Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Social Affairs, Science and Technology
Issue No. 45 - Evidence - May 28, 2018
OTTAWA, Monday, May 28, 2018
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, to which was referred Bill C-45, An Act Respecting Cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other acts, met this day at 1:16 p.m. to continue the study of this bill.
Senator Art Eggleton (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Welcome to the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology.
[English]
I’m Art Eggleton, a senator from Toronto and chair of the committee. I’ll ask my colleagues to introduce themselves.
Senator Seidman: Good afternoon. I’m Judith Seidman from Montreal, Quebec, and deputy chair of the committee.
Senator Patterson: Good afternoon. Dennis Patterson, senator for Nunavut.
[Translation]
Senator Poirier: Rose-May Poirier from New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator Stewart Olsen: Thank you all for coming. Carolyn Stewart Olsen from New Brunswick.
Senator Plett: Don Plett, and I’m from Winnipeg.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Raymonde Saint-Germain from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Woo: Yuen Pau Woo, British Columbia.
Senator Bernard: Wanda Thomas Bernard, Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
Senator Pratte: André Pratte from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Deacon: Marty Deacon, Ontario. Good afternoon.
Senator Dean: Tony Dean, Ontario.
Senator Omidvar: Ratna Omidvar, Toronto, Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: Marie-Françoise Mégie from Quebec.
Senator Petitclerc: Chantal Petitclerc from Quebec.
[English]
The Chair: Today, we culminate almost two months of hearings by this committee, not to mention the hearings done by other committees as well, on Bill C-45, An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other Acts.
In the first part of our agenda today, we’ll hear from Bill Blair, who is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General and also to the Minister of Health, and also the point person on this particular bill. We also have officials from Health Canada and from the Department of Justice.
We will go until 2:30. We’re starting late, so there may be a little bit of flexibility if we need extra time. We have a break between 2:30 and 3:00 scheduled, and then at 3:00 we’ll start the process of clause-by-clause consideration.
I’ll ask Bill Blair to make his opening comments, and we’ll start getting senators down on our list for questions and take it from there.
Bill Blair, M.P., Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and to the Minister of Health: Honourable senators, I’d like to begin by thanking you all for the opportunity to appear before you today. I am accompanied, of course, by senior officials, which I am confident will be extremely helpful in responding to concerns and questions that you may have.
I’d also like to begin by acknowledging the important work of the Senate, particularly the work of this committee, in conducting such a comprehensive review of Bill C-45, the cannabis act.
Your in-depth study has provided opportunities for Canadians to learn about this important and transformative policy initiative and for our government to explain the objectives and key features of the proposed framework for the legalization and strict regulation of cannabis.
I will focus my remarks today on two aspects of the issue at hand. First, I will speak to the various strategies that, along with the legislative framework that would be established under Bill C-45, constitute the key pillars of our public health approach to the legalization and strict regulation of cannabis.
Second, I will touch on a number of areas that I know have been of particular interest during the Senate study and key points underpinning our government’s policy decisions and approaches in these areas.
The public health approach that our government is taking to cannabis legalization and regulation is comprehensive and thoughtfully designed to support our objectives of better protecting Canadians and minimizing the harms associated with cannabis use.
Our government has learned from the existing evidence and from the experience of jurisdictions in the United States that have legalized and regulated access to cannabis. Our approach has been informed by the input of experts and extensive consultations with Canadians from coast to coast to coast.
As you will have heard on multiple occasions over the course of your study, our approach goes beyond the proposed legislative framework that would be established if Bill C-45 were to become law. In fact, we are taking decisive action in a number of key areas. Our approach is informed by the strict regulatory controls that are currently in place for Canadians who access cannabis for medical purposes and by the lessons learned from our considerable success in taking a public health approach to reducing tobacco smoking rates.
Our strategies include efforts to educate Canadians about the harms and risks of cannabis use, to promote healthy choices and reduce youth access, to prevent problematic and high-risk patterns of use, to protect Canadians through strict regulation and vigilant oversight, and to monitor cannabis trends and impacts in order to quickly respond to any new threats or risks that may emerge.
I would encourage the committee to consider the proposed legislation in the context of these broader, proven strategies for protecting public health. Of course, effecting such a major change cannot happen oversight. As I have mentioned on very many occasions, the legalization and regulation of cannabis should not be viewed as a single event but rather as a process that will happen over time. We are confident that the policy framework that we are proposing, which is informed by the thoughtful expert advice provided by our Task Force on Cannabis Legalization and Regulation will put Canada in a far better position and a stronger position to protect the health and safety of Canadians, especially our youth.
We are also mindful that this is a complex and transformative policy initiative and that our policy objectives will not be met merely with the coming into force of Bill C-45 alone. Instead, the success of our initiative will rely on ongoing work in areas that I have identified and our ability to be responsive to new evidence, developments and trends.
Against this backdrop, I would like to speak to a number of specific areas that have been at the forefront of the Senate’s study to date and the main points underpinning the government’s policy decisions and approach in these areas.
First of all, with respect to home and personal cultivation, I know this has generated considerable debate in the Senate and in the public domain. Our government’s view is that allowing adults to cultivate a limited amount of cannabis in their home is consistent with the objective of displacing the illegal market and it can be done in a responsible way. This is the approach that was recommended by the Task Force on Cannabis Legalization and Regulation, and it is the approach that has been adopted by the majority of jurisdictions in the United States that have regulated access to cannabis.
Setting a very low limit on the number of plants is a reasonable way to allow adults to cultivate cannabis for personal use while prohibiting larger scale grow operations. By being too restrictive in the prohibition of personal cultivation, we risk criminalizing adults who are otherwise law-abiding, which is contrary to the objectives of our bill.
Another area that has been the object of Senate committee recommendations is the possibility of establishing cannabis product requirements directly in the legislation rather than through regulations as has been proposed by our government. The possibility of specific amendments was suggested on packaging and labelling, as well as THC limits. That was raised at committee. On this, I would simply stress the importance of maintaining the flexibility within the legislative framework to be able to be responsive and to adapt to new evidence and product innovation in this evolving space. The task force recommended the creation of a flexible, legislative and regulatory framework for this very reason. Bill C-45 provides for this flexibility to adapt to new evidence and product innovation by establishing a range of regulation-making authorities, including on THC limits, packaging and labelling.
I can assure you that it is our government’s intention to establish, through regulation, THC limits for different types of cannabis products. It is also our government’s intention to require child-resistant plain packaging of cannabis products with strict requirements to display clear health warnings and messages and a standardized cannabis symbol. All of these measures are intended to protect kids and to reduce the appeal of cannabis products.
The next area I would like to raise is one that relates to a top priority for our government: Indigenous interests and concerns in the context of the proposed framework to legalize and strictly regulate cannabis. I know this issue has been a prominent theme throughout the Senate review. Engagement with Indigenous leaders, organizations and communities has been ongoing for over two years, beginning with the Task Force on Cannabis Legalization and Regulation and continuing throughout the development of the framework up to this point. This extensive engagement has led to a better understanding of the diverse perspectives among Indigenous leaders and communities. It has also led to concrete action to respond to some of their concerns.
Indigenous communities have expressed a strong interest in ensuring that Indigenous peoples can benefit from the economic opportunity of the emerging legal cannabis industry. Health Canada has responded by establishing a navigator service designed specifically to help guide self-identified Indigenous applicants through each step of the licensing process. Indigenous Services Canada has responded by making its economic development programs available to support projects related to cannabis.
Indigenous organizations have called for support to prepare for cannabis legalization and regulation. For this reason, our government is providing financial support to the Assembly of First Nations Cannabis Task Force and the Thunderbird Partnership Foundation to conduct additional work, consultations and engagement.
In response to calls for culturally appropriate public education, our government has announced significant additional investments in Budget 2018. These funds will support the involvement of community-based and Indigenous organizations that are educating their communities on the risks associated with cannabis use.
Indigenous leaders and communities have also identified the ongoing need to improve access to health and social services, which goes well beyond the issues associated with cannabis use. In Budget 2018 our government has announced new funding to enhance the delivery of culturally appropriate addictions prevention and treatment services in communities with high needs and for mental health and emotional supports.
By no means, senators, do I mean to suggest that our work is done.
Some of the issues that have surfaced during debates on Bill C-45 point to broader social, economic and public health issues that will require continuous engagement and sustained efforts over the long term. However, I wish to reinforce that delaying the coming into force of Bill C-45 is not, in my respectful opinion, the proper response to these issues.
We have talked extensively about the shortcomings of the current approach. As I mentioned earlier, the public health approach that we are proposing will better position us as a nation to tackle these issues as they relate to cannabis. Canada has some of the highest rates of youth use of cannabis, the illegal market is thriving for Canadians, including for Indigenous peoples, and they all continue to be subject to criminal prosecution for possession of small amounts of cannabis. Delaying the transition to our proposed new legal framework would in fact perpetuate a system that is failing our children and putting our communities at risk.
In conclusion, I want to reinforce that the legislative framework that would be established through Bill C-45 is the result of two and a half years of extensive work and consultation. It reflects and balances diverse perspectives from provinces and territories, municipalities, Indigenous communities and First Nation governments and a wide range of experts and stakeholders.
Provincial and territorial governments have developed their own legislation on the basis of this proposed framework, and investments and preparations to establish retail systems in their jurisdictions are well under way.
Once again, I wish to express my appreciation for the in-depth review of this proposed legislation conducted by the Senate, and I look forward to the opportunity to discuss any outstanding questions that you may have of us. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We’ll do our usual five minutes each. That includes questions and answers. The shorter the questions, the shorter the answers, the more you can get in in your five minutes. We’ll start with our deputy chair, Senator Chantal Petitclerc.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: Thank you, everyone, for joining us today. My question goes to Mr. Blair.
Can you confirm for me how solid Bill C-45 is in terms of packaging, advertising and marketing? In the work of our committee and in the work of other committees, we have come to realize that industries are already very dynamic and very creative and that some are even taking advantage of the fact that cannabis is not yet legal to build their brand, until they are no longer allowed to do so. I want to be sure that, in terms of the packaging, the names that can be put on it, and in terms of the advertising, the marketing and the cannabis-derived products, that this bill will be solid enough for us to be able to protect our young people.
[English]
Mr. Blair: Thank you, senator.
Let me begin by saying that it is absolutely not the Government of Canada’s intention to allow for the promotion of this drug’s use by any Canadian. We propose to strictly regulate the access that young people will have to this drug by effecting a prohibition for its purchase, possession and consumption by persons under the age of majority in every province and territory in this country.
We’ve also introduced very strict requirements and restrictions, exactly as you have mentioned, on packaging, branding and labelling and front-of-package information so people know the potency, purity and provenance of what is being consumed, including health warnings for those vulnerable to the risks associated with the use of this drug, for example, women of childbearing age or people suffering from other unrelated illnesses or contraindications of this drug.
There will be strict limitations on such things as branding and packaging, with no lifestyle advertising or promotion.
Frankly, we have tried to learn from our very positive experience in reducing tobacco usage among vulnerable populations in Canada by placing greater restrictions on plain packaging through health warnings and other measures.
I wish to assure you that it has been front of mind in the development of not only Bill C-45 but in the regulations that will support it at Health Canada. To that end, if I may, I would ask Mr. Costen, who is the director of the cannabis secretariat at Health Canada and who has expert knowledge in this area, to perhaps comment.
Eric Costen, Director General, Cannabis Legalization and Regulation Secretariat, Health Canada: Your answer is pretty comprehensive. There are a few other features that may be of interest.
In addition to the different controls that Mr. Blair has outlined with respect to the use of colour, the regulations would prescribe font size, position of certain information on the label, really drawing from all of the lessons that I think are behind your question that we’ve learned through the tobacco control experience. We’ve certainly studied very closely how industry will try to outmanoeuvre governments and to build and craft regulations that look to anticipate and be as agile as possible.
It’s probably worth mentioning that among these different features that would be required on the package and the label, there’s also a universal THC warning symbol that would have to be present on all cannabis products. This is a symbol that we focus-tested with parents, with very young children and with teenagers that help non-consumers who may be in the home environment recognize and stay away from a product that has THC in it. That’s another lesson we learned from the U.S.
