THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, March 22, 2018
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs met this day at 10:30 a.m. to give consideration to the subject matter of those elements contained in Parts 1, 2, 8, 9 and 14 of Bill C-45, the Cannabis Act.
Senator Serge Joyal (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning, honourable senators. I welcome you to the second session of the study of Bill C-45.
[Translation]
We continue our consideration of the bill on cannabis and amending the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Act and other acts. This morning, we are pleased to welcome the officials from Public Safety Canada.
[English]
It’s my pleasure to welcome Trevor Bhupsingh, who is a familiar face to our work. We are happy to welcome you this morning, along with Ms. Rachel Huggins and Kimberly Lavoie. Good morning. We also have, from the RCMP, Chief Superintendent Dennis Daley. Good morning.
[Translation]
We also welcome Superintendent Yves Goupil, Director of Federal Policing Criminal Operations, Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Thank you for being here and for accepting our invitation to take part in our work.
[English]
I will now invite Mr. Bhupsingh to present opening remarks.
Trevor Bhupsingh, Director General, Law Enforcement and Border Strategies, Public Safety Canada: Good morning, Chair, and thank you for this opportunity to speak to the committee on this very important issue today. I’m here with my colleagues, Ms. Kimberly Lavoie and Miss Rachel Huggins, who work in our Drug Policy Division at Public Safety Canada. We are here today to answer the questions of the committee about our respective organization’s role in relation to Bill C-45.
The government’s approach to the legalization and regulation of cannabis has focused on ensuring that the necessary law enforcement and public safety dimensions are incorporated into the legislation and are informing the development of the regime that will be put in place to regulate cannabis.
Bill C-45 reflects the collaborative work that has been accomplished by Health Canada, the Department of Justice, Public Safety Canada, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Canada Border Services Agency, along with provincial and territorial governments and law enforcement stakeholders.
[Translation]
Public Safety Canada has taken a leadership role in working with law enforcement from across the country, and with our international partners, to ensure that the legalization and regulation of cannabis is accomplished with a public safety lens. To support the work of the Cannabis Task Force, Public Safety Canada held a roundtable discussion on the legalization of cannabis with law enforcement and provincial and territorial government representatives.
[English]
The discussions provided clear direction on the elements and the perspectives that required consideration and which needed to be reflected in the cannabis act and the legalization regime. This information was provided to the task force and helped guide their consultations with law enforcement and other Canadian stakeholders.
The law and border enforcement community recognizes that a legalized cannabis regime needs to protect public health and safety, and particularly our youth. Public Safety Canada and its partners, including the RCMP and the CBSA, have focused on several key objectives in the development of the bill: to keep criminals and organized crime networks from infiltrating the legal cannabis market, strengthening laws to reduce the cannabis black market and protecting youth, as I mentioned.
[Translation]
Legalizing cannabis is a significant change in social norms and we know that cannabis has been a very lucrative commodity for criminals. This needs to change. The RCMP and law enforcement across the country can attest to the fact that organized crime has been heavily involved in the illicit cannabis market, making significant profits which are used to fund other illegal activities. There are estimates that up to 50 per cent of identified organized crime groups are currently involved in the cannabis black market.
It is difficult to fully anticipate how organized crime and the illicit market will react once the cannabis regime comes into effect. Organized crime involvement in any commodity or activity can change as supply and demand shifts and the opportunity for profit is affected.
[English]
However, much work is under way to keep cannabis profits out of the hands of organized crime. Public Safety Canada is supporting other federal departments that are leading discussions on cannabis taxation and pricing. These are important aspects to help ensure that projected revenues from the production, distribution and sale do not flow to organized crime. As the new regime is built, requirements under the act, such as criminal record checks for those who want to produce cannabis, will assist in keeping criminals presently operating in illicit cannabis from moving into the legal regime.
The RCMP, federal policing and other Canadian enforcement will continue to work nationally and with international partners to target organized crime and criminal networks. Public Safety Canada will support these efforts by monitoring change in the illegal drug markets.
Regarding border security, the CBSA, the Canada Border Services Agency, currently interdicts the unauthorized cross-border movement of cannabis at Canada’s ports of entry, while maintaining the free flow of legitimate travel and trade. The new legislation will maintain the existing cross-border framework with respect to the illegal movement of cannabis. As such, the CBSA will continue to examine travellers and goods for cannabis at ports of entry, pursuant to the Customs Act.
The agency will continue to work closely with law enforcement partners, such as the RCMP and local policing agencies, who are responsible for pursuing investigations pursuant to the new cannabis act. As part of the act, the agency will facilitate traveller processing and effective customs and immigration enforcement at the border and develop awareness tools, including signage at ports of entry, to alert travellers of their requirements to declare cannabis when entering Canada.
The CBSA will also develop a penalty regime for unauthorized cross-border criminal activity related to cannabis. They’ll also invest in their laboratory capacity, to keep pace with increases in referrals for analysis of seized substances.
In addition, CBSA will be leading a border-specific communications approach, targeted at key players, such as travellers and stakeholders, to inform them about the border-related rules associated with cannabis. For example, CBSA’s digital strategy will include communicating relevant information to Canadians and visitors to Canada on social media and relevant Government of Canada websites. Canadians will be reminded that cannabis and cannabis products are illegal under federal law in the United States, and Canadians who wish to enter the United States or any other country must adhere to all local laws when attempting to gain entry into a foreign country. Every country has a right to make decisions on admissibility.
[Translation]
Awareness measures are essential in informing the traveling public of the continued prohibition of the cross-border movement of cannabis, which will mitigate the risk of unintentional violations of border-related laws.
It is important to note that the proposed Cannabis Act does not impede law enforcement’s ability to target and dismantle illegal cannabis operations. The bill sends a strong message about the seriousness of crimes involving cannabis. For example, the maximum penalties for criminal offences under the proposed act for producing, distributing, selling, and importing and exporting cannabis can result in up to 14 years of imprisonment.
[English]
Another very important objective for the government is that Public Safety Canada and the law enforcement community will work to support efforts to better protect youth. The act proposes restricting access to cannabis for youth and deterring unlawful activities with cannabis through appropriate sanctions and enforcement measures. Adults who use youth to commit a cannabis crime would face the same 14 years maximum penalty as those who illegally sell or traffic cannabis.
Further, provinces and territories have the ability to establish their own provisions to prohibit persons possessing any amount of cannabis under the minimum age. This would also give police the authority to seize cannabis from youth, while not subjecting them to criminal prosecution for possessing and sharing very small amounts of cannabis.
Through this initiative, the government has invested in public education and an awareness campaign to inform Canadians, particularly young people, of the health and safety risks of cannabis use, as well as to fund surveillance activities.
As part of the public education and awareness campaign, Public Safety Canada will communicate the new laws and the enforcement framework to police and all Canadians through a range of communication activities — for instance, online training for law enforcement, and leveraging media and social media opportunities with relevant partners. The department is currently working with the RCMP and the Department of Justice to develop information packages and training materials on the new legislation. These materials are already under development and will be finalized should the bill receive Royal Assent.
The department is leveraging partnership opportunities with provinces and territories and non-government organizations, such as the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, to establish networks to disseminate details and inform Canadians of the laws and regulations. Public Safety Canada will also be undertaking research activities related to cannabis to inform operational law enforcement efforts. This includes developing new indicators and collecting baseline data on organized crime in conjunction with Health Canada and the Department of Justice.
To conclude, chair, we are working to support law enforcement to implement and operationalize the new legislation. Thank you for the opportunity today, and we are happy to respond to any questions you may have.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your introductory remarks, Mr. Bhupsingh. It’s my pleasure now to invite Chief Superintendent Dennis Daley. He is the Director General of Criminal Operations, Community Aboriginal Policing.
Chief Superintendent Dennis Daley, Director General Criminal Operations, Community Aboriginal Policing, Royal Canadian Mounted Police: Good morning, Mr. Chair, and members of the committee. Thank you for inviting me here today, alongside my colleagues, to discuss the Royal Canadian Mounted Police’s enforcement role in relation to Bill C-45, the proposed Cannabis Act. I am Chief Superintendent, responsible for the RCMP’s contract Aboriginal policing services, National Criminal Operations Section. My colleague is Superintendent Yves Goupil, Director of Serious and Organized Crime in the RCMP’s federal policing services. I’d also like to recognize Sergeant Ray Moos, the RCMP National Drug Recognition Expert Coordinator.
Combatting organized crime has been a long-standing priority for the RCMP and the RCMP’s federal policing services in particular. The Criminal Intelligence Service of Canada, which is stewarded by the RCMP, develops reports regarding criminality in Canada, including on organized crime groups involved in aspects of the illicit cannabis market. These criminal groups and networks operate across Canada and are involved in all aspects of the cannabis distribution chain, including production, exportation and trafficking. While much of the cannabis produced in Canada is for domestic consumption, it is also illegally exported around the world. These activities have the potential to provide large returns, with the funds used to fuel other illicit activities that organized crime groups are involved in, such as fraud, trafficking in firearms and other illicit drugs.
The RCMP is working closely with the Canadian law enforcement community and government partners to establish regulatory regimes to help to mitigate criminal involvement in the legal cannabis regime. Collaboration with the RCMP’s law enforcement partners and other stakeholders will continue.
From a front-line perspective, the RCMP provides policing services under contract to all provinces and territories in Canada, except Ontario and Quebec, and over 150 municipalities. The RCMP will also continue to work with partners and stakeholders in contract jurisdictions to ensure the continued safety and security of communities once cannabis is legalized, including in relation to drug-impaired driving.
