, shape, or form as a crime.

Canadians can legally ingest alcohol or tobacco, both substances that overwhelmingly and demonstrably have more serious adverse health effects when compared to cannabis. Most people have long believed it is an unacceptable contradiction to allow the state to criminalize cannabis while leaving these other substances that are carcinogens and substances that when used exactly as directed can cause death. I want to pause for a moment and speak about one of the most stark moments of testimony heard when we were studying this bill in committee. A person said that people can walk into a liquor store and walk out with a 26-ounce bottle of liquor and there is enough liquor in that bottle to kill them, to kill a child. I do not think we have to remind any members in this House of the effects of tobacco, which is a carcinogen that kills Canadians unacceptably every year.

The other thing that lies behind this context is that, I would argue, every harm associated with illegal drug use stems from the criminalization of the drug use, not the drug itself. That is because people who choose to smoke a joint on a Friday night or have a drink of scotch on a Saturday or share a bottle of wine do not feel that it is inherently a criminal act. There are problems associated with those substances because they are serious substances that have mind-altering properties. Obviously, regulation of these substances is in order. When people have a problem with cannabis and other substances like that, we in the New Democrats do not see that as a criminal justice issue; we see it as a social justice issue. Therefore, when we see a person with a drug problem, we see a health issue or an addictions issue or a poverty issue; we do not see a criminal issue. If experience has taught us anything after spending billions of dollars in Canada and the United States and other jurisdictions to try to stamp out drug use, we know that it does not work. In fact, the statistics before our committee were very clear that Canadian youth are among the first- or second-highest users of cannabis in the world. That is in a context where it is totally criminal and we have life sentences for trafficking in the Criminal Code, so in that context it has not done a darn thing.

Most important, we live in a democracy. The vast majority of Canadians, across party lines I would argue, overwhelmingly see the criminalization of cannabis as an unjustified approach. They want it changed. Last election, some 65% voted for parties that explicitly campaigned on decriminalizing or legalizing cannabis. Even some Conservatives believe, on individual liberty grounds and other such philosophies, that cannabis ought to be legalized. After the 2015 election, Canadians were entitled to assume that their expectation that marijuana would be legalized would finally be enacted. They are disappointed because this act would not legalize cannabis, and I will speak to that in a moment.

When we examine Bill C-45, I would describe it truly as a horse of two colours. On the one hand, it is a definite improvement over the status quo. Finally, Canadians would no longer be criminals simply for possessing and growing small amounts of cannabis. Second, it would create a production and retail market for legal cannabis, albeit highly regulated and controlled by the state.

On the other hand, it is a great disappointment for all those who believed that the Liberal government was going to legalize cannabis, because this bill would not. It would create more cannabis offences than we have at present. It would maintain the criminalized prohibitionist model of cannabis policy, would fail to capture the huge economic potential of cannabis as a sustainable, high-value product worth billions of dollars to our economy, and would be informed by and perpetuate many of the worst, unfounded myths of cannabis. This is truly unfortunate, because the Liberal government had an opportunity and the mandate from the Canadian people to bring in comprehensive legislation based on evidence and science to fix this long-standing social and legal injustice, but it failed to do so.

What would Bill C-45 do? It would allow the personal public possession of cannabis up to 30 grams. It would allow every household to grow up to four cannabis plants, originally limiting it to 100 centimetres in height. It would create a process for those who want to grow cannabis for commercial recreational production to obtain licensing from the federal government, would set the legal age for possessing cannabis at a minimum age of 18 years, and would delegate to the provinces the ability to design the retail distribution model they want to apply in their particular jurisdictions. This bill fails to eliminate criminal penalties for a host of offences, with many subjecting Canadians up to a maximum 14 years of imprisonment.

It would continue to make edibles and concentrates illegal in stark contradiction to the recommendations of the McLellan report and the purpose of the bill, which is explicitly to bring the production of cannabis products outside of the black market and into the licit world. It would prohibit the importing and exporting of recreational cannabis products and perpetuate the discriminatory application of criminalized cannabis laws to the most marginalized Canadians, including poor, racialized, indigenous, and young people. Finally, it fails to deal with pardons for the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who bear convictions for simple possession offences, which, as the Liberal government acknowledges, has devastating consequences for Canadians employment-wise, travel-wise, socially, and economically.