Mr. Blair: Senator, these regulations have teeth. They are enforceable and there are consequences for breaking them. I think that’s very important as well.
The industry has to know not only that we will have these regulations but we’re prepared to defend them and there are consequences for breaking them.
Until this regulatory package comes into force, I think we are seeing people trying to scramble to establish themselves and get out ahead. Once these regulations are available to us, I am very confident we’ll be able to curtail that activity and bring it under control.
The Chair: I will now recognize our other deputy chair, Senator Seidman.
Senator Seidman: Thank you all for being with us today.
Mr. Blair, when you appeared before this committee in March, I asked you why the government had not set any targets for reducing the rates of cannabis use among Canadians. In response, you said that you planned to eliminate use of cannabis among young people. Coincidentally, just a few weeks later, the health minister tabled plans to set targets to reduce the rate of Canadians 15 to 24 who use cannabis by December 31, 2021. If you’re confident that your bill will eliminate use by young people, why not announce that target today? Moreover, why have you not committed to setting reduction targets for people over the age of 24, which is very similar to the non-smoking targets you’ve set for everyone? Is this because the bill really isn’t about discouraging people from using cannabis?
Mr. Blair: Senator, if I may be really clear, our number one policy goal in bringing forward this legislation right from the outset, in the establishment of our task force, we asked them to look at reducing health and social harms. We identified as the first harm the high rate of use among our kids. We know that has not happened overnight. With great respect, it will not be eliminated overnight. Right now they have almost unfettered access to this drug. It’s available in every community and frankly in every schoolyard. The cannabis they have access to is 100 per cent produced and sold by criminals. We believe that by displacing that illicit market, by driving those criminals out of those schoolyards, we can have a better effect of restricting the access young people have to it.
Also by the new regulations we’re putting in, we’ve created a new criminal offence of selling to kids that has real consequences, a penalty of up to 14 years. Cannabis that will legally be available for sale will be sold under a system of strict regulation and oversight where there’s accountability, where none currently exists. Simply restricting their access through regulation isn’t enough. So we’re making significant investments over the next five years of $108.5 million in public education to give young people, their parents, teachers, health service providers and their peers information so that they can make more informed decisions, that they will know the risks.
With regard to our experience with tobacco, we have not been successful in completely eliminating tobacco use among young people, but we have been hugely successful in reducing it. We’re building upon that experience with cannabis.
Senator Seidman: Thank you, but if I would like to get back to the question for a moment. The question is about setting targets to reduce the rate of Canadians aged 15 to 24 who use cannabis.
The minister said she would announce the target, plan the target by December 31, 2021. Why aren’t you willing to announce that target today? What is the target?
Mr. Blair: Senator, in explanation of the position the minister has taken, I think it’s a very responsible one.
One of the things that we have also said right at the outset was the need for good baseline data. We’ve gone to Statistics Canada, Ontario drug usage studies and other institutions conducting surveys so we have a good understanding of the rate of usage among our young people, what it is they are using, the circumstances of its use and where they’re acquiring it. We’ve also put in ongoing surveillance and measurement. We’re building up that.
We’ve been also been putting in place very strong systems of ongoing surveillance and measurement. We’ve been working with the academic community and public health officials, StatsCan and others to establish an ongoing system of measurement so we can know where to begin and we can see trends emerging and we can have a better understanding as we get systems in place as to what’s working and what’s not.
As I indicated earlier, this is a process, not an event. So we are committed to a process of continued adaptation and improvement to achieve our public purpose goals. Our first goal is the protection of our kids and getting this drug, which has real risks, both health and social for our children, out of their hands. Right now we have the highest rates of any country in the world, and reducing that can have a positive outcome for the health, safety and futures of our kids. We’re putting all of the things in place in establishing strong baseline measurements to begin with so we’ll be able to know exactly what’s working and what’s not. We’ll continue to measure, evaluate, adapt and to innovate to achieve those purposes. When we have more evidence and better experience with its implementation, the minister has committed to coming out with clear, identified targets of reduction, which we believe will be based on evidence and not on mere speculation.
Senator Plett: Thank you, Mr. Blair and the rest of the witnesses for being here. I will make my comments with the highest respect that I do indeed have for you, Mr. Blair, especially in your previous occupation as one of the country’s top police officers.
I just find it mind-boggling when your government can say that one of your biggest priorities is to protect the health and safety of Canadians, especially youth. I think that is pretty much quoting what you said in part of your opening comments.
We are legalizing both a drug, smoking, that we have for years and years been trying to eliminate in other forms because we recognize the horrible health hazards that smoking has. Now we’re legalizing a mind-numbing method of smoking, and all the while we’re saying we are trying to protect the health and safety of Canadians. That is such a horrible contradiction of statements, in my opinion.
That, however, isn’t my question, Mr. Blair. I have two questions and I’ll try to get them in under my five minutes.
You recently stated, Mr. Blair, that Canadians should be truthful in answering questions at the border about their marijuana use. However, witnesses before our National Security and Defence Committee told us that any admission of past marijuana use can lead to an individual from being banned for life from entering the United States.
Last month, the Department of Global Affairs tabled the following planned messaging for Canadians after Bill C-45 becomes law:
You may be denied entry to a foreign country if you have previously used cannabis products, whether for medical purposes or not, even if you have used them legally in Canada.
How, Mr. Blair, are Canadians supposed to prepare for being banned for life from the United States for admitting to something that your government is making legal in Canada? If you answer that fairly briefly, I think the chair will let me get my second question in.
Mr. Blair: Truthfully, sir — and you made allusion to what I used to do for a living — I would never tell anybody to lie to a law enforcement official at the border or anywhere else. I believe telling the truth is upholding Canadian values and the rule of law, full stop.
I will also tell you, sir, that we know from their admissions. There are nearly half a million Canadians who currently have a record for civil possession of cannabis. We also know that there are several million Canadians who were simply not caught. We often hear admissions from people who have very responsible positions that at one time they used cannabis illegally in this country. When they go to the border there is no expectation — frankly, I’ve crossed the border myself hundreds of times and I’ve never been asked about illegal drug use. If asked, however, I would answer honestly. I have never used any illegal drug, ever.
Quite frankly, we’re working very carefully with law enforcement officials in the United States and in other countries to ensure Canadians entering into those countries will be treated properly. We recognize there are currently 30 states in the U.S. where cannabis is available for use medically; 10 states where it’s available for non-medical uses, and frankly two of those are border states. Two of them border Canada, and it has not been an impediment for Americans travelling into Canada, so I do not anticipate it will be a significant issue for Canadians going back and forth into the United States. We’re working with U.S. law enforcement officials to minimize any challenges that Canadians may face at the border.
Senator Plett: I hope you give us a phone number so we can call you from the border. I smoked marijuana when I was 18 years old — 50 years ago. I may be asked that question. I hope I’m not because, along with you, I don’t believe in lying to somebody who asks me a question.
We will be asked more often when this becomes law than we are being asked right now, I assure you.
My second question, Mr. Blair, is your government said you are ready to legalize cannabis. I note from the bill that it has already been amended at least 20 times in the other place. We are hearing that we are going to have some 29 more amendments coming to us, albeit technical amendments, later today.
I’m wondering how ready we are, how many more amendments we will be getting and how you can sit there and say we are ready and your government is ready when we have at least 49 amendments that are being proposed or have been proposed by your government and are probably going to be proposed by the sponsor of the bill later today?
Mr. Blair: Actually, that brings me back to your earlier comments about what you perceive, senator, respectfully as a contradiction.
The current criminal prohibition is largely ignored — as you did when you were 18 — by Canadians. Ignoring the existing Canadian law, the prohibition against the purchase, possession and use of cannabis, has created a set of circumstances, first, where our kids are in enormous jeopardy, in my opinion; and, second, where organized crime is enriched to the tune of several billion dollars each year. They control 100 per cent of the illicit market and profit enormously from it.
One of the things I know from my experience in my previous profession is that you cannot regulate a prohibited substance. It’s only by lifting the criminal prohibition — that’s what legalization is — that allows us to introduce a comprehensive system of strict regulation to control every aspect of its production.
We learned in 2013, and in the subsequent five years of our experience with licensed production for medical purposes, that it can be done right under strict regulatory regime. Production can be done in such a way that we know the potency, providence and purity of what is being consumed for medical purposes in this country. We know it can be done in such a way where dangerous chemicals are not included and it’s not adulterated. We’re building upon that experience.
It gives me confidence that five years of experience with those regulations and licensed production, the production for non-medical use, can be done right. We have the experience and the evidence to support it.
We have also been working closely for the past two years with provinces and territories across the country in establishing strict regulatory regimes for its distribution. We’re building on the experience of other substances like tobacco and alcohol. We’ve brought forward what we believe is a very appropriate, strict regulatory framework that will do a much better job protecting our kids and displacing that illicit market.
Finally, sir, as I said, we see this very much as a process of continuous adaptation. Bill C-45 provides us with the opportunity and a framework not only to move forward — and we are committed to moving forward — but also, when technical amendments come forward that make sense, to adapt to make sure that we give Canadians the best laws and the best regulations to protect them. That is our responsibility.
Senator Stewart Olsen: Mr. Blair, I’m kind of on the fence about the legislation, but I’m not reassured by your presentation in two instances, and perhaps you can help me with them.
The first part is when you said the bill is comprehensive and thoughtfully designed, but you’re now requiring many technical amendments to correct what are obviously flaws in the drafting. I don’t see that as thoughtful or well designed.
My second question is: Do you really think that an ongoing or work in progress is applicable in this area of extreme social change for the country? I’m not sure I’m satisfied with your statement that says, “We’re going to monitor it.” I would have thought, if you were going to do this, you would have monitored, done your studies and done all of this ground work before bringing in the legislation.
Also, in much of your statement to us, your main argument has been the criminals making all this money that we can’t tax. I hear this over and over. You didn’t say “we can’t tax”; I just thought that it when you kept saying it.
Then you talk about the Aboriginal peoples and their real hesitation as to the coming into force of this legislation. You say yes, we’ve made adjustments, and we’re going to have it so they can make money, too. Is it the focus of your government to say no pipelines, no this, no that, but by God you can make pot?
Mr. Blair: Senator, first of all, in a number of other jurisdictions, particularly the United States, they had ballot initiatives that said they were going to legalize and tax it. And it previously was about revenue. With great respect, I would not agree with your statement.
Our approach has been entirely predicated on a public health model. We began by looking at harms, both health and social. We asked the task force to examine this cross the country. They had people with expertise from areas of public health, public safety, justice and problematic substance use. They travelled across the country looking at how to reduce the social and health harms of cannabis use. That has been the basis upon which this legislation comes forward.
There are revenue implications through excise tax and sales tax. The Prime Minister has been very clear. The revenue generated for the federal government in their portion of the excise tax as a result of the new cannabis act will be reinvested in research, treatment, prevention and rehabilitation. And I might suggest to you that those are precisely the things that address those social and health harms of which I’ve spoken earlier.
When we talk about Indigenous communities participating in this new industry, it’s because First Nations told us they wanted to participate. Not all of them but many of them came to us and said they want access to the economic opportunity that this may present for their communities, and they asked for help and we responded to that. We said we will provide them with support and assistance and we will hire someone to help them because they asked for it. That’s part of the ongoing engagement we have with Indigenous communities.
We’ve been working on many of the issues and concerns of jurisdiction, on access and participation in this new industry, and on culturally appropriate training materials. We’ve been working with Indigenous communities, but we’re not done. It’s an ongoing process of engagement. That’s part of our commitment. It’s not simply that we went and talked to them, we’ve ticked the box and we’re done. What we’ve said is, “We’re working with you and we’re going to continue working with you. As opportunities come forward or as concerns are raised, we’ll be with you to make sure that we, together, through a very respectful nation-to-nation discussion, can address the legitimate concerns of those communities.”
Senator Poirier: Thank you all for being here to answer our questions again today.