Crime prevention is a core element of the RCMP’s mandate. In keeping with this, the RCMP continues to conduct outreach and awareness activities with Canadians, including with youth and Indigenous communities.
Thank you again for inviting Superintendent Goupil and me here today to discuss the proposed Cannabis Act, including as it relates to organized crime. We would be happy to answer your questions.
The Chair: Thank you, Superintendent Daley.
[Translation]
Superintendent Goupil, would you like to add some comments or would you rather answer questions right away?
Superintendent Yves Goupil, Director, Federal Policing Criminal Operations, Royal Canadian Mounted Police: No, Mr. Chair. We are ready to answer questions if you are ready to ask them.
Senator Boisvenu: Thank you very much, esteemed guests. You seem to be so far away this morning. Thank you very much for your very interesting presentations. I asked Minister Goodale for information when he attended the hearings on Bill C-46 to find out how many RCMP detachments have evaluating officers 24 hours a day. The department was supposed to send us this information, but we received nothing. Can someone from the department ensure that we receive the information? This is very important to us because it shows us the extent to which the RCMP is prepared to deal with the implementation of Bill C-46, among other things. I want to make sure this request gets back to us quickly.
I do not know whether my first question is for the RCMP or Public Safety Canada. On page 4 of the Public Safety Canada official’s speech, it says:
the need to keep criminals and organized crime network from infiltrating the legal cannabis market;
What we are finding out through the media is that 40 per cent of investments in production firms in Quebec comes from tax havens, meaning that it is illegal money that has not been subject to the Canadian tax system. We know that the profits will go back to tax havens.
In order to achieve the objective of ensuring that organized crime does not get in through the back door to infiltrate legal production, will the RCMP investigate this information from the Quebec media, according to which 40 per cent of the investments in production in Quebec come from tax havens?
Mr. Goupil: Thank you for your question. Like you, I have seen the media coverage on companies that have invested in Canada or have applied for licences to grow.
There is a slight difference. Yes, organized crime uses tax havens, but not all companies or people who use tax havens are necessarily criminals. In the United States, for example, some people will register a company in a tax haven simply to hide their identity. Often, for perception purposes, people will hide behind corporate secrecy in order to invest in other companies. There are also teachers’ unions in the United States that want to enjoy the benefits of investing in a cannabis production company while hiding for perception purposes.
That being said, yes, there are organized crime groups that will certainly use tax havens or even so-called beneficial ownership, where they are hiding behind corporate secrecy to invest and get licences to produce cannabis.
Senator Boisvenu: Superintendent Goupil, everyone knows that tax havens are also used by organized crime in Quebec to launder money. People who sell drugs illegally will launder that money in tax havens. It is therefore possible that this money will come back to Quebec through the legal marijuana industry.
Now that the RCMP is aware of this scenario, does it intend to investigate those companies that may have received an operating licence through illegal investments? I am not saying that they are criminals, but it is illegal money that has bypassed the Canadian tax system. Do you intend to investigate those companies that want to market legal cannabis with illegal money?
Mr. Goupil: Yes, if there is crime or an appearance of criminality, if there is credible information, investigations will be launched, whether for money laundering or any other form of crime. We do so right now, be it for cocaine trafficking or any other offence, including money laundering or proceeds of crime. We start an investigation depending on our information.
Senator Boisvenu: Before turning to Senator Dupuis, I have a question for the officials from Public Safety Canada. On page 11 of your brief, you say that the bill proposes restricting access to cannabis for youth in order to deter unlawful activities. How can you say that, when the bill will allow youth between the ages of 12 and 17 to possess and distribute 5 grams of marijuana? How do you achieve the goal of protecting children if they are allowed to possess marijuana?
[English]
Mr. Bhupsingh: Yes, I think what the proposed bill attempts to do is to set a limit of five grams for possession for use. In discussions that I’ve heard in this committee —
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: But we are talking about children aged 12 to 17 years. In your document, how can you say that you want to prevent the use of marijuana among young people when the bill allows them to possess 5 grams when they are 12?
[English]
Mr. Bhupsingh: The bill is proposing to allow the flexibility of provinces to bring that level down to zero. There was great discussion yesterday in the committee about federal-provincial balance. I think the best way to answer that question is that the Criminal Code and a bill such as the proposed Cannabis Act we consider to be a very heavy hammer. I think we were trying to allow the provinces the ability to look at their jurisdictions and to be able to contribute to the existing or the proposed bill and to close that gap.
Senator Sinclair: On a point of order, the witness never did get to answer the first question by the senator. I wonder if he would be allowed to answer.
The Chair: Mr. Bhupsingh, could you come back on the first question of Senator Boisvenu?
Mr. Bhupsingh: The first question I think he had was a point of information sharing. I have taken down the question that was asked of the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. I will ensure through you, Chair, that that information is provided to the committee.
The second question I believe was around tax havens. I really don’t have other commentary around the comments that my colleague from the RCMP provided other than to say that there are a number of existing tools available to law enforcement, including the national security review where the Canadian government can look at any organization that has a direct investment in Canada. I think that would allow the RCMP to pursue investigations.
There are a couple of other important things happening that the committee may or may not be aware of. Parliament is having discussions in terms of looking at some of the financial implications for beneficial ownership, for example, that are being put forward that would allow some of the haziness or opaqueness and increase the level of transparency in terms of who actually owns some of these companies and where these foreign investments are coming from. I know these discussions are happening. We are hopeful that there will be improved tools around increased transparency for beneficial ownership.
Finally, there is an important aspect to tax havens that are mentioned in terms of a source, where the international community is also making strides, I think, in facilitating the exchange of tax information. I know that the Canada Revenue Agency is investigating the tax compliance of firms in offshore tax havens. Those are pretty detailed discussions that are happening. I’m not a tax expert, but I would just suggest that if you were interested in gaining more information, our colleagues from the Canada Revenue Agency or colleagues from Finance could speak to both those issues in greater detail.
[Translation]
Senator Dupuis: My question is for both the official from Public Safety Canada and the official from the RCMP. Thank you both for being here today.
Mr. Bhupsingh, in your remarks, you said that the RCMP can testify that organized crime has been heavily involved in the illegal cannabis market. Mr. Daley, in your presentation, you say the following about organized crime:
These criminal groups and networks operate across Canada, and are involved in all aspects of the cannabis distribution chain, including production, exportation, and trafficking.
My question is this. The Task Force on Cannabis Legalization recommended that the government review the designated persons system with a view to removing that category. Those people have a licence to grow cannabis for someone who is sick and uses cannabis for medical purposes. According to the information that was brought to the attention of the task force, this system of designated persons who grow cannabis would be used either as a route of entry or exit for the illicit market. From a public safety perspective, does the government intend to eliminate this category? And from the RCMP’s point of view, can you elaborate on the fact that organized crime is involved in all aspects of the chain? Are you talking about the illicit chain and the chain that became legal for medical use?
[English]
Mr. Bhupsingh: I think the senator’s question is focusing on the medical regime and the designated category for growers, as I understand the question. I would just say, as part of this particular bill, the bill is allowing for new powers in terms of disclosure of those individuals, such as financial records by companies, et cetera. I know that there are discussions going on around the medical regime and the security reviews that are taking place for the licensing arrangements in order to strengthen that. I really can’t speak to the connections of the licensees and the holders and the connections to organized crime. I’m just not in a position to speak to that. I don’t really have a lot of information.
[Translation]
Mr. Goupil: To answer the first part of the question on organized crime in the production process, from growth to import, not a lot of cannabis is imported into Canada. It is quite the opposite. There have been many cases of exports, but organized crime is very present at all stages, because there was no legal model for it. Whether in Quebec, Ontario or New Brunswick, there are a lot of cannabis grow ops. Sales to the United States have declined significantly in recent years. Organized crime was involved then too and, to a certain extent, it took care of the distribution to the various regions of Canada. Yes, organized crime is involved. About 40 per cent of the identified organized crime groups in Canada are involved in the cannabis market. They are involved in all areas where there is money to be made. They can sell cannabis and chemical drugs, and be involved in prostitution. I hope that answers the first part of your question.
As for the medical regime, you will understand, I cannot really go into the details. But, yes, there are charges before the courts. There is the example of a company — or individuals — that apparently obtained a licence to produce 900 cannabis plants. When we had the information, search warrants were issued and it was discovered that, in some cases, there were 16,000 plants. So there was an overproduction. We lay charges in cases like that. Often, those people are associated with organized crime. They may have been licenced because there was no known criminal record or criminal affiliation, but it happened somewhere along the way. It can also happen after the fact. A person can receive a licence and then be approached by organized crime, asking them to produce another 1,000 plants. It is often in rural areas. There are cases before the courts, but I cannot comment any further. Yes, that has happened, and we investigate according to our mandate.
[English]
Senator Eaton: To follow up on my colleague Senator Boisvenu’s question and the one I asked yesterday, if it’s not illegal — and I know you’ve said that the provinces can change it — for a 17-year-old or 18-year-old to have up to five grams of cannabis, where are they buying it?
Mr. Bhupsingh: I don’t think anybody would deny that youth are currently accessing cannabis through an illicit marketplace. We have one of the highest usages of youth use of cannabis in the world, so I don’t think anyone would deny the fact that youth are accessing through the black market.