The NDP believes strongly in the legalization of cannabis. In fact, no party in this House has the record of consistency on this issue than the NDP has, working since the 1970s to decriminalize cannabis use in Canada. New Democrats set out to work proactively and positively to examine this bill and improve it. We called the most diverse and informed witnesses before the health committee to obtain the best evidence we could to inform committee members, and we moved 38 amendments at committee to improve this bill. Unfortunately, the Liberals joined with the Conservatives to defeat every single NDP amendment. In fact, it was so bad that the NDP amendment to remove the ridiculous 100-centimetre limit on plant height was voted down by the Liberals, only to have them introduce the identical amendment so they could take credit for passing it. That is okay, progress is progress.

Liberals rejected the NDP amendments to add pardons to this bill. They were ruled outside the scope of the bill. Can anyone imagine ground-breaking cannabis legislation to change 100 years of a criminal approach to cannabis and the Liberals forgot to put in the bill any provision that would allow Canadians with simple possession records, to have at least a streamlined approach to obtain pardons after this bill becomes law? A Canadian could be convicted on June 30, 2018, for simple possession of cannabis for doing exactly the same thing that will be legal on July 1, 2018, and the current government is content with that.

New Democrats want to work proactively with the government and support this bill because it absolutely is an improvement over the status quo, but we will continue to work for legislation that actually reflects the science, the evidence, and the huge economic potential of this.

I will conclude by saying that the restriction on importing and exporting cannabis is absolutely going to hamstring Canadian business. We could be a global leader with first market access with high-quality cannabis products, as the rest of the world comes to the same conclusion that Canada has, which is that criminalizing cannabis is a mistake and poor public policy, and they will be moving to legalize cannabis in their jurisdictions as well. The NDP will continue to work towards those ends.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment]

Mr. Speaker, I have the utmost respect for my friend and colleague across the way, but I must have run in a different election in 2015, because I do not think that there was one issue that made a clearer definition of positions than the marijuana issue. The government's position at the time was very clear: legalize it.

I remember the former Conservative minister of justice at the time, Peter MacKay, saying that marijuana was the currency of organized crime. I thought to myself that he was right, and so we should take it out of their hands and make sure that we know what is in the marijuana on the market.

However, in an article in Maclean's that laid out the positions, it was clear that the NDP had crafted a position between the main rivals and called for decriminalization but not for legalization. Therefore, when the member across says that NDP members have been proponents for legalization, I think he is gilding the lily a little on that. Both the late Jack Layton and former leader, Thomas Mulcair, spoke in favour of decriminalization, but nowhere did they support legalization.

There are other issues around this, yes, but will the member support the bill for legalization?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I would remind members that just because someone is not a leader of a party any more, it does not mean that they are not an MP, and they should be referred to by their riding title and not by their name.

The hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there is so much hypocrisy packed into that question, I do not know where to start.

Since 1972, and the Le Dain commission, the New Democrats have campaigned on decriminalization always as a first step towards legalization, which is what we have always said. My hon. colleague neglected to mention that second step. We have to decriminalize before we can actually legalize, and that is what we thought we would do.

Here is the real hypocrisy. The Liberals, just like their promise on electoral reform, seem to have gone backwards on this. They said they would legalize marijuana, but they will have to explain this to Canadians as soon as this happens. Canadians will start asking them why someone who has 31 grams of marijuana in public would be criminally charged and face 14 years in jail; why someone with five plants, not four plants, would face criminal conviction and would go to jail for that; and why an 18-year-old passing a joint to a 17-year-old would go to jail for that offence.

If cannabis is legal, the Liberals will have to explain to Canadians why Canadians are going to jail under Liberal legislation that promised legalization. I guess that is liberal legalization.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Vancouver Kingsway for his speech and for his work on the health committee.

Does the member think that Bill C-45 meets the stated objectives, which were restricting children from access to cannabis, getting rid of organized crime, reducing the burden on the criminal justice system, and enhancing public awareness of the health risks?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think mostly no.

The purpose in clause 7 is set out to do seven things. One is to remove the criminalized production of cannabis and one is to provide Canadians with a regulated source of cannabis supply. However, the Liberals forgot edibles and concentrates.

Anne McLellan, the former Liberal cabinet minister who chaired the task force to recommend to the government, told the government that it should legalize edibles. Why? It was to take them out of the hands of the black market and make sure that Canadians had access at least to safe, regulated, quality-controlled edible products. The government did not do that. Therefore, once cannabis is legal, Canadians are still going to get edible products produced by the black market. The bill did not meet that purpose.