Mr. Blair, since the bill was introduced and throughout the committee hearings, we heard from some people how cannabis is far less dangerous than alcohol, but that notion is really not reflected in Bill C-45. For example, penalties are way harsher for having 6 grams of cannabis in a bag than six bottles of beer. If cannabis is so much safer than alcohol, why is the punishment for youth so much harsher with cannabis?
Mr. Blair: Senator, first of all, I have never said that cannabis is safe, particularly for young people.
Senator Poirier: No, I didn’t say that you said it was. I said that throughout the committee meetings, we heard from some people who had stated that. I just wanted your opinion on it.
Mr. Blair: Senator, we’re transitioning from a century-long system of criminal prohibition that the overwhelming majority of Canadians have begun to ignore, but it had enormous consequences for individuals caught in possession. As a result of some youthful indiscretion, many were not caught but some were, and they ended up with a criminal record that affects the rest of their lives — their ability to cross the border, their ability to get a job or the cost of having a criminal record. Those consequences are quite significant.
We’re moving away from that criminal prohibition, but I believe the regulations we’re putting in place will reflect Canadians’ concerns that have been expressed to us about the availability of this drug, and they want to ensure that we do not allow the illicit market to continue.
It’s important to be very clear. We are creating a system of strictly regulated production and distribution of cannabis, and any cannabis outside of that strict regulatory framework — so illegal production — remains a serious criminal offence. Illegal distribution through trafficking remains a serious criminal offence. Importation/exportation not under ministerial licence but by criminals remain serious criminal offences. That is simply an acknowledgment that organized crime has 100 per cent control of this market. The police are retaining all of the authorities, offences and penalties that they have had for a century, but we are adding a new element of competing with organized crime by giving them a competitor in the marketplace so that adult Canadians can make a different choice — a legitimate, healthier, lower risk choice than the one they currently have dealing with criminals.
Senator Poirier: Can you tell me when Health Canada is expected to issue a request for proposal for tracking recreational products between the licensed producers and the retailers?
Mr. Blair: I will refer to Health Canada’s director on those matters.
Mr. Costen: Thank you for the question. We’re prepared to launch the system at a point in time when the legislation will come into force, should Parliament approve it. It is a system that we are designing internally. It is not a system that we are seeking to procure externally at this time.
Senator Poirier: On the question of the home cultivation, our committee has heard the concerns from key witnesses from all fields, including health, police, municipalities, lawyers, and the list goes on. Weighing the pros and cons of this provision, it’s clear that the negative effects and the concerns clearly outweigh the benefits.
The most striking comment came from Professor Benedikt Fischer, a senior scientist with the Institute of Mental Health Policy Research at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health. He said:
In my opinion, it’s categorically misguided as part of the supply scheme for cannabis in a public health and a strictly regulated approach. It’s a recipe for people producing cannabis that is unregulated, to expose minors and other vulnerable people who shouldn’t be exposed to cannabis and a recipe for diversion. It doesn’t belong in a public health oriented supply framework for cannabis. The provision should be scrapped.
Your government has been clear from the get-go that the intent of the bill was to protect kids from using cannabis, which you say are among some of the highest in the world. Can you please explain how normalizing cannabis by allowing unregulated and unchecked cannabis plants in Canadian homes is part of a strategy from protecting young people from using cannabis?
Mr. Blair: Thank you. Let me also be very clear: Personal cultivation is not part of the supply framework. The supply framework is the only cannabis that will be available, and that supply framework is that which has been produced under strict regulatory and oversight by Health Canada and available through the distribution systems established by the provinces and territories — but not for distribution, not the supply network, but for individuals.
What our task force heard and what we have in our regulations is a limit on how much an individual can cultivate for their own personal consumption. They can’t sell it. They can’t give it to the neighbours. They certainly can’t give it to their children. There are regulations that prevent that. If they went to the end of the driveway and started to sell it, that’s a criminal offence, trafficking, and that’s illegal production in any amount — four plants or 400 plants. It’s not part of the supply chain.
It allows an individual Canadian for their own personal use to cultivate up to four plants. It creates an offence for more plants.
It’s very important to be clear. With regard to the provinces and territories, we have said that they can put in regulatory control to ensure that that personal cultivation can take place in such a way as to address local concerns with respect to safety, sanitation, access to children. Municipalities can zone where it can take place. The provinces can put in regulations that would, for example, limit or restrict or prevent it from taking place in multi-residential dwellings, around school campuses, in close proximity to schools and community centres where children are present. They can even put in a permitting system so if some individual wanted to engage in personal cultivation, they need to get a municipal permit to do so and abide by whatever conditions were put in place.
This is an activity not part of the supply chain but rather only for personal use, which is subject to strict local regulatory conditions and controls.
Senator Munson: Marijuana wasn’t around when I was 18, but it certainly was around in my 20s.
As a breath of fresh air and to chill out the room a little bit, as my sons would say, I support this bill. And I support it for many of the reasons you talk about, so you can take a deep breath, parliamentary secretary. I don’t know how important it is in the scheme of things, but we are going to have many recommendations in amendments dealing with this bill.
Being of a certain age, I have covered constitutional conferences in the 1970s here, at the old train station, and seen the bidding to and fro of what makes up this country and what makes up fairness in terms of provincial jurisdiction and powers. It was a very difficult thing to cover over a number of years in those days.
With that in mind, and dealing with what we’ve been talking about and amendment-wise, provinces have made it very clear — and you’ve discussed this before, but I think we need an update to refresh our memories — on the cultivation and possession and harvesting of cannabis plants, including the power to prohibit it.
Are there any barriers today, jurisdictional or otherwise, to implementing the recommendation that the provinces want to have that power or say that they have the power to do that, particularly Quebec and Manitoba?
Mr. Blair: Senator, I’m assuming you’re speaking specifically about personal cultivation.
Senator Munson: Yes.
Mr. Blair: If I also may quickly address: One of the things that was also in place, which I think is appropriate to your question as well, is we’ve established, at a minimum, the age of 18 for the applicability of this legislation. But we’ve said to the provinces that they may establish their own age, and they have. They’ve all established their own, which happens to align with their age of majority, 19 in the vast majority of cases, 18 in two others. We have asked each of them — and they have done this in their own legislation — to bring forward regulation that prohibits the purchase, possession and consumption of cannabis for any individual, any young person, between the ages of 12 and the age of majority in their jurisdiction. I think the power of that is that it doesn’t criminalize that behaviour. It regulates it. It gives the police to ability to enforce a total prohibition on kids possessing this drug without criminalizing it.
Senator Munson: Just to be clear, though, will the provinces be able to prohibit the cultivation of four plants, or whatever, in their jurisdictions? Yes or no?
Mr. Blair: With great respect, sir, frankly, I’m not sure I’m able to give you a definitive yes or no. What I can tell you is that, in the federal legislation, more than four plants is an offence under these regulations. We’ve been very clear with the provinces. For example, New Brunswick has brought in regulations that it has to be done, under certain circumstances, with locks and security measures. There are other jurisdictions that have said it can only take place indoors and under glass, rather than in outdoor cultivation.
Many of the provinces are bringing in regulations that they deem to be appropriate in their circumstances to control personal cultivation — where it can take place, when it can take place, by whom and under what circumstances. I believe, senator, that they have that authority.
What limits and restrictions may subsequently be determined to be had, I think that will be determined by other processes. But we’ve been working very closely with the provinces and territories to enable them to regulate this behaviour in a way that they deem to be appropriate in their circumstances.
Senator Munson: Thank you for that.
We seem to be operating on a timetable. It’s like getting out of school at the end of June, to get things done before summer happens. We will have many amendments. You talked about technical amendments, but there will be substantive amendments. Certainly, there will be a debate around this table.
Is your timetable still 90 days after Royal Assent, and do you hope for Royal Assent to happen by July 1 still? Do you see regulation being done and law taking place by September? Is that still your timetable?
Mr. Blair: Sir, I very much respect the processes that are taking place here. When you’re done, and we move toward Royal Assent, we have already said publicly that following Royal Assent — we have provincial and territorial partners in this endeavour. We’ve been working with them for many months in preparing for an orderly implementation of the new act and regulations and their regulations. They have told us that they need between eight to 12 weeks following Royal Assent to effect responsible implementation. We’re working on that timetable, whenever the Senate completes its important work. Then the bill moves to Royal Assent. Frankly, I don’t control that timetable, but when that work is completed, we have work to do. We’re ready to do that work. Health Canada is ready to go. The provinces and territories have told us they’re ready to go, but they need that period of eight to 12 weeks to effect an orderly implementation. So when you’re done, sir, we’ll be able to give you a far more accurate idea of when the law could come into effect.
Senator Munson: Thank you.
Senator Bernard: Thank you for being here. We’ve heard from a number of witnesses, including the Criminal Lawyers’ Association, that have highlighted the fact that pardons for past convictions for simple possession of cannabis are not addressed in this bill. Does the government intend to put in place a separate system for pardons for convictions for simple possession, and, if so, what is the timeline that is being proposed?
Mr. Blair: Thank you, senator. The issue of Canadians with a criminal record for simple possession of cannabis was identified as one of the social harms that we hope to address in this legislation. By lifting that criminal prohibition and replacing it with regulation, working with the provinces and territories, we have, I think, created a situation going forward where we have significantly reduced the risk of Canadians being criminalized for any activity regarding cannabis.
In addition, the Prime Minister has made it clear: While the prohibition remains in effect, while the criminal law is still the only means of controlling cannabis in this country, that law remains in effect until repealed and replaced. So what you have suggested, frankly, cannot be addressed without nullifying the existing law. There’s an appropriate process for repealing and relacing laws in this country, and we’re in the midst of it. So we’ll continue with that important work. The Prime Minister has indicated that, once that is done, once we have repealed the criminal prohibition, once we have established and put in place the new regulatory framework for the strict control of the production, distribution and consumption of cannabis, then the issue of the social harm of those outstanding criminal records is something that he is prepared to address. I think that’s the appropriate time and, frankly, it is not within the scope of this legislation, with great respect. It is something, if the government chooses in the future to address it, that would be more appropriately dealt with not in the cannabis act but in a more particular piece of legislation.
Senator Bernard: The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples noted in their recommendations that there should be culturally specific public education materials on the subject of cannabis for First Nations and Inuit communities. I fully support that recommendation but believe that public education needs to be gender specific. I’m wondering if a GBA+ analysis is being used in the preparation of public education but also culturally specific for other cultures, in addition to the First Nations and Inuit. Is that part of the plan?
Mr. Blair: Yes, ma’am. May I say that I also agree completely with that recommendation from the Aboriginal Affairs Committee about the importance of being culturally appropriate? By the way, in many cases, language specific. Language is equally a serious concern, as well as the cultural competence and appropriateness of what’s available.
I can assure you that in everything that comes from Health Canada there’s a GBA+ lens attached. So, for all of those training programs that will be developed, I think gender and all of the complex issues that are engaged in that analysis are under consideration and will be included.
I would also agree with you, senator, that we live in a remarkably diverse country, and we have seen the impact of cannabis disproportionately affecting some communities. I think that demands of us that, in the development of the education and information that we’re making available, it’s not just simply trying to educate but making people understand the law and how it should be applied. I think it has to be done in all of the diversity of this country, in particular with great sensitivity to those communities that have been most significantly impacted by the existing system of cannabis control. We want to make sure that as we roll out these new regulations, we address what I think we would both agree are the significant social harms that are possible if it’s not done right.
Senator Bernard: Thank you.
Senator Patterson: Welcome, witnesses.
Your government has supported the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous people, which features prior — I emphasize “prior” — informed consent. You say the task force consulted with Aboriginal peoples, but as you know, the President of ITK has said that consultation and conversation with ITK is not consultation with Inuit.
I thank you for coming up to Nunavut, but it was not until about a year after the bill was introduced in Parliament. I don’t think anyone would say consultation after the bill was drafted was adequate. We’ve had the AFN national chiefs on December 17 advocating delay and the NTI Nunavut Tunngavik annual general meeting advocating delay.
Now, you’ve said that to delay the coming into force of the bill is not acceptable, but you tell us that concrete action has been taken on the issues that have been raised —economic opportunities, financial support for consultation, funding for community-based treatment and funding for culturally appropriate treatment programs. You’ve given us a quick assurance that that’s happening.