What Bill C-45 attempts to do is to lay the groundwork to try and—
Senator Eaton: Mr. Bhupsingh, I don’t mean to be rude, but I heard Mr. Costen yesterday and he said we don’t lay the heavy hammer of the law on them. I would have thought Superintendent Daley and any policeman would use, according to the law, their sense of discretion. If they walked into a high school and they found a kid with four tokes in his pocket, they simply throw the tokes in the garbage and give the kid a warning and goodbye. But aren’t we encouraging?I won’t continue this line of questioning, but I was just interested to hear you say, “Of course they will have to buy it illegally on the black market, unless they are taking it out of their mother’s garden,” which is a whole other question of parental supervision.
Could I ask you one more question? I understand that one plant grown indoors, and I’m no gardener, can produce 150 grams, while one plant grown outdoors can produce up to 500 grams per plant of dried cannabis. That’s up to 1,500 joints for a single outdoor plant, and you’re allowed four of them. Is this not going to create new challenges for you?
Mr. Daley: The enforcement of the proposed cannabis act does, with home cultivation, provide some amount of challenge. It’s something that currently, from a frontline resource avenue, we are enforcing.
Quite often, our officers receive information with respect to the reason somebody is growing within a house. Quite often it’s trafficking related. So our investigations, from the frontline perspective, tend to look at more the peripheral activity going on, such as the trafficking, and through the use of police techniques such as simple surveillance, information that we gather from neighbours and that sort of thing, leads us to then effect an investigation with respect to trafficking. So that is currently going on, and that will—
Senator Eaton: What do you think of provinces that are going to ban homegrown marijuana? Would that make it easier for you if I wasn’t allowed to have four plants on my terrace growing in the sun?
Mr. Daley: My role as a law enforcement officer is not to — I don’t make the law. My role is to simply enforce.
Senator Eaton: I’m asking, would it be easier?
Mr. Daley: I do encourage a limit set by laws because the idea is that policing works very well when we have clear enforcement guidelines that we can follow. Again, my role is to enforce the law. It’s not my role to make comment on yes or no as far as what the federal government or provincial governments decide to do. The RCMP will be ready when the proposed law comes into force, and that’s what we’re concentrating on.
Senator Batters: I know that Public Safety Canada did a small social media campaign on marijuana legalization recently. I saw one of the components of your public safety department social media campaign last month. Your Public Safety Canada Twitter feed had this tweet that I printed out on February 20. It has a picture of a cherry pie and it says:
Roses are red, so is cherry pie. Friendly reminder: don’t drive high. #Don’tDriveHigh #CherryPieDay #RhymeTime.
I frankly really hope that your government will have a much more effective social media campaign than this. I don’t know who is supposed to be influenced by that particular post.
What I’m wondering is: Who developed your social media campaign? Do you have someone, like some of the other government departments we’ve heard about recently who have a person solely to do their Twitter feed that is paid in the realm of $100,000 a year? Do you have a contract with a private company for your social media campaign? What company is it? What are the costs involved? And if it is with a private company, was that a sole source or a competitive bid?
The Chair: Mr. Bhupsingh, are you able to take all the questions?
Mr. Bhupsingh: I’m going to actually turn it to our expert in Public Safety who has been dealing with our communications and public awareness campaign to answer the honourable senator’s questions on the campaign.
Rachel Huggins, Manager, Policy Development, Public Safety Canada: The awareness program at Public Safety that’s focused on drug-impaired driving and cannabis has been robust. We do have an outside contract with a company that is helping us develop the campaign, particularly the piece that was launched by the minister in November around the commercial. We can definitely get you the name of the company. We do understand that it was done in consultation with Health Canada and the awareness messaging that they are doing. We have a number of activities going on at the same time. They’ve got Facebook. They’ve got tweets. There are dedicated public servants assigned to work on the awareness campaign, and we can definitely provide you with all the details around that.
Senator Batters: So you don’t know the name of the company right now as you sit here?
Ms. Huggins: Sorry, I don’t know the name.
Senator Batters: Do you know the approximate annual budget?
Ms. Huggins: We do have budgetary information but it’s not specific to that company. It’s the overall costs that we’re putting into public awareness.
Senator Batters: What is the overall cost?
Ms. Huggins: On drug-impaired driving, for this year, it’s approximately $360,000.
Senator Batters: $360,000?
Ms. Huggins: Yes, but that does not include the campaign itself, which was approximately $2.3 million.
Senator Batters: Could you please get us all the details, including the number of Public Safety employees who are also allocated to this particular thing and the costs that would involve as well? You indicated you have a robust plan. Would you refer to that particular tweet that I quoted to you as robust?
Ms. Huggins: There are a number of tweets that the communications group runs at various times. The idea is that they have worked with young people across the country to identify — they did a lot of public opinion polling with young people to see what appeals to them, and they have developed communication pieces as a result of those discussions and consultations.
Senator Batters: Moving on, under Part 1 of the bill, section 8(1)(e) says that:
Unless authorized under this Act, it is prohibited . . . for an individual to possess more than four cannabis plants that are not budding or flowering . . .
Could someone please explain to me whether that means that you could potentially possess more than four plants if they are budding or flowering?
Mr. Bhupsingh: Chair, I don’t think anybody at this table here is in a position to answer the question of the honourable senator.
Senator Batters: Are you going to be in a position to train officers? All the people at this table would be highly involved in training officers in Canada and you don’t know right now the answer to that question?
Mr. Bhupsingh: I think I’d like to refer that question to my colleagues at the Department of Justice to get a clear answer and a confirmed answer for you, senator.
Senator Batters: Can they give it to me right now?
The Chair: We have in attendance representatives of the Department of Justice. I see Mr. Saint-Denis and Ms. Labelle, who we had the opportunity to listen to last night.
Paul Saint-Denis, Senior Counsel, Department of Justice Canada: The question is how many budding plants?
The Chair: I see Ms. Morency also, but she is hiding behind Mr. Bhupsing. The chair has some problem making sure she is in the room.
Senator Batters: Section 8(1)(e), right now, as written in Bill C-45, reads that it is prohibited for an individual to possess more than four cannabis plants that are not budding or flowering. Does that mean that you could potentially possess, legally, more than four if they are budding or flowering?
Paul Saint-Denis, Senior Counsel, Department of Justice Canada: No. In fact, it’s the opposite. You are allowed up to four plants if they’re not budding. You’re not allowed to possess any plant that is budding.
Senator Batters: You’re not allowed to possess any budding or flowering plants? Zero?
Mr. Saint-Denis: That’s correct. Yes.
Senator Batters: Is that right?
Mr. Saint-Denis: Yes, it is.
Senator Batters: I stated that correctly?
Mr. Saint-Denis: Yes.
Senator Batters: Do you think that’s a good way to put that out? To me, as someone who has looked at a lot of statutes in her life as a practising lawyer, I don’t know if Canadians would actually realize that they’re not allowed, under your bill, to possess any budding or flowering plants. It’s illegal after this act is passed to possess any budding or flowering plants.
Mr. Saint-Denis: I want to point out that the limitation is in public, so it has to be read in concert with the provisions dealing with production of cannabis, which state that you’re allowed to produce up to four plants. You’re allowed to cultivate up to four plants in a dwelling house. You just can’t have any budding or flowering plants in a public place.
Senator Batters: That doesn’t say anything about the public place. It’s section 8(1)(d) that talks about an individual’s ability “to possess, in a public place, one or more cannabis plants that are budding or flowering.” That’s the prohibition for (d), but for (e) it’s for an individual to possess more than four cannabis plants that are not budding or flowering. It says nothing about a public place.
Mr. Saint-Denis: You’re allowed to possess, in public or otherwise, up to four plants.
Senator Batters: You’re telling me that after this bill is passed, Canadians are not allowed to possess any marijuana plants that are budding or flowering? They will be in violation of Bill C-45 if that’s the case.
Mr. Saint-Denis: In a public place, yes.
Senator Batters: It doesn’t say anything about a public place in that section.
Mr. Saint-Denis: It does in paragraph 8(1)(d), so—
Senator Batters: That’s a different subsection. It doesn’t seem to apply. You wouldn’t normally apply subsection (d) to (e) if there’s no reference.
Mr. Saint-Denis: But (e) talks about a plant that is not budding or flowering, so those are the plants that you’re allowed to possess, up to four.
Senator Batters: I know that. I’m just telling you that I think that your statute is potentially not well written on that front. I think that Canadians will have a lot of confusion and would be quite surprised to hear this particular part of our conversation.
[Translation]
Mr. Saint-Denis: My colleague from Health Canada, John Clare, could very likely give you an answer to that effect.
[English]
John Clare, Director, Policy, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Health Canada: Just a simple clarification, the way the statute works, it’s prohibited for anyone to produce more than four cannabis plants in a dwelling. There is a possession limit, effectively, that no one can possess more than four budding or flowering plants. That’s what (e) states. Subsection (d) states that, in a public place, you can’t possess any budding or flowering plants.
Senator Batters: Your colleague from Justice Canada just told me that you can’t possess even one budding or flowering plant.
Mr. Clare: In a public place. And you can’t possess more than four in any place.
Senator Batters: Your Justice colleague told me that, public place or otherwise, you can’t possess any — zero — budding or flowering plants. I asked for clarification and you said that—
Mr. Saint-Denis: I’m sorry; perhaps I was misunderstood. The provision clearly says that you cannot possess in public any budding plant— so not one, not any, in a public place.
Senator Batters: That’s what (d) says, but (e) makes no reference to “public place.”
Mr. Clare: Right, and (e) says that you can’t possess more than four budding or flowering plants, anywhere.