In terms of education, the government, at the time we studied the bill, had committed $9 million over five years for the education of Canadians on cannabis. Just yesterday, the Liberals announced another, I think, $32 million over five years, bringing us up to about $45 million over five years, which is about $9 million a year. However, we heard from Colorado and Washington State officials at our health committee that this is what they spend every year, $9 million, for populations one-fifth the size of Canada. Therefore, in terms of educating Canadians and especially young people seven months before this becomes law, it is a poor job done by the government.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise to speak in support of Bill C-45, the cannabis act, and the amendments that I and my fellow colleagues on the health committee introduced.

Back in August, I held a town hall in my riding regarding the legalization and regulation of cannabis. Not only am I in support of this legislation, but so are many of my constituents. Teachers, parents, and seniors, groups the loyal opposition regularly lists as being concerned about the legalization of cannabis, have all approached me either at my town hall or by contacting my office about their concerns.

They have concerns that a youth who makes a mistake by possessing a small amount of cannabis may be thrown in prison; concerns that this youth will have to carry a criminal record for the remainder of his or her life and that it will hinder the ability to find employment and lead a regular life; concerns that fellow citizens are unknowingly ingesting products that could be laced with dangerous substances; and concerns that the prohibition of cannabis is not helping to fight drugs but instead allows criminal elements to terrorize communities and profit, just like they did during the American prohibition of alcohol. These are the concerns of my constituents.

As a member of the health committee, I spent several weeks intensely reviewing this legislation. This included a week of back-to-back meetings where we heard testimony from over 100 witnesses. Most of these witnesses were in favour of legalizing and regulating cannabis.

This legislation strikes a balance between addressing the need to end prohibition while addressing the challenges other jurisdictions faced when regulating cannabis.

Bill C-45 would allow an adult to possess up to 30 grams in public, a measure that would ensure that no one would be criminalized for possessing a reasonable amount of cannabis, while ensuring that those who continue to illicitly sell cannabis on the street would be charged.

The legislation would allow home cultivation, with up to four plants per residence, an amount that is within reason for an individual while making it unfeasible for criminal elements to profit. This bill would also protect consumers by implementing industry-wide rules and standards for basic things such as sanitary production requirements, restrictions on the use of unauthorized pesticides, product testing, and restrictions on the use of ingredients and additives. We would create a framework so that Canadians could trust that the products they purchased would be safe and free of dangerous chemicals or substances, without having to take a criminal's word at face value.

As a physician who has spent over 20 years in the emergency room, I have treated patients who unknowingly ingested what they thought was just cannabis. This is indeed a concern worth resolving, and I applaud the government's commitment to the health and safety of Canadians.

This legislation would also protect youth by creating a framework for a minimum age of purchase of 18, through licensed retailers; requiring childproof packaging and warning labels; and providing for public education and awareness campaigns about the dangers associated with cannabis.

I will add that yesterday the government announced a new investment of $36.4 million over the next five years for an education and awareness campaign. This investment is in addition to the funding announced in budget 2017, bringing the total investment in education and awareness to $46 million.

The act would also prohibit products or packaging that were appealing to youth; selling cannabis through a self-service display or vending machine; and promoting cannabis, except in the narrowest of circumstances where the promotion could not be seen by a young person.

This act would also create two new criminal convictions to protect youth by making it illegal to give or sell cannabis to a youth and to use a youth to commit a cannabis-related offence. This bill also has a provision that would protect youth who made a mistake when in possession of five grams of cannabis or less to ensure that they would not carry a criminal record for the rest of their lives.

I want take a moment to address the notion raised by the opposition that we are normalizing cannabis use among youth. The truth is that cannabis use in Canada has already been normalized. With the second highest rate of youth usage in the world, it is obvious that the current system does not work. We need to stop focusing on a prohibitionist model for cannabis, hoping to get a different result in the future. We need to use an evidence-based approach that restricts access to youth while removing the financial incentives that embolden criminal elements.

I would like to touch on another item the opposition regularly states, which is that vehicle collisions and fatalities in jurisdictions that have legalized recreational cannabis have increased. This statement is incorrect. While statistics before and after legalization indicate an increase in impaired driving, public safety officials in the states of Washington and Colorado are in agreement that this apparent increase was the result of improved detection methods.