In light of the non-partisan Aboriginal Committee’s clear concern that consultation was ineffective, would you agree that the government should come back to Parliament with a more detailed report on these issues of concern? And I didn’t even mention the First Nations Tax Commission saying they’ve been left out of the revenue stream. Out of respect to the inherent right to self-government, they have to deal with the health, education and social impacts of this legislation, yet they’ve been left out of the revenue stream.
Would you agree that you should come back to Parliament with more detailed reports on these major issues of concern to Aboriginal peoples before the bill comes into force?
Mr. Blair: Senator, with great respect, I would like very much to speak to some of the issues that you raised.
There was consultation. When the task force was established, they conducted a number of consultations with Indigenous and First Nations organizations, actually held a specific event, a round table, in which First Nations and Indigenous organizations were invited to participate. We also received a number of written submissions from them. So they were involved in the consultation from the outset.
Since that time, I believe there have been — and I may not have the exact number — about 50 different events where we’ve come together and we’ve been involved in discussion. I participated in many of those, but not all of them. Senior officials, particularly from the health ministry, have been involved in those discussions, as well as Indigenous Services and others.
You made reference specifically to the taxation issue. I had the privilege of attending at the AFN special assembly that was held a few short weeks ago. I actually spoke at that event and stayed for plenary sessions. It was three or four hours. Far more importantly, the Prime Minister spoke, and the Prime Minister talked, with the AFN and with First Nations represented in that special assembly, about a process of establishing a new fiscal arrangement. It would include all of the fiscal and financial relationships between the Government of Canada and the First Nations. I think it’s far more appropriate for discussion around things like cannabis excise or sales tax to be included within the context of that larger fiscal arrangement discussion that the Prime Minister spoke of on that date before the special assembly.
With respect to issues around public education, we have worked with many First Nations Indigenous organizations, including the ones you referenced in Nunavut. They were very compelling in their advocacy for the need for being culturally appropriate. We have listened, and we’ve made a commitment to all of those organizations.
We’re not saying that this consultation process and engagement is concluded. We’re not suggesting for a moment that we visited them and we’re done. I think there’s a very legitimate concern among those organizations that this process of engagement continues, that they continue to work with us and to ensure that those educational products are produced and available within their community, that we continue to work with them, not just up until the passage of this bill and the date the law comes into effect, but beyond that date and well into the future, to make sure that for those who wish to be involved in the economic opportunities, participating in this new emerging industry, that they have those opportunities. So they don’t have to get rushed through the door before the law comes into effect. We will be with them now and well into the future and continue working with them.
It’s the same with the discussion over the exercise of jurisdiction. We very much respect and acknowledge the jurisdictions of First Nations. We are committed to working with them so that they may exercise that jurisdiction and authority in an appropriate way, and we’ll continue to commit to engage and work with them going forward.
Senator Patterson: That was a long answer, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: I’ve given everybody the five minutes. Questions and answers need to be short. I can put you down for the second round.
Senator Dean: Thank you for being here today.
I’ve been struck over the last several months by the effort of some to create the impression that when and if this bill is proclaimed and implemented, we will suddenly have a problem with cannabis on our hands. All of us in this room know that isn’t the case, that this is a piece of legislation that is responsive to a problem that we have with cannabis today. So it’s a simple question for you, Mr. Blair: What are the consequences of not legalizing and strictly regulating cannabis in Canada?
Mr. Blair: I think, senator, the evidence is overwhelming that the current system of cannabis control in this country is failing. It’s failing us on many fronts. Most importantly, it’s failing us for our children. I think the evidence is overwhelming, compelling and conclusive that we have among the highest rates in the world of cannabis use for our kids.
It’s not just the health risks of that cannabis that our kids are using. First of all, the cannabis itself is untested, unregulated, unsafe and contains chemicals unfit for human consumption. We know that the earlier they begin to use, the more frequently they use, and the higher potency of what they use, the greater the risks for their health and for their outcomes.
We also know they’re buying it from criminals, so it’s exposing our children to a criminal element that young people should never be exposed to. Because they’re operating outside the law, in their own mind they’re defining themselves as outside the law. That’s also not good socialization for our kids.
We also know that 100 per cent of the market, its production and distribution, is a criminal enterprise. They don’t follow any law. They don’t obey any rule. They’re not accountable in any way. There’s no oversight, no governance and no testing. They operate in the dark. And they make money — the easiest money they ever made.
I ran large organized drug crime units in Toronto for many years. The money they make in cannabis is the easiest money organized crime makes. There’s no competition for them in the marketplace. Canadian society generally does not see this as a serious criminal activity, and they control 100 per cent of it; there’s no competition. So it works out to about $20 million a day, flowing into criminal enterprise in this country.
The price of leaving that is that we’re leaving the health and safety of our children in the hands of criminals. We’re allowing criminals to make enormous profit. The sad reality is you cannot regulate a prohibited substance. As long as that criminal prohibition remains in place, there’s no way we can ever get control over its production and distribution or effect reasonable regulations that control its consumption.
Cannabis is a serious problem in the workplace today, but it’s very difficult for an employer to regulate that behaviour because it’s criminally prohibited. It’s a difficult conversation for parents, teachers and health professionals to have with their kids about the risks of cannabis today. How do you talk to your kids about committing a criminal act in a socially responsible or less risky way? It’s only by lifting that prohibition that we actually can get control of this situation. I think it’s a very responsible approach.
For those who focus on the Government of Canada merely legalizing cannabis, they’re completely missing the story here. The story is we’re lifting that prohibition to effect a comprehensive and effective system of regulatory control over production, distribution and consumption of cannabis in this country. It’s going to create safer and healthier communities. It will, over time, displace that illicit market and give Canadian adults a healthier, lower risk, more socially responsible choice. I’m confident they will make that choice once we make it available to them.
Senator Dean: As sponsor, as we come to the end of these hearings, I want to recognize the work of the officials who supported us from various government departments, some of whose work goes back to the task force and some goes back to the beginning of the medical cannabis system, which reminds us this isn’t a cold start.
I’ve worked with a lot of public servants over the last 20 years. Canada’s public servants have a global reputation for being the smartest and the best, and I also include our political public servants in that light. We have seen and I have been reminded of the talent and commitment of our public servants by the people who have supported us in this room and who will do that beyond today. As sponsor, I want to put that on the record. Thank you very much.
Senator Omidvar: In December of last year, we were blessed with the presence of Senator Nancy Ruth in the Senate. She was a member of the Conservative caucus and a powerful voice for gender equality. I will try to channel the question she would have asked you.
Was a gender-based analysis done on the impact and offences contained in the bill? If yes, what shifted? I certainly hope the answer is yes. What shifted, then, as a result in the bill? If the answer is “no,” why not?
Mr. Blair: Senator, the health minister has made it clear — I work closely with her — that everything within her ministry is subject to a GBA+ analysis. I will defer to senior officials who would have been involved in that process from the outset.
Mr. Costen: This may be something that we both have to play off one another.
As Mr. Blair indicated in the previous answer, whether it’s launching a major new grants and contribution program such as the one that he made reference to previously with respect to supporting various communities to do public education and health promotion, disease prevention activities, or whether launching a major government policy or, in this case, a significant new piece of legislation, we undertake a comprehensive gender-based analysis of the impacts of the program, the policy or in this case a change of law.
Unfortunately, I do not have before me the GBA that we’ve — I feel a bit constrained in trying to recall precisely the details of that analysis. Suffice to say that it is a key feature that we undertook in this regard.
I don’t know, Carole, if there’s anything you’d like to add to that.
Mr. Blair: I’ll jump back in because I was involved in some of this discussion. For example, when we were looking at youth usage, we were able to break it down by gender. We saw that youth usage was higher among young males than it was among young girls, but it was increasing for young girls. That was part of the consideration and the concern with respect to training materials.
Also in the development of those training materials, our government has been working with a number of NGOs and developing some things we’re working with a number of different communities organizations on. In every conversation I have with those organizations, I remind them of applying the lens of young women and girls to training materials, public responses and support programs that can be brought forward as a result of this to make sure that lens is applied. It is a problem that, frankly, cannabis use is affecting boys and girls in our society, but we also recognize that the information that we want to make sure we share with young girls may be a little nuanced and different than that which is used to reach young boys.
Senator Deacon: On Friday, we had a number of witnesses who spoke that frankly complemented and overlapped with some of the work we’re talking about this afternoon, your team and Mr. Costen’s team.
The reality is, as we continue to listen and meet with many Canadians and listen to a few months of witnesses here, the responses of Canadians feel like they’re really embedded in fear — fear of change, fear of significant change, lack of the unknown — these are all change issues — and the perception that the engagement process, the opportunity to be listened to or to be heard is done and over, and here we go. I think part of that is tied to the readiness issue, too, and what that looks like.
While we continue to frame the well-being of our youth as the number one priority — and we hear it in this room and we hear it regularly — this message is being missed. I feel fairly accurate in stating that. It’s not being heard as the driver of everything that we’re trying to do.
How do we get this right? I think that’s a critical piece. All of the pieces matter, absolutely, but how do we get this messaging — this is our most important priority — understood and comprehended and processed first for Canadians before we work through all the other pieces that will come?
Mr. Blair: Thank you, senator.
I was in the house yesterday, and a member got up and he stated that when this legislation comes in, kids under the age of 18 will be able to legally possess up to 5 grams of cannabis. It’s not true. I’m sure that scared a lot of parents. I’m sure when they heard it, it frightened a lot of parents. I won’t ascribe motive, just the effect. I think a lot of parents would have been frightened by that. Even more dangerously, a whole bunch of kids were misinformed by that and it puts them in jeopardy.
In every province and territory, without exception, there will be legislation put in place that enforces an absolute prohibition on possession, purchase and consumption of cannabis for people under the age of majority. That’s the reality. The police will be able to enforce that prohibition; seize the drug, issue a ticket. There are consequences. Thank God it’s not a criminal record because, in my opinion, that’s a disproportionate consequence. That’s a consequence that causes more harm than good. We will be able to enforce that prohibition.
I don’t know what the motive is for saying those things, but I think we need to get back to facts and share facts with Canadians. That’s ultimately my responsibility and the responsibility of my government, so we’ll continue to work hard on going out to communities and keeping people informed so they know the facts, not the fear, but the truth. I think it’s really important that we do that. We have to keep doing that.
I’ve gone into communities. Decent people who just care about their kids have been fed this nonsense, quite frankly, and they’re really frightened. Frankly, the job I used to have, and a lot of people thought I was law enforcement, but really my job was to keep people safe. I strongly believe that fear is the greatest enemy of public safety. When people are afraid, they don’t use public space, they lock their doors, put alarms and bars on them, they withdraw from society and from each other. They make choices that actually make them less safe.
In my old job as a police chief but also one of our jobs here is to take the fear out of life. I think you do that by giving people the facts. Give them the truth, and from my position, reassure them that we’re not going to put their kids in jeopardy. When someone tells them something that isn’t true, you have to stand up and respectfully say, “That’s not true.”
The Chair: Before I go to round two, I’m going to put in a question or two.
First of all, I’m concerned that there still is too much possible criminalization in the system with Bill C-45 for simple possession, simple personal use which we now say is a health matter and shouldn’t be a criminal matter.
The government got elected on this platform. It was part of its platform that it was going to do this. Since then, thousands of people have been charged with possession. Of course, the law is still in effect, but there’s still some discretion. You wonder about that discretion, particularly when it comes to people who are part of marginalized communities and people in poverty or racialized minorities. We’ve heard evidence of concern that there has been an over-representation in those charges from those groups of people.
When the Criminal Lawyers’ Association was in here, they said that under Bill C-45, an adult who possesses over 30 grams of marijuana in public is a criminal. A youth who possesses more than 5 grams of marijuana is a criminal. An 18-year-old who passes a joint to his 17-year-old friend is a criminal. An adult who grows five marijuana plants is a criminal.
Those statements may be a little on the extreme side, but this whole business of drawing these lines of 30, 18, five plants, et cetera, are not things that we’re used to seeing in terms of alcohol, another drug that has had a profound effect on the population for a long period of time, or tobacco for that matter.