Senator Batters: No; (e) says you can’t possess more than four cannabis plants that are not budding or flowering. Anyway, I think we’ll need some further clarification at a future point. Thank you.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you all for being here. I had the same kind of question as Senator Batters. Mine is also on the four plants in a dwelling place. For me, it’s about the enforcement of defences. As you know, clause 12 says limit of four plants, and clause 86(7) says inspectors need a warrant to enter a dwelling house. How do you know that there are more than four plants in the dwelling house? On what basis would you get a warrant if it’s more than four plants?As for the budding or not budding, I’m sure you will have an explanation later, so I’m not going to ask you about that part. How do you know there are more than four plants? How will you get the warrant?
Mr. Daley: When we enforce cannabis, or any type of drug enforcement, police tend to do various things. I’m going to speak in generalities. It could be as simple as neighbours calling us. We receive a complaint from the public. They suspect different things due to the number of vehicles going to a house or the amount of foot traffic going into a house. They tend to go in for minutes at a time, leave, and it’s just generating activity. So quite often we get a complaint from somebody. We quite often then have people speak to the police who have intimate knowledge of what is going on inside that house, so we use that as well.
We always try to corroborate the information that we receive from whatever source. Some of the things we might do is simple surveillance on a residence to then determine what may or may not be going on. As I had mentioned previously, when the investigation is built up to a certain point, quite often that information is much more fulsome than simply four plants. Other information has come in that there is a more significant quantity. If in fact the proposed act goes through, it could be illicit cannabis that is inside that house.
So it’s through a series of police investigative steps that we would build the information to then go before a justice and explain exactly what we have and why we feel we would like a warrant to go into that residence.
Senator Jaffer: Would you put in there that you think there are more than four plants? How would you handle that?
Mr. Daley: Absolutely. One of the key components of an information to obtain a search warrant is full and frank disclosure, as we call it. It would be incumbent on police to fully tell the justice what we suspect is going on in there. That may include more than four plants. It could mean other types of drugs, that sort of thing.
[Translation]
Senator Pratte: Superintendent Goupil, I would like to continue along the same lines as Senator Boisvenu. In the government’s consultations on the proposed regulatory framework for Bill C-45, one of the concerns most often mentioned by Canadians is the issue of organized crime infiltrating the legal industry. In the record of those consultations, the government announced — unfortunately, I only have the English version — that it was considering measures —
[English]
— to reduce the risk of criminal organizations establishing a financial relationship with legal cannabis producers.
[Translation]
They are looking at things such as reviewing financial statements, and so on. Clearly, asking a company run by criminals to provide information about its financial statements will not give us much. You said that you would investigate if you had information. Once again, that does not reassure me much. Will you be systematically involved when Health Canada checks companies that are applying for licences to legally produce cannabis? Will systematic co-operation be established or is it only when someone makes a complaint or says there is something fishy? Now is when this multi-billion dollar industry is setting up shop. This is being played out now.
Mr. Goupil: Thank you for that question. In terms of licencing, the Minister of Health has the authority. Our role is a supportive role. Health Canada will request to verify the licence application of a company or individual who has applied for a licence. There is a special RCMP unit that will research criminal and investigative files and the information from other police services to which we have access to a certain extent. Once this step is completed, the report will be sent to Health Canada, and Health Canada will decide, based on the information obtained, whether or not it is appropriate to issue a licence. At the application stage, the RCMP’s role is limited to producing and verifying records to determine whether a person or company is involved in or has a connection to organized crime.
Senator Pratte: Are you confident that you can really see what is behind the basic financial data that will be provided and be able to trace potential links to organized crime? Because financial crime investigations are among the most complex investigations to conduct, based on what I’ve always heard, even if I don’t know anything about it. You won’t have four years to find the link. Licences will be issued. It’s a matter of months.
Mr. Goupil: Effectively. The section that performs these checks has access to a lot of data. This is not a section that works under the authority of the organized crime section. I don’t know at what level. I doubt there is any financial information on these companies, but I could get an answer for you, if I can. The research is still quite limited. As you say, if the company applying for a licence is registered in a tax haven or it is a beneficial ownership, then it is very difficult to get the data. I could get more information on the extent of the research that is being done and get the answers to you.
Senator Pratte: I would be grateful.
Senator Carignan: I hear you saying that you will do your job to make sure that the act will be enforced and that the objectives will be achieved. I believe in your good faith, but, in reality, I’m worried and I’ll explain why. The provisions dealing with drug-impaired driving and drug recognition experts were adopted, from memory, in 2008. I don’t know if we’re in the same place, you and I, but it’s approximately when these provisions were adopted.
We asked the representatives of the Department of Public Safety, following the testimony of Minister Goodale, to explain to us how drug recognition experts are distributed and how many there are.
The answer we got was that, as of February 1, 2018, there were 665, 196 of which were in the RCMP. The majority of drug recognition experts are in municipal bodies. You deal with 1,050 municipalities, you have 196 drug recognition experts in the RCMP. How many are there in the Northwest Territories, which is a large area? You only have one. In the Yukon, you only have one.
How can you explain that to us when legislation that provides for drug recognition experts has been in place since 2008? The RCMP has one drug recognition expert in the Yukon and in the Northwest Territories. Isn’t there a drug problem in these areas?
[English]
Mr. Daley: Road safety is no doubt a priority for everybody in this room and all Canadians. What I can tell you about the drug recognition program that falls within my purview under the national traffic services is that currently we have 718 drug recognition experts throughout Canada, of which 202 belong to the RCMP, so on your first point as far as the majority, it rests with other policing agencies.
We are constantly evergreening the program. For 2018-19, for example, we are putting on up to 22 training courses. We have been able to map so that we have visual literacy of where in each province we have drug recognition experts, so that informs the next candidates to go on the course to ensure that we have sufficient coverage for enforcement when the law becomes legal.
I think you referenced the Northwest Territories. We do have four drug recognition officers up in that area. One of the challenges that impacts the RCMP is our need to be mobile and to constantly refresh those experts in those particular areas.
In the battle with impaired driving in general, the DRE expert is an essential tool. We also concentrate on the standard field sobriety and other ways of being able to not only enforce alcohol but the drug-impaired driving as well.
I think certainly we have taken the steps necessary to continue. The RCMP does lead the program for the policing community in Canada under the authority of the International Association of Chiefs of Police. It’s a very regimented drug recognition program.
We have expanded to certification sites within Canada. The majority of our training for the certification piece takes place in the United States. The local in-class portion takes place within Canada. Efforts are certainly being made to strategically place our resources where they are needed.
One could argue that the necessity to have a drug recognition expert right in that immediate area 24-7 may not be necessarily the need as long as there is one accessible that can come in and provide that skill set. The RCMP, which I can speak for, is certainly taking those steps to ensure the training continues and the resources are well placed throughout our policing areas.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: My second question is about the control of the mail service. According to the bill, the purchase of a maximum of 30 grams by a person over 18 is allowed. Currently, a lot of illegal sales are done online, and the drug is delivered by mail. Some sites even go so far as to reassure clients by saying that no one has ever been charged for buying cannabis through Canada Post.
If you can’t control trafficking by mail right now, how can you assure us that you’ll be able to with legalization? We’ll have to monitor the traffic between the provinces, because some provinces won’t allow it. It will be necessary to monitor trafficking out of the country, especially to the United States. I remind you that since the Colorado legalization, one of the biggest issues has been the increase in drug seizures by mail.
Mr. Goupil: Drug trafficking by mail is an increasingly frequent problem. There is cannabis, but more importantly, fentanyl is a concern for us. We are currently working with the Canada Border Services Agency on the international component. We are also working with Canada Post to find more effective mechanisms to target the drug trade by mail. Indeed, it is a problem that is increasingly difficult to define.
You will understand that the people who send these parcels don’t usually write their actual name and address on the envelope. It’s very difficult to identify. We have had some success in an international investigation, among others, but it is a phenomenon we are studying.
A vendor on the dark web can sell all possible substances; these are real pharmacies. We are looking at this issue, but I’ll admit it’s a big challenge. We are there, but the volume is huge. We must make choices regarding our priorities. We usually turn to larger criminal organizations. I recognize that it is a challenge. We took action and reached agreements. We work with federal and provincial agencies, whether it’s the Ontario Provincial Police or the Sûreté du Québec.
[English]
Senator Gold: First of all, by way of comment, thank you for your answer to the first question of my colleague about your readiness with regard to the impaired driving. I’m glad that this issue arises because we are almost finished our study of Bill C-46, and I’m one of many colleagues who think this bill should be passed as quickly as possible.
I would like to return us to the subject of today, which is Bill C-45. With regard to the impact of Bill C-45 on organized crime’s presence in the cannabis market, I think we all understand that organized crime will not go away tomorrow, and they have proven adept at adapting. But over time, I would appreciate your views on how you see the impact of Bill C-45 on their involvement in organized crime. I won’t ask you to say whether you support the bill or not; I appreciate the limits of your important role. Will Bill C-45 help you in your fight against organized crime and your efforts to push them to the background or push them out to whatever degree you can in the cannabis market? I'd really appreciate your comments on that.
Mr. Goupil: From an organized crime perspective, we have to look at it in two ways. Our federal units across Canada, of course, are mandated to target the highest threats in the communities. This is one thing we need to assess. We have to look at cannabis and other substances out there that are problematic.
One thing as well is that, whether it’s the RCMP, OPP or Sûreté du Québec, we are not targeting the commodity per se. We are targeting organized crime groups. In the environment today, what is the highest stress? We work with the provinces, provincial police and the city police in terms of who does what.