In a letter from the Governor and the Attorney General of the State of Washington addressed to Attorney General Jeff Sessions, they wrote:

...several of the statistics quoted in your letter on the increasing incidence of marijuana DUIs are distorted by the fact that the testing regime has changed with state legalization. Any amount of drugged driving and collisions is too high. Prior to marijuana legalization, blood testing for THC at suspected DUI traffic stops was substantially less common. Consequently, comparable statistics do not exist.

Additionally, in a letter from the Governor and Attorney General of Colorado, again to Attorney General Jeff Sessions, they stated that they have enacted new laws, giving state and local law enforcement additional tools to prosecute individuals driving under the influence of marijuana, and have significantly increased the number of law enforcement officers who are trained to detect drug-impaired driving, allowing the state to identify and detain more individuals who are driving impaired than previously. More importantly, they wrote that the number of impaired drivers went down. The letter states:

In the first six months of 2017, the number of drivers the Colorado State Patrol considered impaired by marijuana dropped 21 percent compared to the first six month of 2016.

If the House wishes, I can table these two letters from Washington and Colorado for review.

It is evident that any amount of impaired driving or collisions is too high, and that is why I am pleased that the government is progressing with Bill C-46 in an effort to address and curtail impaired driving. It has also committed up to $161 million to train front-line officers in how to recognize the signs and symptoms of drug-impaired driving, to provide access to drug-screening devices, and to raise public awareness about the dangers of drug-impaired driving.

In May of this year, I had the honour of rising and speaking in favour of this legislation at second reading. Since then, the legislation has been amended by my fellow colleagues and I on the health committee. Many were technical elements to strengthen the bill, but there were several amendments of consequence as a result of our witness testimony during our intensive review.

One of the more consequential amendments made was the removal of height restrictions on cannabis plants for home cultivation so that no one who let a plant accidentally overgrow would be deemed a criminal. Additionally, the legislation was amended to ensure that it was in line with the Good Samaritan Drug Overdose Act, which was introduced by my fellow health committee colleague, the member from Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, and which I was proud to second, to ensure that an individual who committed a cannabis-related offence would not be charged if he or she called the police or medical services to report an overdose.

I should add that I was disheartened when the Conservative members on the committee unanimously voted against this amendment that would save lives.

Additionally, our committee amended the legislation to ensure that edibles and concentrates would be entered under schedule 4 of the legislation as a class of cannabis that an authorized person could sell. It would be entered by either an order in council or a clause that would allow it to come into force on the first anniversary of the day on which clause 33 came into force. Essentially, this would ensure that edibles and concentrates would be legalized and properly regulated within a one-year time frame of when this legislation was enacted.

Given the transformative nature of this legislation, our committee introduced an amendment to require the minister to conduct a review of the act after three years and to table a report before Parliament. This would enable us, as parliamentarians, to determine if changes to the legislation were necessary to ensure the protection of public health and safety.

Our committee also amended clause 139 to provide the Governor in Council with the authority to make regulations that would restrict the characteristics of certain items, set limits on the amount or concentration of chemical compounds, and ensure that regulated products under the legislation would be consistent with the provisions found in Bill S-5.

The opposition has been constantly counting down to remind us how many days until legalization and have today reminded us that it is 243 days. While I am glad that my colleagues across the aisle can count backwards on a calendar, I think we should look at it in a different way.

In 243 days, we can end a system that victimizes ordinary Canadians and emboldens criminal elements in our society. In 243 days, we can end a system that ruins lives through lost opportunities and social stigma. In 243 days, we can end a system that should never have been put in place.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Scarborough Southwest said he did not want to mislead people, but then he did mislead people.

If we have an apartment building, with maybe 100 units, that could mean 400 plants. Under the Criminal Code, and under law in Canada, one's dwelling is one's dwelling. The member said that the municipality or the province could change that rule. That is not correct.

Would the member like to comment on that?

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

Mr. Speaker, municipalities have the right to make rules regarding real estate, and if they wish, could make such laws.

I should add that many of these dangers with respect to large units are suppositions. When I asked a member of the Ontario Provincial Police at the health committee, who surmised exactly that number, a 400-unit block that might have 200 units growing cannabis, what information had been used to make that supposition, the answer was that he had no facts to back that statement up.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and for his knowledge on this matter.