I’m particularly concerned about possession. I think we should be totally decriminalizing possession. In particular, I’m concerned about any criminalization that may involve youth. When I talk about youth, I’m not just talking about the legal age limit of 18. I’m talking about the social consideration of what we consider youth, which would be people even into their 20s. If these people get a criminal record, their lives can be ruined. It can be difficult to get a job or to do anything productive in life. It just weighs on them terribly.
What do we do to take out the criminalization from this and to ensure that if there are going to be penalties, that they are alternate forms of justice, like tickets, that are not going to give them a criminal record?
Mr. Blair: Thank you, senator. You raise some interesting things.
Any federal statute with a penalty is essentially criminal law. When the criminal lawyers said all of those behaviours are criminal, did they also mention that not having a bailer in their boat or not wearing a life jacket is a criminal offence? It is under federal statute, but we don’t give people criminal records for that.
Most of the waivers you describe, I believe, wouldn’t result in a criminal record. They’re not offences that people would be fingerprinted for. Most of them would be resolved and dealt with through a ticketing scheme. I understand some of the technical amendments that we’re bringing forward more clearly define a fine structure for the enforcement of those offences. They’re not things that result in a criminal record. I think that needs to be clear.
I also want to differentiate, when you say you want things to be decriminalized. It’s important to understand what that is. Decriminalization maintains a prohibition, but instead of having a criminal penalty, you have a civil penalty. That’s essentially what decriminalization is. In fact, if you look at what we are proposing for enforcing the prohibition of young people in the possession of cannabis by using provincial regulation exactly as we do with alcohol, essentially that is decriminalization because the prohibition is maintained, but it’s not maintained through criminal sanctions but, rather, a civil penalty, which is what the province allows for in its ticketing regime. So it’s a far less consequential way of dealing with it.
I would also point out that in the criminal law, particularly as it deals with young people, there is a requirement — and it’s very explicit in Bill C-45 — that any offence for a young person must be dealt with in accordance with the Youth Criminal Justice Act. The YCJA requires that the police, prosecutors and the courts deal with that young person in the least consequential way. I’m paraphrasing and perhaps oversimplifying it, but that’s the real requirement. For example, if the police find a young person in possession of any amount of cannabis in any province or territory, they have the ability to deal with that young person in a number of different ways. The least intrusive way would be issuing a provincial ticket. If the circumstances require it be dealt with in a more consequential way, that would have to be justified by the police under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.
I believe there’s a great proportionality available in this system and, quite appropriate as well, it does not result in a criminal prosecution. It does not result in a criminal record. It’s an offence under the federal statute, and therefore I suppose the criminal lawyers are saying, yes, that would make it a criminal offence. But the reality is the records for that are kept in a very different way and do not result in what would be considered an indictable record that would be available to the police or border security officers ever. That information would simply not be available on CPIC because it’s not fingerprinted or loaded up into those information systems.
The Chair: Thank you. I have two people on for second round.
Senator Seidman: Thank you very much, Mr. Blair. You talked about facts and making facts evident to Canadians. It’s really critical. You’re quite right. I completely agree with you.
I’m not sure if you saw a feature on CBC television last week on Colorado and the increase on marijuana in the illegal market there. In today’s CBC news bulletin, there is a follow-up to that titled “Why Colorado’s black market for marijuana is booming 4 years after legalization.” In fact, it says:
. . . in Colorado in 2014, the government’s goal was to regulate and tax a drug that was already widely used and to squeeze out dealers and traffickers in the process.
In other words, exactly the rationale we’ve heard from the government. But in Colorado — and this piece relies on the law enforcement agencies in Colorado — “. . . law enforcement authorities in the state say legalization has done the exact opposite.”
They go on to talk about all the problems of the black market booming, driven by criminal organizations. Marijuana users are deterred by higher dispensary prices and are loyal to their long-time dealers. I’m not going to read the article now, but basically they say:
Investigators say the illegal trade has flourished because the state laws around growing marijuana were overly generous in the beginning and hard to enforce.
In other words, when the genie is out of the bottle, you cannot put it back in. I’d like to hear how you would respond to that.
Mr. Blair: Yes, ma’am, I’m happy to because they shared that experience with us. Their advice to us, which we took, was to be very restrictive and very careful. What they said to us was that there were many unintended consequences of the approach they took.
For example, they allowed unlicensed, unregulated cultivation for hundreds of plants. We do not allow that. The only cannabis that would be available for sale in this country would be that produced under the strict regulatory conditions overseen and enforced by Health Canada. That’s not the approach that Colorado began with. They did not put the same strict regulatory controls advised by our task force and adhered and agreed to by the provinces and territories in the establishment of their distribution networks.
They were also operating in an environment where they were surrounded by states that had not legalized, so they became the source state for all the states around them for illicit production. The circumstances that they found themselves in and the regulatory approach that they took was extremely problematic. They shared that with us.
I would contrast, in many significant ways, our approach, which is far different. Our approach is where the only cannabis allowed for sale is that which is produced under strict regulatory control. If you go to one of these licensed producers, you would see the extraordinary security requirements, the accountability and oversight, the governance and the testing put in place. That was not what was originally established in Colorado. We did not replicate their mistakes. They’ve shared with us, we’ve learned from that and we’ve taken a different approach.
By the way, other states have done that as well. If you contrast, for example, the experience in Washington State, which took a much stricter regulatory approach, somewhat more similar to ours, they have not had the same experience with illicit cannabis producers in their jurisdictions.
I am compelled to go back to this: We have a situation today where 100 per cent of cannabis production in this country is illicit. It’s one of the reasons we are retaining, partly in response to Senator Eggleton’s concerns, the authorities that the police currently possess to deal with organized crime, to deal with those illegal producers, to deal with those illegal drug traffickers. Their authorities, the offences and the penalties are being retained. So the police can still do their job.
In fact, we are also making significant new investments. The Minister of Public Safety has announced $113 million for both the RCMP and the CBSA, for the RCMP to improve their law enforcement capacity to address organized crime issues as they relate to cannabis, and to invest in CBSA so that we may do a better job of upholding the integrity of our borders because we have responsibilities to other jurisdictions as well. It’s not simply strict regulation, but it’s significant investment. I think those things were missing in the other jurisdictions that you refer to.
I’m very grateful to that jurisdiction for sharing their experience with us so that we might learn from their lessons and not have to replicate their mistakes. We’ve learned from their history. I think we’re going to do it a very different way.
Senator Patterson: Mr. Blair, you assured us, in answer to my question about the lack of consultation with Aboriginal people, that you were going to continue the dialogue after the bill is passed.
Frankly, I don’t believe that the Aboriginal people are willing to accept that kind of an approach. The UNDRIP resolution talks about prior informed consent — prior. Most of the consultation that has taken place has been after the bill was introduced.
I have two questions. I’m talking about accountability to Parliament. What I want to know is, all of the great discussions that you’re having and all of the great progress you’re making, as you told us, on culturally appropriate treatment programs, culturally sensitive education, if this is all going so well, why would you not commit to coming back to Parliament and giving us a detailed report, more detailed than you’ve been able to give us in your few minutes here today, on these significant issues for very vulnerable Aboriginal populations dealing with intergenerational trauma and then satisfy us that we’re ready to implement the legislation?
Mr. Blair: Senator, I’m only able to respond that we consulted with them prior to the introduction of legislation and that their feedback to us informed us in the development of the legislation we brought forward.
When we had a bill, we went back to those communities and have continued to work with them. Our senior officials at Health Canada and Indigenous Services have been working very closely with those communities. I’ve gone to many of them myself. I’ve assured them that just because I showed up and sat down with them across the table and we’ve talked for hours on these issues and I’ve listened to their concerns, we’re not done. We’re not just walking away and ticking the box and saying, “We’ve finished this consultation.” We’re committing to continuing to work with First Nations and Indigenous leadership on the concerns that they raise.
Many of them have told us, for example, that they have a strong interest in being able to exercise their jurisdiction, and we’ve acknowledged and said we respect that. But they’re not yet ready. So ongoing discussions are taking place and will continue to take place with Indigenous First Nations communities on how that might be put into effect.
We’ve also had other discussions with them. Many of them are very interested in what might be available as far as getting involved in the economic opportunities that this new emerging industry presents. We’ve told them, “You don’t have to have all of that decided before the date of implementation. We’ll continue to work with you.” So those licensed applications are under development. We’ve gone out and hired a navigator to work with Indigenous communities. For those who are interested — and not all are — we’ve said we’re going to work with you and continue to work with you.
I think that commitment to continuous engagement, respectful dialogue, nation-to-nation discussion on all of these issues is very much a part of what we have begun with and will continue with in the implementation of this act and other things.
The government has many bills. You alluded to it yourself, sir. You and I have had a number of important and meaningful, to me, discussions around addictions and mental health services in the Far North. We are committed to continuing to work with those communities and with you to address those, not just in the context of this bill but in the context of the reality that people living in those communities are facing.
Senator Patterson: Thank you.
The Chair: Colleagues, I have two more senators on the list, and, if you take into consideration the fire alarm delay, this is the allotted an hour-and-a-half. If we go much further, we’re going to continue to delay getting into clause by clause, which could be a very lengthy process this afternoon. Do you prefer to keep going with questions, or do you want me to stop the meeting now and take the break and —
Senator Plett: Take a break.
Senator Dean: A quick correction of the record, please, chair.
The Chair: Okay. It’s a point of order, I guess.
Senator Dean: It is a point of order.
There was a statement made earlier about the CBC story and the record of diversion of legal and illegal cannabis in Colorado. The CBC story that I watched on TV the other night also mentioned, against that backdrop, that there had been a 50 per cent diversion from the illegal market to the legal market in Colorado.
I will add to that that Michael Hartman, Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Revenue, said in the HESA committee that more than 70 per cent of the market in Colorado is now regulated, and that number in Washington is between 50 and 65 per cent now in the regulated market.
So, where we saw the dramatic footage in the CBC story, it was obviously about what’s happening in that 50 per cent of the market in Colorado that is still operating illegally.
Senator Patterson: That’s not a point of order.
The Chair: No, that isn’t. It’s a statement.
I do have one other person down here. Senator Saint-Germain. I can take her for just a single question.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Good afternoon and thank you for your replies. My question follows on from Senator Eggleton’s.
The bill legalizes the possession of 34 grams of dried cannabis or less for adults, while for young people, the amount is 5 grams. The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs has indicated, as you mentioned, that provinces have all considered prohibiting simple possession for young people. Your view is that you would like decriminalization and compliance with the youth criminal justice system at the same time. That being the case, why 5 grams and not zero?
[English]
Mr. Blair: I just looked to Justice officials to see if they wanted to respond, but I’m quite prepared to respond to that.
The discussion that took place with Justice on the establishment of a 5 gram maximum was reflecting a concern about young people being in possession of this drug in some circumstances that could be of higher risk. So the concern was, if a young person is in possession and brings it to school, for example, or into a social setting with other young people, that there was a higher risk. So there was concern about applying some reasonable limit on how much a young person could have within the cannabis act itself.
In the discussion of the appropriate place to set that, the amount of 5 grams came up. And I point at the reference to the Youth Criminal Justice Act, because in establishing the 5 grams we also wanted to make sure that it was very clear to any law enforcement officer, prosecutor or judge that the principles of the Youth Criminal Justice Act must apply to any consideration of possession in that amount for a young person.
Finally, I met with all the provinces and territories. We spoke about the importance of using their appropriate jurisdictional authority to enforce the prohibition. And they all get it. It’s their experience with alcohol too and their experience with tobacco.
In every place in this country, it’s an offence for a young person to possess alcohol. It’s not a crime under the criminal law. It’s an offence under the provincial jurisdiction and provincial regulation. Each province has its own regulation prohibiting the possession, purchase and consumption of alcohol and its own provincial offence ticket regime so that the police may enforce it.
There was a concern that, unlike alcohol, we wanted to ensure that young people are not engaged in the distribution of cannabis, so a reasonable limit was placed upon it. I believe that’s where the discussion around the 5 grams came in.