So when you ask how Bill C-45 will change for us, in terms of high-level, serious organized crime, it’s not going to change much, to tell you the truth, because we are working mostly on the importation, exportation and cultivation at the highest levels. We are looking for the major threats.
Where it will help is more with the front-line officers. That means it will free up front-line officers in the communities who will not initially go and enforce for things like simple possession, for example. As mentioned yesterday, it will free up the entire judicial system.
With Bill C-45, organized crime will definitely lose a share of the pie. A lot of consumers will, if they have a choice — it may be more expensive — actually will go with a licit source as opposed to going to the corner dealer. So we will see some benefits out there.
Ahead of Bill C-45, we have a new position that will look at the environment to really assess, specifically for cannabis, how organized crime is affected as a result of Bill C-45 and how they will be adapting to the new environment. Following this, then we have the Criminal Intelligence Service Canada that will give us a picture and say where we should be looking. We will reassess our position and perhaps decide to target groups that are involved in this.
But as we mentioned earlier, about 40 per cent of the criminal organizations in Canada are involved at a certain level with cannabis, at different stages.
Senator Gold: We have heard evidence regarding the adaptability of the illicit market. A number of factors will be relevant to Canadians’ choices whether to switch from the corner dealer to whatever it will be in their jurisdiction. Those factors are accessibility, diversity of product and price. So it would seem important that the intelligence you’re gathering from the division will be shared with others. Can you describe a little bit the kind of collaboration and consultation that all the different players, from law enforcement, public health and others, are putting in place so that the feedback loop from this experiment and the experience can be as effective as possible and so that adjustments can be made at the federal level as well as perhaps at the provincial and other levels as well, so that when we review the law, once it is passed, we really have the best intelligence possible?
Mr. Goupil: I’ll try to answer your question. Please tell me if I am answering correctly.
There are different bodies across Canada that look at and assess organized crime. One of them is the Canadian Integrated Response to Organized Crime, in which the major police services are present. There is CISC, which is managed by the RCMP, but their mandate is to provide the intelligence picture as to what is happening in organized crime across Canada. They have a network in the provinces. Again, all major services are represented.
We meet on a regular basis. There are meetings on a regular basis at different levels as well where the information is shared and where the objectives or the priorities are defined. This is where we can basically assess more what is out there and what the threats are. Then we agree on actions to take to attack or combat the phenomena.
I’m not sure if I answered your question, but there are communications out there, and there are reports that are being made. When I say “law enforcement,” that also includes CBSA as well.
Senator Gold: Thank you very much for your answer. It’s appreciated.
Senator McIntyre: Thank you all for your presentations. I’m interested in hearing from Public Safety Canada how cross-border marijuana transportation will be dealt with at the border. We all know that possession of under 30 grams of marijuana would no longer be a crime in Canada, assuming Bill C-45 becomes law, and it is not a crime in some U.S. states, such as Alaska and Washington, which have land borders with Canada. In your opinion, would Americans from those states be allowed to cross the Canadian border with cannabis bought legally in the United States?
Mr. Bhupsingh: No. All importing and exporting of cannabis, regardless of amounts or whether it meets the domestic 30 gram limit, will be illegal.
The Canada Border Services Agency is doing a number of things in terms of preparing if the bill is passed. For example, I know that they are developing a primary question to travellers in relation to cannabis, similar to that already asked in relation to control on prohibited goods such as firearms, weapons, food or animal products, to encourage traveller compliance regarding the importation of cannabis coming into Canada.
I know they are spending a lot of time developing awareness tools as well, including looking at signage for deployment at the ports of entry, and online awareness campaigns in general to inform travellers in a proactive way the continued prohibition of cross-border movement between the two countries.
I also know there are deep discussions and negotiations going on regarding updating agreements with key law enforcement agency partners to ensure that there is a solid law enforcement response for cannabis-related criminal activity occurring at the border.
Senator McIntyre: If I may, will there be a problem at pre-clearance? Do you foresee a problem at pre-clearance?
Mr. Bhupsingh: I’m not in a position at Public Safety to answer questions about pre-clearance.
Senator McIntyre: I have the privilege to sit on the National Security and Defence Committee. Len Saunders, attorney at law at an immigration law firm, testified before the committee on Monday this week, informing the committee that not only would there be a problem at pre-clearance, but that the problem is going to get worse. He even informed us that the United States will continue to deny entry to Canadians who admit to having smoked marijuana or having had marijuana in their possession, even if cannabis becomes law. Mr. Saunders represented Canadians arrested or denied entry into the United States for marijuana possession or for admitting marijuana use. He was therefore in a good position to answer our questions. I can’t believe that you can’t answer my question on pre-clearance. He was very adamant in saying that Canadians will be denied entry into the United States if they admitted having smoked marijuana.
Mr. Bhupsingh: What I would say in response, senator, is I will inquire with my colleagues at the Canada Border Services Agency to get you a response and an answer. What I am told, in discussions with the Canada Border Services Agency and CBP, is the Custom and Border Protection Service in the United States won’t be changing their position in terms of cannabis questioning and their primary questioning. I can follow up with my colleague, chair, in order to get the senator a more complete response.
Senator McIntyre: Will you confirm in writing?
Mr. Bhupsingh: I’ll get a response, chair, from the Canada Border Services Agency.
Senator Boniface: I want to thank you all for being here and for the information you’ve provided.
I would like to go back to Senator Gold’s question around organized crime. No doubt you’re aware that the Colorado experience is that legalization has taken about two thirds away from organized crime. They still have an issue to deal with. When you talk about forecasting the impact, that would be very typical, I would expect, with CISC and others, each year as you evaluate where your difficulties are.
The second point is from an organized crime group, which is what your target is and not necessarily the commodity, any group would probably have more than one commodity that they are involved in, so it’s sort of multilayered in terms of how you do your work and what you look at. As you go forward, looking at your business and operation side, the shift would really be about new information and adjusting your response accordingly?
Mr. Goupil: Yes, you are correct, senator. Of course, we have priorities that we set ourselves. Again, we always revisit, considering the intelligence available to us in terms of enforcement action, and these are taken, of course, at the senior management level.
Again, our posture is to look at the different criminal groups that are out there that, as you rightfully mentioned, are usually involved — if I look at the past few months and the groups that we have disrupted — in cocaine, tobacco, marijuana and name it. If they can make money, they will be involved. Therefore, most of the time, when we disrupt a criminal organization, we are disrupting part of the cannabis market, the process.
Senator Boniface: I understand that the Criminal Intelligence Service Canada also feeds its information from individual agencies but also with a provincial entity in each province. So you’ll be getting, and you publish it once a year, information from the local municipalities right up to the federal and international role.
I’m thinking in terms of context. You have lots of information to draw from — experience with alcohol, tobacco, gaming and when gaming was legalized and some of the changes you went through in terms of how organized crime shifts. You indicated you have some resources in terms of looking at that force casting, and I’m assuming you are looking at how other jurisdictions have been affected. Am I correct?
Mr. Goupil: You are absolutely correct. I meet with my counterparts on a regular basis. At my level, we meet with the OPP, the Sûreté du Québec and other police forces. As you rightfully mentioned, CISC has an office in every province. These offices, for example, have outreach in all of the municipal police departments. A finished product is published once a year, but we do meet more than once a year. We meet every three months or sometimes more, when required. So there is this exchange of information.
With Bill C-45, we have had discussions as to how we will approach the different investigations that could come up, especially with Ontario and Quebec where they have the provincial mandate, for example, like who is going to be looking at cultivation. These are the discussions that we have on a regular basis.
Senator Boniface: Thank you.
Senator Sinclair: I have a couple of questions. One relates to policing and one relates to the media campaign. The policing issue will wait for a moment, if you don’t mind.
I have a question as to the public awareness campaign that you’re planning on doing; in particular, whether you have developed and considered developing a media awareness campaign targeted at Indigenous youth, or Indigenous communities in particular, because they are among the most vulnerable when it comes to addiction awareness and addiction need. In particular, the question of the availability of cannabis is obviously going to result in an increase in availability; therefore, the need for there to be a heightened awareness of the potential impact on individuals in communities is, I think, greater in those communities, and because of the remoteness, there is very limited media accessibility. What is it that you’re doing that is unique to the Indigenous community when it comes to awareness?
Mr. Bhupsingh: That is a very important point by the senator around the need for very specific and tailored approaches to Indigenous communities. Again, I’m going to turn it to Ms. Huggins, who is working on our communications, to speak a bit about some of the things that are being done and planned. Maybe I’ll turn to Ms. Lavoie.
Kimberly Lavoie, Director, Drug Policy, Public Safety Canada: We have been doing a number of things in collaboration with our colleagues at Health Canada who are leading the public awareness efforts on Bill C-45. To that end, they have been meeting with all of the national Indigenous organizations, the Assembly of First Nations, the Métis National Council as well as the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, to ensure that they get the needs of each community right. My understanding is there will be resources available for specific awareness campaigns for those populations, should they wish it. Some people are more advanced in that than others. We have also worked with them with respect to providing information, and they have gone out to every single community that has requested an audience to sit and talk to them about the implications of the act and what that means, often in collaboration with the relevant provincial or territorial jurisdiction.
On the side with respect to drug-impaired driving, we have engaged directly with the First Nations Chiefs of Police Association to not only establish what their needs will be, but we are also scheduled to present at their annual general conference next month. We have also touched base with the First Nations Police Governance as well as the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police Indigenous Committee.