He was very involved in the study of this so-called legalization of marijuana bill, if I can call it that. My colleague mentioned that the possession of more than 30 grams of marijuana will be an offence under the Criminal Code, and that anyone in possession of more than the limit set by the government will be liable to imprisonment. This is the equivalent of saying that being in possession of more than 100 litres of alcohol is a crime. Fortunately, this topic is not being discussed here, since we do not want to go back to prohibition days.

I would like to know whether the government plans on fixing this flaw at a later date and to truly legalize marijuana.

Does my colleague think that marijuana is truly being legalized, when there is still a Criminal Code offence for marijuana possession?

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

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my speech, this is subject to review in three years. We have been advised by many jurisdictions that it is best to provide it in a stepwise pattern.

One of the things we are addressing is making legal a substance that is illegal, and one of the problems is that there is a substantial black market. We need to put firm criminal penalties on those who might be dealing. Thirty grams is a limit that someone might reasonably carry without dealing. One might say that this is arbitrary, but every criminal offence such as this has a limit. If I am driving a vehicle and my blood alcohol level is 0.079, I am within the law. If I am at 0.08, I am now a criminal. This is similar, and we must set these rules. Again, this is subject to review, and if we find that in the interest of public safety this needs to be changed, it can be.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with other members to share my personal experience and what it has shown me, as well as what experts have told many members of the House, which is that the decision to legalize marijuana is being rushed and that it is the people of Canada who will pay the price.

I support efforts to decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana, which would free up our courts and reduce the law enforcement resources otherwise required, and prevent persons with minor possession offences receiving a criminal record. Those minor offences could be dealt with by way of a provincial procedures act ticket and a fine. However, legalizing marijuana is a move in the wrong direction, in my opinion.

As I have said before, it is the top priority of members of the House and elected officials everywhere to place the safety and security of Canadians first. I expect nothing less of my colleagues on either side of the House.

Instead of helping, the bill would place an extra burden on provinces, municipalities, and police agencies. It could potentially allow organized crime to use legitimate licensing for trafficking. It would put the health and safety of Canadians at risk. It would jeopardize the development of our youth. It would increase the mental health of those who are most at risk and, subsequently, the demand on mental health services. In addition to these problems, there will be significant red tape and taxes, a theme of the current government as it makes life more difficult for the middle class and those working hard not to leave it.

I would like to address a few of the public misconceptions about marijuana before I address the government's misaligned agenda. Canadians often believe that marijuana impacts users much like alcohol. However, in speaking with experts, we know that marijuana takes seconds to impact the brain. The user feels and exhibits the effects immediately. That means that impairment can begin seconds after use. The peak effects are reached within 10 to 30 minutes. Marijuana users feel and exhibit the effects of marijuana for two to three hours. They feel normal again after three to six hours. However, when that feeling ends, unlike alcohol, the impact of the drug continues. It can take up to 24 hours for the effects of marijuana to stop impacting critical functions, depending on the strength of the THC in the drug and the frequency of use.

What are those critical functions? First, obviously, marijuana use is dangerous, as the user or others interacting with them do not recognize the impairment. Marijuana use has an impact on the complex system of critical thinking skills and reflexes. It impairs perceptions, like balance, motor coordination, reaction times, and it narrows the vision. It also delays decision-making. All of these things would have a broad-ranging negative impact on everyday life in Canada.

I asked my constituents for feedback on this issue over the summer. The results were overwhelmingly opposed. Eighty per cent of my constituents surveyed opposed legalization, 73% saw it as a threat to our public safety, and 75% said it would be an added cost to taxpayers in the years to come.

Listening to my constituents and the evidence of experts, I know that voting against the bill is the right thing to do. Many in my riding and across the country question the government's decision to rush the legislation forward, given that the Canadian Police Association and many others are urging patience and preparation. It would seem reasonable that good policy-making would make sure that all the necessary tools and research were in place first before moving forward, and yet we hear loud and clear from the police, provinces, and municipalities that they are just not ready.

The government has failed to address numerous issues around policing and how this legislation would work. First is the issue of how officers would manage drivers impaired by drugs such as marijuana. The chiefs of police have noted that 6,000 officers would require a three-phase training program that could take up to 100 days to complete, and yet there is not nearly enough time to complete all of that training before next July.

We know today what the legal limits and impacts of impairment related to alcohol are, and there are clear guidelines and testing for that. However, we do not have a clear idea of the impact of marijuana. With the potential 24-hour period in which impairment could exist, how will testing take place at roadside? There are a limited number of officers and equipment that could be deployed, if we have detection that is going to be court approved.