Carole Morency, Director General and Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice Canada: I would add that in the distinction between 30 grams for adults and 5 grams for young persons, 30 grams is quite a bit of dried cannabis. The estimate would be 40 to 50 joints would constitute 30 grams.
The reality is today, in a completely prohibited, criminalized regime, youth still have access to cannabis. Going forward, Bill C-45 recognizes that in a legalized, regulated environment, despite the fact that Bill C-45 prohibits selling, giving or distributing to youth in any circumstance by anyone, the reality is a young person may still come into possession of a small amount of cannabis. That’s why Bill C-45 proposes to not criminalize 5 grams below but to leave it to provincial jurisdictions to address it, as the parliamentary secretary has just noted.
The Chair: We’ve come to the end of this portion of our meeting and will now continue with clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-45 and consideration of amendments and, beyond that, of observations.
Let me point out that we, of course, also have the feedback in front of us of four other Senate committees, colleagues in Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, the National Security and Defence Committee, Foreign Affairs Committee and Aboriginal Peoples Committee. They combined to hold 29 meetings on Bill C-45. They sat for over 50 hours and heard from 104 witnesses.
Our committee, Social Affairs, started on March 22, and since that date, we’ve held 18 meetings because we have the responsibility for the entire bill. We sat for just over 45 hours and heard from 131 witnesses on this bill.
We’ve now reached the conclusion of our public hearings, and we’ll proceed shortly to the final stage of our study, which is clause-by-clause examination.
Before we begin, I’d like to remind senators of a number of points. We do have officials from Health Canada and Justice Canada, a row of friends. We’ve been looking down the table at them for so many meetings now and here they are again. They can answer any questions you may have with respect to amendments or observations. Officials from Public Safety Canada, the Canada Border Services Agency and the RCMP are also here with us in the room.
If at any point a senator is not clear where we are in the process — this is a formidable process, I must tell you — please ask for clarification. I want to ensure that at all times we have the same understanding of where we are in the process.
Because of the length of the bill, 226 clauses altogether, I propose that we consider the clauses by the parts and divisions according to the Table of Provisions in the bill.
You have now received the amendment package. When we reach a clause where a member has proposed an amendment, we will allow the member to introduce their amendment. I’ll ask the member to briefly speak to the “what and why” — what the amendment is and why. After each response, I’ll then ask if there are any contrary views or any other views that senators want to express. You can also ask questions of clarification.
We’ve had a lot of debate and discussion over a long period of time. Let’s try to keep this portion short or we could be here for hours and hours.
I will then, of course, ask as to whether we are in favour or against. There are some technical amendments, so we may in some cases just have a quick agreement. We may in other cases have a voice vote or a show of hands. If there’s any division, I will ask for a show of hands. Of course, members at any time can ask for a recorded vote.
Also, if a senator is opposed to an entire clause, I would remind you that in committee the proper process is not to move a motion to delete the entire clause but rather to vote against the clause as a standing part of the bill. So you can indicate you’re opposed to it, and if you want a recorded vote, that’s possible.
Some amendments that are moved may have a consequential effect on other parts of the bill, and I’ll be pointing that out as I go through them. It would be useful for this process if a senator moving an amendment would identify to the committee other clauses of this bill where the amendment would have effect, and if you don’t, I will certainly be trying to keep on top of it. Our staff, of course, will also keep track of all of this stuff and whisper in my ear as necessary.
With respect to who votes, the members that I have here are — you can correct me if I’m wrong on any of it — for the ISG, Senator Petitclerc, Senator Bernard, Senator Dean, Senator Omidvar and Senator Mégie.
For the Conservative Party, Senator Seidman, Senator Poirier, Senator Plett, Senator Stewart Olsen and Senator Patterson.
For the Liberal caucus, the independent Liberals, myself and Senator Munson.
There are other senators in the room, but they are not part of the voting process unless you tell me otherwise or unless there are substitutes I’m not aware of.
Okay, those are the people who are entitled to vote.
Senator Seidman: Thank you for clarifying that, chair. I appreciate it. But there’s another issue associated with the number of people sitting around the table. In my opinion, we should be clear that voting members of the committee should take precedence in terms of asking questions or the discussion around clause-by-clause consideration. As you said, you’d like to keep things short. So I’d like to be assured that the voting members of this committee would take precedence over the non-voting members of the committee.
The Chair: They always have. Any time I’ve had members outside of the committee attend our meeting, I put them down on the speaker’s list, but I put them after the designated members. The same would apply in this case.
Any questions or comments on the procedure I’ve just outlined? Are you all agreed to that?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you.
Is it agreed that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-45, An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other Acts? Is that agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Clause 2 starts with the interpretation section. I will pick it up from page 2. Let me get my amendments out here because I’ve got the first of the amendments.
The first two amendments are the same, but I understand Senator Dean will withdraw his. So TD-1, consider that withdrawn, and in its place is CP-1, standing for Chantal Petitclerc. You can find this in clause 2, which is on page 2. On page 5, there are three components to it. You can read it, in either language.
Can you tell us what the amendment is, and why, as short as possible?
Senator Petitclerc: Should I read first?
[Translation]
I move:
That Bill C-45, in Clause 2, be amended by:
(a) replacing lines 13 to 15 on page 2 with the following:
“sented to be used in the consumption of cannabis; or”;
(b) replacing lines 17 and 18 on page 2 with the following:
“represented to be used in the consumption of cannabis. (accessoire)”; and
(c) replacing lines 28 to 30 on page 5 with the following:
“ry, a thing that is commonly used in the consumption of cannabis is deemed to be represented to be used in the consumption of cannabis if the”.
This is an amendment that the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry proposed and I would first like to thank Senator Black and Senator Griffin for their concern in making this amendment. The amendment basically proposes to remove accessories used to produce cannabis from the definition of cannabis accessories. People in the industry have made us aware of this concern. With this amendment, gardening products, such as soil, pesticides, specialized lighting and fertilizer, that are currently included in the definition, would be removed from it and could be sold with information indicating that a pesticide, for example, can be used to produce cannabis.
So these are concerns that we have heard from the industry, and also from provinces and territories. The attempt is to differentiate the products and the consumption from the production.
[English]
The Chair: Questions or comments?
Senator Stewart Olsen: I do have a question. I’m not clear on the agricultural amendment. Does that mean you can use fertilizers and maybe toxic materials on the cannabis and that’s okay?
Senator Petitclerc: Fertilizers are used in the production of cannabis, and they are regulated under the Pest Control Products Act. So they are regulated that way. Right now, they are part of the definition of “accessory.” The industry is telling us that it really restricts them in terms of where they can sell those products. They want to be able to sell the production products of cannabis, being able to say that this can be used for the lightening of cannabis or growth or pesticides of cannabis.
Senator Stewart Olsen: That’s fine, as long as it’s regulated. I just wasn’t sure.
The Chair: Anything else? Can we agree to this?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
I don’t have any other amendments to clause 2, so I need to know: Shall clause 2, as amended, carry?
Senator Plett: No.
The Chair: On division, is it? Okay. I’ll consider that to be on division, the majority in favour.
Shall clause 3 carry?
Senator Plett: No.
The Chair: On division. Carried.
Shall clause 4 carry?
Senator Plett: No.
The Chair: On division.
Clause 5. I have more amendments. I have JS-1, that’s Judith Seidman, number 1.
I’m being advised this is to create a new clause. If there are no other amendments to clause 5, we can carry clause 5. Is that agreed?
Carried, on division. Everything is on division, I’ll say.
So we have an amendment from Senator Seidman to create a new clause, 5.1.
Senator Seidman: To give you a bit of background, this has been discussed at our committee and as well at Legal and Constitutional Affairs, and it has to do with not applying harsher sanctions to youth and adults. The issue has to do with the Youth Criminal Justice Act. In fact, we had a question to the Department of Justice on Friday when we were here. We asked them if this law specifically provides the protection for youth that we’re looking for. It’s not written in the law, and they seem to be deferring it to the provinces.
So we said to them, “What’s the harm of writing it in the law? Is there any harm of writing this guarantee in the law?” They didn’t seem to find any harm.
So it was Pascal Lévesque, the chair of the committee with the Barreau du Québec, who clarified that nothing in Bill C-45 should limit the operation of the extra-judicial measures that are provided for under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, which would encourage the use of warnings and referrals instead of criminal sanctions for youth caught with over 5 grams of cannabis, up to a certain limit, of course.
She said very clearly that it says to all stakeholders that the police community officer would have that in mind, so before stepping over to criminalize and stigmatize the principles, the scope and the objective of the YCJA would be applied.
That’s the whole point of this amendment. So it is proposed to amend the bill to provide that no harsher sanctions are applied to youth than are applied to adults. Thus, I move:
That Bill C-45 be amended, on page 6, by adding the following after line 8:
“5.1 For greater certainty, nothing in this Act is to be construed as limiting the operation of the extra-judicial measures that are provided for under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.”.
The Chair: Are there any other comments on this?
I’d like to ask the officials. I’m not certain whether this doesn’t have some challenge for doing what you want to do. Can I clarify that with the officials from Justice, I guess, in this case?
Ms. Morency: I received the question on Friday, and I think my answer was that there could be unintended consequences. It is to the following effect: Rules of statutory interpretation direct courts, when they’re interpreting and applying a law, to ask what was in Parliament’s mind when they adopted this section or that section in a bill. Part of our answer was that clause 5 of Bill C-45 already says very directly, explicitly, that the Youth Criminal Justice Act applies to the offences committed here involving young persons. There’s no doubt or uncertainty about that.
To add the proposed clause in the motion, then a court, applying usual rules of statutory interpretation, would ask what was in Parliament’s mind when they adopted 5.1, and how is that different than what’s in clause 5 in Bill C-45, as before the committee?
All I can say is that while there’s no intention, I assume, to create a different approach, I think that might be part of the natural discussion and interpretation of two very similar clauses. What was the difference in the first one that isn’t addressed and that needs to be addressed in 5.1? So the harm is potential unintended confusion because of statutory interpretation.
The Chair: The beginning of this says, “For greater certainty.” Doesn’t that tell them something? It’s not contrary to the previous clause 5, but it’s saying, “For greater certainty.” Doesn’t that explain it better? You’re not sure.
Ms. Morency: I don’t really have anything more to offer.
If you look at other laws of general application that are criminal in nature, the Youth Criminal Justice Act will apply no matter. It’s not usual in other laws where you would say specifically, “If a youth is the accused, then the Youth Criminal Justice Act applies.”
Bill C-45 does do that here exceptionally, to be clear, because the offences are a bit different when you are dealing with youth with different penalties, including when the youth is a victim. So there’s an intention to be very clear, for sure, with clause 5 in Bill C-45. All I can say is that what more or what different does 5.1 add? That would be the question.
Senator Seidman: I would like to add that this amendment comes from a unanimous recommendation of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee that studied, in pre-study, the legal and constitutional issues associated with this legislation, and heard from many witnesses. This was a unanimous amendment. It was non-partisan and supported by every member of the committee. I think that’s important to understand.
The Chair: That doesn’t mean it’s right legally, but anyway.
Is it agreed to have this amendment?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Next, on page 6, this is also a new clause 5.1. If this actually gets carried, it would be clause 5.2.
I want to point out something else. Further down the line, if you look at page 25 in your amendments, there’s a JS-6 amendment. The latter wording here is much the same as this wording, but it has some other wording. It talks about possession of cannabis as well. How can we marry this up here? JS-6 has very similar wording in one respect but has additional wording in another respect. I just want to point that out. We can deal with that when we come to it, or we can try to marry them now.
Okay, when we come to it.
This one is in the name of Senator Petitclerc.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: I move:
That Bill C-45 be amended, on page 6, by adding the following after line 8:
“5.1 For greater certainty, this Act does not affect the operation of any provision of provincial legislation that is more restrictive with respect to, or prohibits, the cultivation, propagation or harvesting of cannabis in a dwelling-house.”
We acknowledge that this amendment comes to us directly from our Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. That committee passed the recommendation unanimously: it states that provinces have authority over whether or not to allow home cultivation.