In addition to the work we are doing with provinces and territories, we have specifically indicated that they have to have a strategic plan that takes into account the needs of rural, remote and Indigenous communities and ensures that there is sufficient training for officers in those areas. We are also looking at our self-administered police services to ensure that they are not being left behind as we move forward and that those training needs also get met.
Senator Sinclair: Thank you.
For the RCMP, I’m wondering about the need for additional resources for policing Indigenous communities. Most Indigenous communities in Canada are policed by the RCMP, with the exception of Ontario and Quebec. My concern is that with the greater availability of cannabis products, there will likely be a greater usage among Indigenous people of those products and some impact on the communities that are going to result in policing issues arising, policing needs increasing. Is there any plan for you to increase the resources for First Nations communities in particular, but also Metis and Inuit communities that are in a more remote location, recognizing that at this point in time, many of them receive fly-in services and respond only in terms of the need to be called? I think many Indigenous communities are concerned about the potential impact on them of this particular legislation.
Mr. Daley: I can speak to that. Perhaps to go back to your first question, I’d also like to add, as no doubt you’re aware, the RCMP has a long historic relationship with our Indigenous communities. We provide policing services to quite a few of the communities across Canada. One of our strategic goals is to contribute to safe and healthy Indigenous communities.
To that end, as recently as last night, on the drug-impaired driving side, we did release a social media campaign, a short vignette describing the perils of drug-impaired driving using animation. That was heavily consulted, a lot of input from Indigenous youth. Within what we referred to as contract Aboriginal policing, we have specific resources to develop products that will be used within Indigenous communities.
We are lucky enough to be in over 5,000 schools across Canada, several of which are in remote areas. Having talked to my colleagues in Nunavut as recently as last week about engagement with youth and whatnot, that certainly is a priority and something that we take very seriously.
We have a full spectrum of resources available, crime prevention websites. We have lesson plans developed that speak to marijuana, speak to myths surrounding marijuana and speak to drug-impaired driving. These lesson plans are accessible to teachers, for instance, if they wish to do that sort of education within the classroom. It is something we do take very seriously and that we do currently and will continue to do once there is legalization.
To your second point about resourcing, we again reiterate that this is a proposed act. Once legalization becomes legal, we do recognize the potential impact on resources, especially in our Indigenous communities. There are mechanisms now that exist between the territorial government or Canada, as we like to refer to, Public Safety. Much like on the organized crime side, it is to reassess resources, reassess needs depending on what may be taking place with any particular community.
I think essentially what needs to take place is continued dialogue between community and governments in order to ensure support and ensure that expectations on government and community side are met. Sometimes it happens that policing tends to get in the middle. I understand the Senate committee is meeting on Indigenous issues next week sometime. We certainly encourage open dialogue to ensure the needs of the community and government are met.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Mr. Goupil, you said earlier that you provided support to the Department of Health in issuing production licences, isn’t that right?
Mr. Goupil: Yes, basically.
Senator Boisvenu: When you analyze the producer’s or investors’ résumé, do you have access to the tax data of the investor and the tax data held by the Canada Revenue Agency?
Mr. Goupil: Could you please repeat your question?
Senator Bovey: When you study the investor’s profile, you say that you check if there is a criminal record, and so on. When you do your analysis of the acceptability of the producer who will invest in marijuana production, knowing that these producers are investing money from tax havens, do you have access, in your analysis, to the CRA tax data for these investors?
Mr. Goupil: Thank you for the clarification. No, during checks, we don’t have access to data from the CRA.
Senator Boisvenu: In 2013, you submitted a note to the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. It reads as follows:
There is no shortage of organized criminal groups who have applied to produce medical marijuana under Health Canada’s new MMPR, including self-proclaimed Hells Angels and associates of transnational organized crime.
This information was disclosed by the CBC in 2017. Could the committee have access to the document you produced regarding this information?
Mr. Goupil: We could certainly ask if there are a few more details. We can research the origin of this information and submit the document to the committee.
Senator Boisvenu: Perfect.
The legislation provides for the suspension of applicants’ licences if they have broken the law. The exclusion period is 10 years. I have two questions: knowing that this is a very high-risk industry, shouldn’t this period be more like 20 years? The same section of the legislation states that the minister “may” refuse a permit application in these cases. Shouldn’t it say “must” refuse?
Mr. Goupil: Since this is a legal question, I think my colleagues from Justice Canada or Public Safety Canada would be better positioned to answer.
Senator Boisvenu: I’ll repeat my question. In cases where a producer contravenes the act, it provides an exclusion of 10 years. Given that we are facing a high-risk industry in terms of penetration of the criminal market, should this 10-year exclusion not be 20 years to avoid allowing this offender to reinvest? In the exclusion clause, the minister can exclude the offender for 10 years, but shouldn’t it be “must be excluded” for a period of 10 years or 20 years?
[English]
Mr. Clare: Mr. Chair, I can answer the honourable senator’s question.
He’s referring to the licensing provisions of Part 3 of the proposed act, which provide the Minister of Health with the authority to issue licences for the commercial production, processing, distribution and sale of cannabis. He’s referring to the grounds for the refusal on application for a licence.
It essentially sets out the grounds on which the minister may refuse an application for a licence. He is correct in saying that one of the grounds for refusal articulated there is if the applicant has contravened, in the past 10 years, a provision of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act or the Food and Drugs Act. So that may be a ground for refusal.
I would also point out that the first grounds for refusal is that if the minister believes that the applicant would create a risk to public health or public safety, including that the risk of cannabis would be diverted to an illegal market or activity. That's also a grounds for refusal that is much broader and could include any type of past criminal history or activity that the minister believes creates a risk to public health and safety.
The final point I would make is that this is at the level of the legislation and the application for a licence itself. Part of the discussion that has gone on today is about the process that Health Canada engages in to provide what in the legislation is referred to as a security clearance for key employees or participants in licensed organizations. Similar to the way the system works now under the access to cannabis for medical purposes regulations, the medical system, under the proposed framework, key employees and individuals associated with a licensed operation — the board of directors, the officers and directors of the company, responsible people within the organization — need to obtain a security clearance from the Minister of Health.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: I understand that you’re giving us a crash course, but that wasn’t my question. If this is a high-risk industry, shouldn’t the length of an offender’s exclusion under the act be 20 years instead of 10? The answer is a simple yes or no.
[English]
Mr. Clare: The current law provides a ground for refusal if there has been a contravention within the previous 10 years. As I pointed out, there are other grounds of refusal that would also potentially be used if the history of the individual beyond those 10 years, in the opinion of the minister, creates a risk to public health or safety.
[Translation]
Senator Dupuis: My question is for the RCMP and Public Safety Canada. Some countries are quite transparent in the structure of their market. You say in your presentations that organized crime generates significant profits, but we don’t have a clear picture. Do you have data on the structure, from the top of the hierarchy to drugs’ “little hands”, as the French say?
In other words, if we look at the trade as a whole, we can see that there are astronomical figures with somewhat hazy networks. If we are talking about passing a bill like this, there is one thing we don’t have much of. I would like your opinion on this part of the information. How does this start from astronomical revenues and how many intermediate levels are there? I’d like to refer you to a January 18 article in Le Monde, which is extremely specific about the structure of a network, from intermediate levels to young people who traffic on street corners.
I would like you to help us understand what we are talking about more specifically when we say that organized crime generates astronomical profits. How many levels are there to the elementary school kid who sells around the corner? What are the data and what can you tell us? I talked about elementary school, but I could have talked about the neighbourhood park too.
Mr. Goupil: Thank you for that question. I’ll try to answer it as best I can. It is more of a study of the phenomenon of organized crime. If you look at the structures historically, whenever there is mega progress or there are accusations, we see — both in Canada and abroad — that structures change to better protect themselves from criminal investigations and information sources.
To answer your question, the structure is a little different with respect to cannabis, because Canada produces some. So there are fewer levels compared to cocaine, where South American cartels are involved. Since there are fewer levels in Canada for cannabis, it is common to see that a criminal group deals with production, culture and trafficking. Usually, on the street, it will be street gangs or even, to some extent, people who aren’t necessarily involved in a gang, because cannabis is sold more widely than certain other drugs.
There are fewer levels and intermediaries, who are often controlled by the same criminal organization. Each criminal group has its specialties. One group won’t specialize in cannabis, but if they deal with an American group that wants cannabis, this group will go see another group. There is some communication or interaction between the criminal groups. We see it often. So there are far fewer levels in the cannabis market than for other drugs.
Senator Dupuis: Is human trafficking more connected to cannabis than other types of drugs in the world of organized crime, prostitution and others?
Mr. Goupil: I don’t have data on that. Human trafficking in Canada is linked more to street gangs than high-level gangs. I have some idea, but I don’t have much expertise on the topic.
Senator Dupuis: Would the representatives from Public Safety Canada have an answer to my question?
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Bhupsingh, do you have anything to add?
Mr. Bhupsingh: Not on the first part of the question, chair. I think the expert from the RCMP has answered the question about the hierarchy and the levels.
On the last point that you raised, senator, about human trafficking and organized crime groups, I agree with my colleague from the RCMP and their observations. We have found with a lot of the trends with human trafficking that although there is organized crime involvement, it tends to be at a much lower level and very localized.
Senator Eaton: I guess this goes to security. Any of you can answer, actually. What consultations have taken place with the United States? I’m thinking specifically of the border. Are you going to share data for the new ticketable offences created in this bill? Would an American border guard have access to that information? Even for someone with a record, could we see more questions, more searches and more consequences because of this bill?