What if drivers have consumed both alcohol and marijuana? As experts pointed out to me, they may be able to pass a drug test and an alcohol test, but the two substances combined will mean significant impairment. In fact, smoking marijuana can increase impairment by 28% when combined with alcohol.

As pointed out by the Insurance Institute of Canada, there are disconnects been drug-impaired driving arrests and convictions. There is a precedent. An Ontario man was recently acquitted twice of drug-impaired driving because the evidence was deemed inadmissible. Consequently, police need time and equipment to get ready for legalization. We need research to know what the limits should be and how the testing needs to be accomplished. The risks are real. Thanks to the statistics from Mothers Against Drunk Driving, we know there were more roadside fatalities due to drugs than to alcohol in 2012, but almost all convictions remain alcohol related.

Canadians are left to wonder if insurance companies are ready for the challenges and their customers are ready for the increased fees. Legalization would most certainly impact business, automotive, and private health care coverage. Drunk drivers face an immediate cancellation of their policy. We can guess the same may be true for marijuana users, but do users and insurers know about this drug's 24-hour impact, including impairment? In workplaces, would an accident caused by a worker impaired by marijuana impact the owner's personal liabilities? Would a workplace accident mean that the company could not get insurance any more or would have to pay hefty premiums? If marijuana is legal, can workers be punished for being high at work? Has the government thought through these ramifications and potentially increased costs for Canadians?

Most Canadians would be surprised to learn that the government has listed protecting youth as a reason for advocating and advancing this legislation. Governments have worked for over three generations to reduce smoking, a major killer in Canada. Recently, the use of marijuana by youth between the ages of 15 and 24 has dropped to 24%, yet today we are introducing access and conditions to allow more youth to use this addictive substance.

Changing the law to allow households to grow their own marijuana would undermine the government's intent of limiting access by youth. Putting plants in homes provides an opportunity for easy use. Allowing youth aged 12 to 17 to possess less than five grams of marijuana, which is 10 joints, would make it easier for them to acquire and possess the drug. To suggest that access would drop seems absolutely ludicrous. For youth aged 12 to 17, possession should be zero, not up to five grams. Marijuana is addictive and its use is linked to increased psychotic illness in those who are vulnerable. By making it accessible and readily available to our youth, we would decrease the possibility for success of our next generation. Can we learn nothing from today's opioid crisis? Teenagers are being hurt and killed by the illegal manufacture and distribution of this substance. How would legalization help our youth today?

Finally, I need to comment on the government's commitment to shift money away from organized crime by legalizing marijuana. Tackling organized crime does not involve making the criminals' activities legal and regulated. Legalizing gambling did not eliminate the mafia in Nevada and it did not stop the Hell's Angels in Canada from obtaining a permit to grow marijuana here and then sell it illegally. These are not simple, small organizations. They are complex and multinational, with extensive resources. To quote the government's own 2016 documents:

As the experiences of other jurisdictions and of the regulation of alcohol and tobacco in Canada have shown, regulating a substance does not automatically remove it from illicit markets as evidenced by importation and sales of contraband tobacco.... Given the degree to which organized crime is currently involved in the marijuana market, they could continue to produce marijuana illicitly and may attempt to infiltrate a regulated industry.

In conclusion, the government has said it is embarking on this path of legalizing marijuana to protect our youth, reduce the burden on the justice system, and reduce the flow of organized crime and money. The testimony and evidence suggest this bill would fail to deliver on all of these objectives. The question remains, will the government listen to the many groups pointing to the clear problems? Will it listen to police and to its own officials? Will it listen to those in the communities saying this is a bad idea?

It is rushing the process and it goes against the recommendations of police and medical professionals. It is our youth, our most vulnerable population, who would pay the price because of the current government's incompetence.

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have to say I am a bit confused. If I understood my hon. colleague's basic presentation, the status quo should remain. Right now, marijuana is ubiquitous in our society. Our youth are some of the heaviest users of marijuana in the developed world, so in his own riding right now people are driving drug-impaired, people are consuming cannabis whose source and contaminants they do not know, and the police are under-trained and under-equipped to deal with these problems. Our government has committed $274 million to support law enforcement, including $161 million for training front-line officers to solve these problems today. We are investing significantly in education to make sure that youth understand the risks and the hazards of marijuana use, and we are taking active steps to get marijuana out of the hands of youth.

Why would the member be so happy with the status quo when there are known abusers in his own community?