Moreover, I would like to thank our colleagues on the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs for their work, including Senator Pratte and Senator Dupuis, who worked hard on this amendment. We have often heard this concern, especially from Quebec and Manitoba; they unanimously support this amendment we are proposing today.
I would also like to say that it comes back a little later among the amendments. It is true that we could have added it further along in our amendments, in clause 12, for example, which deals with the production of cannabis. We decided to put it right at the beginning, as a result of the discussions and consultations we had with the Senate’s legal experts, because of the impact that will have and the result we are trying to achieve.
I am ready to answer your questions, I do not know if you need more details on the matter.
[English]
The Chair: As I understand it, this would be the one that would give, for example, Quebec and Manitoba the opportunity —
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: Absolutely. This is the amendment that gives the provinces the authority to ban home cultivation.
[English]
The Chair: Any other comments?
Senator Seidman: I would wholeheartedly support this, because it’s clear, as we discussed last week, on Friday, with questions to the various departments, that they would not necessarily proceed to prosecute a province if they had prohibited home cultivation. However, undoubtedly, a private person would. At that point, the federal government would become an intervener in that court case, and then it would become a conflict between provincial and federal jurisdiction. So it should be clear in the law right now, and I would wholeheartedly support this recommendation.
The Chair: Any other comments? Are we agreed on CP-1.1?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: That then becomes clause 5.2. So we’ve adopted 5.1 and 5.2. We adopted the rest of 5.
Shall clause 6 carry?
Senator Plett: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
Shall clause 7 carry?
Senator Plett: On division.
The Chair: On division.
Now we get into the 15 parts of the bill. Is it agreed, with leave, that the clauses be grouped according to the 15 parts or divisions of the bill as described in the Table of Provisions of Bill C-45, when appropriate?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Part 1 is “Prohibitions, Obligations and Offences.” Division 1 is “Criminal Activities.” The first amendment I have on that is JS-2. It relates to page 7 in the bill. Depending on what happens with this amendment, it has consequences for three others.
Senator Seidman: Yes, it does.
The Chair: It has consequences for JS-3 — JS-5 in fact is actually the main amendment. I don’t want to confuse you too much on this, though — and also JS-11. These are all consequential amendments that depend on the outcome of this one.
Senator Seidman: Correct. I should say that the law clerk in the Senate developed the amendments based on the proposal that this amendment deals with. So, in fact, you’re right; it’s four amendments.
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Seidman: The committee heard evidence from witnesses on our own committee and on the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs that home cultivation of cannabis plants is inconsistent with the government’s objective as stated in the bill to protect the health of young persons by restricting their access to cannabis. It also renders the product tracking system proposed in the bill close to useless and provides opportunities for organized crime to supply the additional market. Home cultivation increases exposure among children and teens, poses a fire hazard, damages housing stock by causing excess moisture levels and increases the likelihood of burglary and home invasion. Police and municipalities have said unequivocally that the four-plant limit is unenforceable.
I will also suggest to you that CAMH, the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, as well as their report that Senator Dean has put forward as a model for this legislation, has said that home cultivation should not happen and it is unenforceable. Benedikt Fischer is the author of the CAMH report and he’s categorically opposed to home growing of any kind, saying, “We categorically believe that this is a misguided portion . . . of the law.”
I can give you many more quotes if you’d like. This is another quote from Benedikt Fischer, senior scientist at CAMH, when he appeared at Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs:
. . . the current bill includes the provision for home growing, home cultivation, as if this was a necessary endeavour to legalize cannabis and make legal consumption available. We categorically believe that this is a misguided portion or piece of the law. . . .
But overall, for several reasons, home cultivation within a strictly regulated public health framework is a false romanticization of an idea of what cannabis production and growing should look like and is misguided from a public health point of view.
Constable Mike Serr, Co-Chair of the Drug Advisory Committee for the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police:
With respect to in-home production, our members are of the view that realistically we do not have the capacity to enforce nor determine what is illicit and licit cannabis. Additionally, it will provide for additional opportunities for the illegal possession, distribution and over-production of cannabis. Also, we fear that it will pose a further risk to youth due to increased exposure and accessibility.
Rick Garza, Director, Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board, May 3, said this to the Social Affairs Committee:
The perspective from law enforcement is if you’re creating a legal market, why do you need to create an opportunity for folks to grow for themselves and possibly sell out the back door?
When I consulted with the states of Colorado and Oregon, they said, “If I could go back and change something, I would not have allowed for home grows.”
Michael Bourque, CEO of the Canadian Real Estate Association, said this to the committee:
Indoor cultivation can cause damage that will result in increased expenses, especially for landlords, who will then have to pass on these costs to tenants. This will raise rents for Canadians and will disproportionately impact lower-income Canadians.
The stated purpose of the bill is to protect public health and public safety, and yet the legislation ignores evidence that growing cannabis indoors can be hazardous to the home and health of homeowners.
I therefore propose:
That Bill C-45 be amended in clause 8, on page 7,
(a) by replacing line 13 with the following:
“(d) for an individual to possess one”; and
(b) by replacing line 16 with the following:
“(e) for an individual to possess one or more”.
The Chair: Are there any other comments?
Senator Dean: On the last clause we looked at, we agreed that we would recognize the ability of provinces and territories to ban home cultivation under their own provincial or territorial legislation. That’s consistent with the overall approach, really, in the act, which recognizes that the regulation of home cultivation is delegated to provinces and territories and to municipalities where they will regulate it.
All but two provinces and territories have landed on the initial four-plant limit, and two have decided to go the other way, yet more could theoretically decide to go the other way in the wake of the amendment that was just passed. I believe that the provincial and territorial jurisdiction to regulate in this respect — and all have — should be respected.
Many people grow cannabis at home for personal use already. We’ve heard testimony that when a small number of plants are grown, the harms that are associated and hazards associated with industrial-style home grows are absolutely minimized. We’ve heard that the risk of children ingesting growing cannabis is close to zero, unlike the high probability that they will ingest laundry pods or other chemicals in the home.
Medical cannabis home grow is enshrined in the medical cannabis system right now and has been for some time. The government, in proposing a home grow regime, dialled back to four plants, which is low in relationship to U.S. jurisdictions, and gave provinces and territories the ability to regulate it. Indeed, provinces and municipalities are regulating it.
It has been noted in testimony that Canadians can grow up to 15 kilograms of arguably less harmful tobacco or cigars, not per household but per person, and can brew wine and beer in private residences.
For all of these reasons and particularly given the important and impactful amendment we made earlier to fully recognize provincial and territorial jurisdiction in this respect, I will strongly oppose this amendment.
Senator Patterson: I would like to add a few additional comments in support of Senator Seidman’s motion.
I toured all the communities of Nunavut to consult on the cannabis bill, and I think what I heard is reflective of what may be the situation with many Aboriginal communities in remote parts of the country — severely overcrowded homes. We’ve seen this in First Nations’ homes on reserves and throughout the territories and Inuit regions.
People said very clearly that they were concerned that having plants allowed in homes of any size, especially in overcrowded homes with a full range of youth and elders, normalizes cannabis and sends a signal that cannabis is okay if it can be grown in one’s home.
The other points I’d like to make are that people were concerned about fire hazard, about aggravating the already widely present mould problems, about increased energy consumption required by the growing of plants, and by the risk of break and enter. I wanted to add those points, which I heard loud and clear from the communities in Nunavut, that this would be a bad move.
The Chair: All those in favour of the amendment of JS-2, please show your hands. Five. All those opposed? Six. That’s defeated.
Senator Seidman: Could I ask for a recorded vote, please?
The Chair: Okay, a recorded vote.
Shaila Anwar, Clerk of the Committee: The Honourable Senator Eggleton, P.C.?
Senator Eggleton: Nay.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Bernard?
Senator Bernard: Nay.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Dean?
Senator Dean: Nay.
[Translation]
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Mégie?
Senator Mégie: No.
[English]
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Munson?
Senator Munson: No.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Omidvar?
Senator Omidvar: No.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Patterson?
Senator Patterson: Yea.
[Translation]
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Petitclerc?
Senator Petitclerc: No.
[English]
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Plett?
Senator Plett: Yes.
[Translation]
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Poirier?
Senator Poirier: Yes.
[English]
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Seidman?
Senator Seidman: Yes.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Stewart Olsen?
Senator Stewart Olsen: Yes.
Ms. Anwar: Yeas, 5; nays, 7.
The Chair: I declare that the motion is defeated.
Moving on to JS-3, this relates to page 9 in the bill.
Now, that’s gone. That’s true because it’s a consequential amendment.
Senator Bernard, on page 10, your motion, please. Please read the motion and please give us your “why” behind it.
Senator Bernard: The motion reads:
That Bill C-45 be amended in clause 9, on page 10, by adding the following after line 3.
“(2.1) subparagraph 1(a) does not apply
(a) if the cannabis is distributed by an individual who is 18 years of age or older and less than two years older than the individual to whom they distribute the cannabis; or
(b) if the cannabis is distributed to an individual who is 16 years of age or older by their parent or guardian in their dwelling-house.”
So there are two points here, colleagues. One is a social sharing for those close in age. This is an issue that we heard many of our witnesses speak about. In fact, as recently as last Thursday, there was a witness who spoke about this, Mr. Tousaw, who was giving testimony as an individual. He spoke to this issue. I just want to quote from him. He says in his testimony:
Let’s be clear. I think Bill C-45 takes steps in the right direction by not criminalizing young Canadians for possession under 5 grams of cannabis. You’re precisely right to say this close in age issue is a very serious issue.
He went on to say:
My eldest daughter is 17. Her peer group includes people down to 14 years of age and up to 18, 19, 20 years of age. It is perfectly normal behaviour for young Canadians who are 19 to potentially use cannabis and share cannabis with their peers who might be under the legal age under Bill C-45.
This bill is attempting to address consequences of a criminal record for simple possession for those close in age but under the legal age, so we’re suggesting two years. The reality is that social sharing is very common among teens, and we do not want to criminalize an 18-year-old for social sharing. It is also quite normal for 18-year-olds, 19-year-olds to have peers who are slightly younger than themselves.
The other point is parents sharing cannabis with their children who are 16 years but under the legal age. We have heard from several witnesses that prohibition has driven people into the illicit market. Parents have responsibility to parent their children, and they should be able to teach their teens appropriate use of cannabis without fear of criminal penalty. In doing so, their goal would be to teach appropriate use. It would be sharing of a legal substance, not an illicit substance, and it would be known content. So they’d be sharing cannabis with known content. I would see it as being similar to a parent sharing a glass of wine at dinner in their home with their 16- or 17-year-old children.
Those are the reasons why I’m putting forward this amendment.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Seidman: While I understand the general spirit of this, I would say that, if we do something as major as this, it tends to normalize and almost trivialize the whole point of what we’ve heard is behind the legalization. If we really want to protect the health and safety of our kids, I don’t think we want to serve up cannabis at the table along with a bottle of wine and tell our kids, “This is fine.” I think it’s quite the contrary.
I think in terms of criminalizing our kids, we have actually provided a huge amount of insurance by the first amendment that this committee passed this afternoon. Congratulations to us for all uniting behind supporting additional insurance that our kids are not re-criminalized.
Senator Patterson: Agreed.
The Chair: Anybody else on this?
Senator Plett: First of all, I want to agree with Senator Seidman, but I would simply to add that we heard from the parliamentary secretary today, Bill Blair, that, clearly, kids are not going to have criminal records for doing this already. He made that very clear, that we don’t give them criminal records for many of the other things that they’re doing now as far as alcohol is concerned and that they would not be getting criminal records.
This amendment legitimatizes the fact that we want to legalize 16-year-olds to smoke marijuana when we have compelling evidence that we shouldn’t even be allowing people under the age of 25 to do this, and we’re going down further and further. So I, for those reasons, certainly oppose this.
The Chair: Anybody else?
Senator Stewart Olsen: This one, I have to admit, really worries me quite a bit. If we’re trying to teach and educate people to be responsible, that does include parents and it does include older children who, as you’re talking about, may share. I would expect them to behave in a responsible way and not pass on cannabis to kids who are much younger.