Mr. Bhupsingh: There have been a lot of ongoing consultations. Unfortunately, my colleagues from the CBSA are not here today. I understand they have been having ongoing conversations with their colleagues in CBP.
One of the things we’ve been trying to understand is the American stance with respect to the potential coming into force of Bill C-45. As I understand it — and I will get a complete response, chair, to the senator’s various questions about CBSA and the border — the CBP won’t be changing its primary questioning around cannabis use. I will confirm that.
Senator Eaton: Could you also confirm whether, if I’m ticketed with a ticket for cannabis possession, or if I’m a kid, that information will be passed on to the Americans?
Mr. Bhupsingh: I don’t know the answer to that, senator, but I will enquire and get an answer through you, chair, to the senator.
Senator Eaton: Thank you. That’s very important.
A key body was tasked with helping the federal government decide whether or how to impose marijuana testing for workers. The committee, which was dealing with federally regulated employers, labour groups and federal officials, split itself over the issue of drug testing for jobs where impairment could pose a threat to public safety, that is, for sensitive jobs such as transit drivers and train engineers. Do you have anything to add to that? Is there any further thought on allowing federally regulated employers to impose some kind of test on jobs that could affect the rest of us if they are drug impaired?
Mr. Bhupsingh: Perhaps I may direct this question to my Health Canada colleagues who have been talking about labour issues and labour legislation with federal government departments and provinces and territories.
Eric Costen, Director General, Cannabis Legalization and Regulation Secretariat, Health Canada: I can attempt to partially answer the question. I don’t have a lot of technical understanding of the committee that you’re referring to. I don’t have direct experience in that particular work.
What my colleague is referring to is simply to acknowledge that questions of workplace safety, and, frankly, just questions of adjustment of various labour policies that are currently in place across a whole series of different labour groups and work force sectors have been a topic of considerable attention by federal-provincial-territorial ministers of labour. In fact, they struck a working group to examine the issue directly.
So this is an issue. It’s another one. I made mention of a few key lessons learned that have been shared with us over the years from our colleagues in the U.S. states. To pay very close attention to the need for vigilance and proactive movement to ensure that not only employees but employers are aware of the change in law so that they can make the necessary adjustment to their laws is something that we’ve been fairly active on.
Senator Eaton: The chairman is not going to allow me to continue this. I’m wondering whether you’re going to impose some kind of testing regulations or allow federally regulated unions to have some kind of testing for people operating dangerous equipment or pilots or train engineers. Mr. Chairman, I’ll pursue it at another time.
The Chair: I’m sure you’ll have other opportunities to raise that important issue.
Senator Jaffer: I have two questions of you, Mr. Bhupsingh, from the presentation you made. As you know, I’m from British Columbia, and once this bill goes through, it will be legal in B.C. It is legal in Washington state. Can I have you look at your page 9 where you state that Canadians will be reminded that cannabis and cannabis projects are illegal under the federal law in the United States?
I’m also a member of the National Security and Defence Committee. I was very unhappy with the answers we got this week on how we are going to educate Canadians on their rights. I’m not worried if someone is carrying marijuana or cannabis into Washington, D.C. They should find out the laws. If somebody is smelling of it, they shouldn’t be going to the U.S. But somebody who smoked cannabis five or ten years ago could also be stopped, from what I understood from the lawyers that presented in front of us.
You may not be able to give me an answer now, but what specific campaign will be done to educate Canadians about their rights — and not on your website. We were told it will be on your website. How many Canadians look at your website? What kind of education are you going to do? This is really important. It could hurt Canadians, and I want to know what you are going to do about this.
Mr. Bhupsingh: A couple of things: One, there are obviously ongoing discussions with our American colleagues to determine exactly the posture they will take around the questioning that Canadians could receive at ports of entry. We have understood that, at least up until now, the United States is not going to be changing its lines of questioning to Canadians.
In terms of the question that you asked about what the federal government will be doing to ensure that Canadians are aware of the new regime and potentially the implications for them, there were a couple of things that I did mention in my opening comments. I know that the CBSA is preparing a public awareness campaign generally to Canadians, and that could take several different forms. I agree with you that social media is probably not the only way to get the information.
Senator Jaffer: On your website. Social media is good. We were told that it would be on your website.
Mr. Bhupsingh: The other things CBSA is contemplating are signage at the ports of entry so that people coming into Canada will know what the state of play is and the potential new changes to the coming into force of Bill C-45.
I would just say that there are a number of aspects. We do understand that this is a big change and that public awareness and education for Canadians are going to be very important going forward.
Senator Jaffer: I have another question. I’m a little confused. If I’m not mistaken, young people will be ticketed. Why is diversion not being used? This is something that has been used for many years. Maybe Justice has to answer this. Especially with the young people, we use diversion. Why are we ticketing? What’s the thinking behind that?
Mr. Saint-Denis: In answer to your question, the ticketing regime is not meant to apply to young offenders. As Ms. Morency indicated yesterday in her response, the Youth Criminal Justice Act will apply, so the diversion that you mention will continue to apply for instances of infractions under this new legislation.
Senator Pratte: My question is to the RCMP representatives. The recourse to a ticketable offence will be at the discretion of the police officer. In the training that you will do, what will you tell the officers as to when they should use a ticketable offence rather than the traditional manner?
There’s a technical aspect to this also. I suppose one aspect of it will be whether this is a first offence or not. I’m not sure, when you consider this aspect of things, whether you will know if the first offence was a ticketable offence. I’m not sure whether you will see that or whether you will be aware of that. Since it’s a ticketable offence, I’m not sure whether you’ll be able to see it in your files or not.
Mr. Daley: Thank you for the question, senator, because it gives me an opportunity to talk about the training. The RCMP has undertaken the responsibility for the law enforcement community within Canada to lead the training in concert with Department of Justice and Public Safety.
As recently, I think, as last week or the week prior, a working group of police law enforcement from across Canada was brought to Ottawa. The challenge for law enforcement is the different mechanisms within each province that will be adopted. To date, that has not been finalized.
Our goal in our training is to provide an online platform accessible to all law enforcement, where you will have an overarching training on the cannabis act itself, and if you’re sitting in Newfoundland you will be able to click on the province of Newfoundland and the regime will come up within the province of Newfoundland. So that’s the aspect of training that is planned, and that working group has been stood up and is actively engaged in that area.
When you speak about officer discretion, of course, officer discretion, in my view, is a key component of the criminal justice system. Much to Senator Jaffer’s question, it provides for the flexibility to best address a particular issue. I think we heard yesterday from the Department of Justice that quite often the criminal justice system may not be the best way to handle a particular issue. The Youth Criminal Justice Act allows for that flexibility for police.
I came out recently from Nova Scotia and worked on the integrated side with Halifax Regional Police within the city. We were quite successful with what we would call “hub,” where community stakeholders, government and otherwise, would come together to try to provide the best assistance to youth. Quite often, if a young person is caught in possession of marijuana, there might be other indicators of something else going on in that person’s life that allows for intervention, not necessarily by the criminal justice system but in concert with police. So that discretion is essential, I think, when dealing with youth.
Senator Pratte: The fine for a ticketable offence is to be $200 plus 30 per cent. That’s for someone, for instance, who has between 30 grams and 50 grams possession or someone who cultivates five or six plants at home and so on. Do you consider that this level of fine is a sufficient deterrent?
Mr. Daley: Again, as I mentioned when I first started, my role in law enforcement is not to give an opinion on whether that is a good level of deterrence or not. When the law is passed and comes into force, it will be my responsibility to then ensure that the training is up to par and that the officers across the country are complete in their toolbox to address those particular issues.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: I have a hard time seeing how you are going to be able to do your job to counter the black market or the grey market. I’m reading a report here of a woman named Mélanie, who has been active for 30 years in downtown Montreal. She explains how she will adapt to the legalization of cannabis, and I quote:
“You have 30 g, you’re not going inside. When I’m done with that, I’ll go to my stash, I’ll go get another 30. I will continue to sell in the same way.”
There is also one of my sources — because we have sources, too; it isn’t just journalists — who claimed that he had bought cannabis in the last few days below the average price. According to Statistics Canada, the average price this week is $5.89 per gram. In Quebec, they want to charge more. Organized crime specializes and offers different types of products by giving THC and cannabidiol levels. So these are much more “sophisticated” products in order to compete.
How are you going to intercept these people and determine whether the drugs are legal, given that people can grow them at home? The government has proposed a cannabis tracking system. It deals with packaging, stamps, and so on. But for homegrown cannabis, you won’t be able to know if it was purchased locally, whether it was grown at home or in a greenhouse. How are you going to do your job?
Mr. Goupil: I will begin by addressing part of the question. Then I will ask my colleague to answer the second part.
As a police service, we have a limited number of resources. For organized crime sections across the country, we focus on the highest levels. Instead of dwelling on the 30 grams, we will be concerned with kilograms...
Senator Carignan: Mélanie is right. She will continue as she has done.
Mr. Goupil: That’s not what I meant. I would like to add a nuance. For some crime groups, the biggest threats will be addressed. In a case like Mélanie’s in Montreal, the Montreal police will have more recourse. Investigative methods and sources of information are used to help us. Mélanie might have a stash somewhere, but we’ll be able to find it through surveillance.
Certain provinces do not limit the number of cannabis plants that can be grown inside residential homes. However, if somebody has ten kilos of cannabis, it is for the purpose of trafficking. Charges will then be laid. Street-level trafficking is always a greater challenge. Do we deploy resources? We take action based on the resources we have. My colleague will elaborate on the subject of front-line resources, as in Mélanie’s case.
[English]
Mr. Daley: So what I heard during your question was about the 30 grams and 30 grams, and then selling, The offence of trafficking will still be there if the proposed act comes into force. Much like I responded in one of my initial questions, generally, that sort of activity manifests itself in other ways. We get complaints from neighbours. We get sources, as you had mentioned, that will come to us to say that this or that is taking place in that house. The illicit cannabis, once it comes into force, will completely be illegal.
The challenge, of course, will be being able to identify what is legally possessed marijuana, purchased through the right regulatory avenues, versus illicit. If I walk into a house and see cannabis, will I be able to definitely tell the difference between illicit cannabis and legal cannabis? That will present, perhaps, a challenge, but I will go back to my first comments that, generally, when we engage in an investigation such as that, there are other indicators of other criminal behaviour that then lead us to believe that it would be either illicit cannabis or something more taking place, such as trafficking, within that residence that then we would —
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: Let me remind you that it is not only about conducting investigations. We need to convict offenders beyond a reasonable doubt. You will have to prove that it is not someone who has friends over to his place and decides to say, in his defence, that he has the right to give some pot to his buddy.
[English]
Mr. Daley: No, absolutely. Let me be clear: When we investigate, we do have to have reasonable and probable grounds in order to lay a charge. Our investigation would be complete to the point that we would believe that and then lay the proper information if it’s so. Sometimes, when we go into a house, we don’t lay any charges. There is a clear delineation between the investigation and the charge phase.
Senator McIntyre: I have two quick questions. I’d like to return to the issue of border wait times. The mayor of Windsor recently expressed concern that U.S. screening procedures may incorporate greater scrutiny once Bill C-45 is adopted, so my question is this: What potential impact do you see Bill C-45 having on border wait times, particularly at crossings such as Detroit-Windsor, with heavy traffic?
Mr. Bhupsingh: I don’t have an absolute, and I can’t predict what will happen in terms of congestion at the border or what our American colleagues’ stance will be around cannabis.
I would say it’s important to keep in mind that I think there were close to over 40 million trips by Canadians to the U.S. in 2016 by land and air, so there is a lot of traffic — and that’s not including commercial traffic — between the two borders.
I would say, in general, that if you look at this question about cannabis legalization and regulation, our American colleagues are travelling down the same path to some extent. I know that there are a total of 29 states that have legalized medical cannabis, for example, and I know there are nine states that are in some form of exploring legalization or have legalized.
I think it’s important to remember that this particular sort of trend going across the border is not one way; it is bilateral. I think that in terms of our negotiations with our American colleagues, keeping the border fluid for economic activity will be an important factor in terms of what we’re discussing with them, senator.
Senator McIntyre: Thank you. Currently, U.S. and Canadian authorities cooperate closely in the area of cross-border law enforcement, including on drug trafficking. Gentlemen, how will the legalization of marijuana — assuming possession of under 30 grams of marijuana becomes legal in Canada — impact that cooperation?
Mr. Goupil: We have had a few meetings already. We have regular meetings with the U.S. agencies, whether it’s the drug enforcement agency or others. We have regular meetings and we have discussed this, but again, the scope of our investigations are usually much higher than the 30 gram possession. In all the discussions we have had, I'm not aware of them having brought up the topic of the 30 gram possession or even the legalization of cannabis, keeping in mind, for example, that in Colorado, just to mention that one, the DEA is still present in Colorado and they have to live with the legalization of cannabis. So in terms of international cooperation or relationship with the U.S., it has been discussed but hasn’t been flagged as an issue by the major law enforcement organizations or our partners to combat organized crime.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: A number of provinces have decided to sell marijuana themselves, specifically Ontario and Quebec. We know that, next July, Quebec will have 15 sales outlets, and Ontario, via the LCBO, will have 14. Twenty million people live in those two provinces combined. There will be a total of about 30 sales outlets. Let’s not think that these provinces will have distribution networks before 2020. There will therefore be a two- or three-year period where organized crime will exploit its market unopposed, given that the provinces will have so few sales outlets to satisfy the millions of people who use marijuana.
[English]
Mr. Bhupsingh: Senator, I guess I would say we are starting a process where we are putting a new industry in place. Senator, I’m not aware of the points of sale that you mentioned, those numbers of 15 and 14 in Ontario and Quebec respectively. I would just say that as the industry grows, I’m assuming that the distribution and the sale of cannabis will also adapt. We built flexibility into the proposed bill where provinces and territories will have an ability to change their sale and distribution model.
The other thing is that we have also considered taking into account online sales as well, and that deals with ensuring that we have proper access to cannabis. In terms of driving out the black market, that is a clear and important point that consumers will have access to a legitimate and safe supply of cannabis.
The Chair: Before I have the privilege of thanking you for your appearance, I would like to come back quickly to the information that is provided by the applicants to get a licence or a permit to produce cannabis. In the report that was released by the Minister of Health earlier this week — I think it was Monday — the report concluded that:
. . . measures could include requiring licence applicants to submit financial information (including information about investors) as part of the licence application process. . . . As well, the regulations could require regular, ongoing reporting of financial information by licensees to help identify suspicious financial relationships or arrangements . . . .
Mr. Goupil, in order for you to perform your responsibility to oust organized crime from the market, what kind of information would you need to better reach your target of identifying that organized crime?
Mr. Goupil: The basic information is, of course, knowing who the applicant is, the names of the people. And of course, business associates and, to a certain point, family members, because we all know that in some instances they will ask a family member to request or to make the application, and that family member may not have any criminal record or any trouble or encounter with the police, so therefore, the results of our reports would be negative. But again, I just want to stress that the final decision rests with Health Canada because they have all the information available to them.
Of course, for us, the people — not only the applicant but the persons who may be involved in the company or, to a certain extent, the relatives. The question then becomes, how wide do we go? That’s the question. I guess it’s more of a policy question.
The Chair: Yes, but it’s a policy question that affects you directly. In the report that was released on Monday, the consultation proposed that the regulation would require that any shareholder who owns more than 25 per cent of a licensed organization or more than 25 per cent of a privately held parent company hold a security clearance.
As you know — you know this better than I — it’s the principle of the Russian doll. You have the first one, then you have the second one, you have the third one, you have the fourth one and finally you have the core of the identity. The objective is to reach the core of the identity.
So again my question to you is, how should Health Canada have in its form — I have the form here. It’s almost a form that anyone would file for obtaining any kind of permit from any municipality or government.
It seems to me that if we want to really oust organized crime, we have to have all the information possible at hand and not just the first smokescreen, such as, “Give me your name, your passport number” and whatnot. We know that organized crime doesn’t operate on the front street with a commercial sign; they all work behind the scenes.
So how can we put our finger on the information that you would need, that Health Canada should gather before they grant a permit, to be sure that we are not really, in fact, helping organized crime make business?
Mr. Goupil: Again, this is not my area at all. I could probably get you more in-depth answers as to what would be required, but at first glance, again, it’s the people behind the application. I fully understand that the person applying for it could be just a smokescreen, but we need the people. So how far do we go in our search for criminal indices or participation in organized crime, being mindful at the same time that a person, if not convicted of a crime, could come back after and say, “Why was I not allowed to have a licence when I haven’t been convicted of any crime?” So now we’re going more on the suspicions of the police. I could get more information as to what exactly is being searched, like databases and the type of databases being used to provide Health Canada with a final report.
In 2017, for example, in the information that we received for the medical purpose regulations, 11 per cent of the applicants were flagged by the RCMP as having relevant criminal activity themselves. That’s 11 per cent in 2017. It’s fair to say that if we were to extend it, then we would probably have more than 11 per cent.
The Chair: What bothers me is the Quebec government tabled amendments last week — I don’t know if you are aware — to their cannabis bill. The amendment was tabled by Minister Charlebois, who is responsible for the cannabis bill in the Quebec legislature. They introduced an amendment to section 20 of their bill whereby they will require the authority of the regulating securities of the market. I will quote it:
[Translation]
[...] The Autorité des marchés publics must additionally consider the producers’ sources of funding [...].
[English]
In other words, the sources of the financing, to try to oust who is behind the person requesting the licence. It seems to me that you don’t even have access to the information of Revenue Canada, where more or less the same information could be kept on a source of financing. It seems to me that the feds have to go a step further in their request for information and the check of information to allow you to have a full picture of who is behind the identity. If that money is legit, should we allow the profits to be exported through those fiscal paradise? We should not be naive in approaching this issue the way we have are on that form from Health Canada. I’m not a police investigator, but that seems to be very superficial in terms of information requested.
Mr. Goupil: Granted that the more information we have, the more access to information that we have, it brings a better picture as to who is behind an application. Again, I can commit to provide you with more information as to what we have in terms of access right now when conducting these checks for Health Canada in support of Health Canada’s decision to grant or not to grant a permit.
The Chair: Could you provide us that within the next two weeks? As you know, we have a deadline. We have to produce a report by May 1. If it’s possible to get that information within the next two weeks, we would certainly appreciate it.
Mr. Goupil: I can definitely do that, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: Thank you very much Superintendent Goupil, Mr. Bhupsingh, Ms. Lavoie, Ms. Huggins and Superintendent Daley. I know we went well beyond our time. As you know, the interest is there, and we want to have as much information and answers to our questions as we can.
(The committee adjourned.)