I see in there you’ve got the limitation, but I think we have to assume that this is kind of opening the door to saying it’s okay. It’s the same as kids who give someone $10 and say, “Go buy me a pack of cigarettes,” or “Go buy me a bottle of wine.” They know it’s wrong. I’m not saying we can stop it, but I don’t think we should encourage it either. For that reason, I can’t support this amendment.
The Chair: Anybody else?
All right. Do you want a show of hands or a recorded vote?
An Hon. Senator: Recorded vote.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Eggleton?
Senator Eggleton: Yes.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Bernard?
Senator Bernard: Yes.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Dean?
Senator Dean: Yes.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Mégie?
Senator Mégie: Yes.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Munson?
Senator Munson: Yes.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Omidvar?
Senator Omidvar: Yes.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Patterson?
Senator Patterson: Nay.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Petitclerc?
Senator Petitclerc: Yes.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Plett?
Senator Plett: No.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Poirier?
Senator Poirier: No.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Seidman?
Senator Seidman: No.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Stewart Olsen?
Senator Stewart Olsen: No.
Ms. Anwar: Yeas, 7; nays, 5.
The Chair: Thank you very much. That motion is carried.
Next is JS-4, which refers to page 12 of the bill. It deals with a fine amount. Senator Seidman?
Senator Seidman: The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs heard evidence that penalties for an organization importing or exporting non-medical cannabis or possessing non-medical cannabis for the purpose of exporting are inconsistent with comparable offences.
Bill C-45 allows for the importation or exportation of cannabis only in exceptional circumstances authorized by the Minister of Health; that is, only for scientific or medical purposes or for industrial hemp, and this would require a licence or permit. This amendment would raise the penalty for exporting recreational cannabis to the level provided for in the Tobacco Act for tobacco.
Basically what we’re doing is making the penalty for exporting recreational cannabis the same as the penalty in the Tobacco Act for tobacco. By the way, this, again, was a unanimous recommendation from the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee from their pre-study and their report to us on Bill C-45.
It’s therefore proposed to amend the bill to increase the maximum fine for an organization found guilty of illegally exporting cannabis to $300,000, an amount which is provided for in the Tobacco Act.
Therefore, I move:
That Bill C-45 be amended, in clause 11, on page 12, by replacing line 28 with the following:
“. . . more than $300,000.”.
The Chair: Any other comments? Senator Bernard?
Senator Bernard: I will be speaking against this amendment. I believe that $100,000 is already a significant penalty. The larger penalty, I think, could disadvantage some people who were falling under that than others. And if it was deemed necessary to increase it after the third year review, then it could be increased at that time, but I don’t think it’s necessary at this time.
Senator Plett: This is for an organization. This is not for an individual. That organization, if they want to continue to have illegal activities, should be out of business and we should do everything in our power to make sure they’re out of business. This is not for an individual.
We’re saying for a person guilty of an indictable offence, a term of not more than 14 years, and then for an organization, $100,000. If we wanted to be consistent with the 14 years, we’d probably triple that $300,000. So I’m certainly very supportive. Let’s make sure we do not allow commercial organizations and commercial operations to be doing this. Let’s send a strong message.
The Chair: If nothing else, is the motion agreed to?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: On division? Let me take a show of hands.
Senator Seidman: Could we have a recorded vote, please?
The Chair: Recorded vote.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Eggleton, P.C.?
Senator Eggleton: Yes.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Bernard?
Senator Bernard: No.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Dean?
Senator Dean: No.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Mégie?
Senator Mégie: Yes.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Munson?
Senator Munson: No.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Omidvar?
Senator Omidvar: No.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Patterson?
Senator Patterson: Yes.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Petitclerc?
Senator Petitclerc: No.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Plett?
Senator Plett: Yes.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Poirier?
Senator Poirier: Yes.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Seidman?
Senator Seidman: Yes.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Stewart Olsen?
Senator Stewart Olsen: Yes.
Ms. Anwar: Yeas, 7; nays 5.
The Chair: I declare the motion carried.
The next one in this division is TD-2, which I understand is a technical amendment. I hesitate to use that phrase because nothing is technical here, although it looks like one.
Senator Dean: I think we’re safe on this one other than with my pronunciation.
I move:
That Bill C-45, in clause 12, by amended by replacing, in the French version, line 17 on page 13 with the following:
[Translation]
[…] cannabis provenant d’une graine ou d’une matière végétale qu’il […].
[English]
The reason for this is that it replaces the word “semence” with “graine” in paragraph 12(4)a) in the French version of the bill. “Graine” is used consistently in the bill in translating the word “seed” in all other occurrences. This is an inconsistency which is proposed to be corrected.
The Chair: Senator Seidman?
Senator Seidman: I was going to suggest, if I might, that all of these so-called technical amendments or errors in the bill that you’re trying to correct — and I think that goes all the way through to number 29 of your amendments.
Senator Dean: Well, yes. There are some that are a little more substantive when we get to ticketing and replacing —
Senator Seidman: Instead of trying to figure it out.
Senator Dean: Yes. Thank you.
The Chair: I sort of labelled the technical ones. There are some not as technical as others.
Is this agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
JS-5, then, is a consequence of a previous amendment, JS-3, I guess it was. It’s gone.
That brings me to RO-1. Senator Omidvar?
Senator Omidvar: This amendment comes from witness hearings and stakeholder representations on the unintended — yet fairly large and disproportionate — impact on certain sections of Bill C-45 for permanent residents. Let me describe them to you very quickly to give you some context.
A number of offences in the bill carry a maximum penalty of over 10 years. For example, clause 9, which deals with distribution, sets a 14-year maximum for an adult sharing cannabis with a minor. This pushes the offence to serious criminality under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. By making these offences serious criminality, all permanent residents that are convicted, no matter their sentence or penalty, would be inadmissible and therefore could be put into interim incarceration or be deported.
This is an unintended outcome that needs to be addressed. The amendment that I am proposing does not change the maximum offence. It just changes the fact that anyone who is convicted for six months or less will not be deemed inadmissible, as per the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
This amendment does not ask for special treatment, colleagues, for anyone, but for equal treatment for those who are convicted and receive a prison sentence of six months and under. They should do their time and be rehabilitated, we hope, but they would not suffer the added consequence of deportation, inadmissibility or the consequence of family separation.
By focusing this amendment on those who receive a penalty of under six months, the amendment covers not those who are hardened criminals — and certainly hardened criminals who receive a penalty of over six months should do their time and face the consequences — but this impacts those individuals who may be first-time offenders and who would, in my opinion, not be serious criminals.
So I propose:
That Bill C-45 be amended in clause 15, on page 16, by adding the following after line 31:
“15.1 A conviction for an offence committed under section 9, —
— distribution, social sharing —
— 10, —
— selling —
— 11, —
— importing and exporting —
— 12,—
— production —
— or 14 —
— use of young person —
— does not constitute serious criminality for the purposes of subsection 36(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act unless the person was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of more than six months in respect of that offence.”.
The Chair: Is there any other comment on this one?
Senator Stewart Olsen: Just a question for clarification, senator.
In the amendment that was just approved, for sharing, it would not be a criminal offence. So why would someone who is charged, and it is a criminal offence, and gets a prison term of six months — I mean, I don’t see them as equal. If you’re sharing something and it’s not deemed an offence, now you’re coming into an area where people are actually sent to jail for what they’ve done.
Senator Omidvar: Jail under six months.
Senator Stewart Olsen: Jail is jail.
Senator Omidvar: Or even a discharge. Even if you get a discharge, you are still considered to be a serious criminal under IRPA and therefore subject to deportation and inadmissibility.
Senator Stewart Olsen: This is very different, though, from the previous one of sharing. This is actually for someone who commits a crime — I’m not sure what the crime would be; it could be anything, really, under this, or under the section — but they’re then sentenced to six months in prison. I don’t understand why.
Senator Omidvar: If they’re sentenced.
You have a valid concern. I have a valid concern that people who do the crime should do the time. I’m pretty sensible about that.
What I’m concerned about is the double penalty that has an impact on only one section of criminals who are sentenced for under six months, and that is permanent residents. For everybody else, their life will go on, whichever way they choose to. We certainly hope that after six months in prison, they would be rehabilitated and follow the straight and narrow. At the same time, we are saying that lives should not be ruined by an added disproportionate penalty of inadmissibility and deportation.
Senator Stewart Olsen: I see what you’re saying, but then the unintended consequence of this is you’re now coming over into the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which is something I hadn’t even considered, but that’s going to be something else that they’re going to have to deal with. I’m a bit concerned about that. We’re not doing a special bill or special amendments for special people. I don’t think it’s fair to do that.
Senator Omidvar: May I ask this: So you think it is fair for people —
Senator Stewart Olsen: I think the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act was designed for a purpose. We haven’t looked at that, and I don’t think this committee looked at that. So I’m not sure we should include an amendment that comes into —
I don’t know if you had witnesses. Did you have witnesses?
Senator Omidvar: We had witnesses. I can quote witness testimony. Sorry, I missed that.
The Chair: Could we keep this down? I’ll go to Senator Plett. I think the points have been made on both sides here.
Senator Stewart Olsen: I was asking a question —
The Chair: I realize that. We got into a two-way dialogue here.
Senator Plett: I want to echo Senator Stewart Olsen. We’re dealing with the immigration act here.
I’m not sure that I’m at all opposed to the intent of what you’re trying to do. I just don’t think we have the right here to deal with other acts. I suspect that if we would have a constitutional lawyer in front of us, he would say that we don’t have the right to do this. Senator Gold, the way he’s looking at me, I’m not sure if he’s constitutional.
I would be very surprised if the government would accept this amendment. I’m going to vote against it for that reason — not because I don’t identify with what you’re saying, but I simply think we’re stepping into an area that we shouldn’t be stepping into.
Senator Omidvar: Thank you for that, Senator Stewart Olsen and Senator Plett. I appreciate your comments.
We have talked to the law clerk. This is within the scope of the bill. This is the bill before us. This is the bill that will have a severe unintended consequence on a large group of people. That is why I’m proposing we amend the bill as it is before us, as opposed to waiting for April.
The Chair: Let me call the question.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: Very quickly, to answer Senator Stewart Olsen’s question, this concern, which I was not aware of, was expressed to the committee on a number of occasions by various witnesses in different contexts. So it came up regularly enough for me to feel comfortable supporting the amendment myself.
[English]
The Chair: Do the officials have anything they wish to point out in this case, or is this a policy decision entirely?
Ms. Morency: I think I would agree it’s a policy decision. Bill C-45 does not currently propose any amendments to the IRPA.
The Chair: All right. Do you want a recorded vote?
Senator Plett: I’m okay on division.
The Chair: I might need to see a show of hands.
All those in favour of this amendment? Seven.
All those opposed?
Senator Plett: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
Part of JS-6 was covered in 5.1, but not all of it. It’s your motion, Senator Seidman.
Senator Seidman: Indeed, you’re right. We sort of dealt with this in a previous motion, except that this is dealt with in a different clause.
The Chair: The first part, possession of cannabis, was not in that first part. That’s different.
Senator Seidman: Okay. Let’s go through this.
The committee heard evidence from witnesses and from the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs that home cultivation of cannabis plants could be difficult for law enforcement to enforce and that home cultivation in general could risk more cannabis being diverted to the illicit market.
It was also noted that indoor cannabis cultivation may compromise air quality, increase the risk of fire and have a negative impact on the value of residential property. Two provinces, Quebec and Manitoba, have passed legislation to restrict home growing in their provinces. While the federal government has said they will not challenge the provincial prohibitions, there’s nothing standing in the way of an individual bringing forward a court challenge, and we’ve already discussed this.
This particular amendment, though, would set out in law that Bill C-45 does not interfere with the provinces’ and territories’ legislative authority over the possession, cultivation, propagation and/or harvesting of cannabis plants in designated areas, including the power to prohibit it.
So it proposes to amend the bill specifically by creating a new clause, 15.1, on page 16, to specify the provinces’ and territories’ legislative authority over the possession, cultivation, propagation and/or harvesting of cannabis plants in designated areas, including the power to prohibit it.
Therefore, I move:
That Bill C-45 be amended, on page 16, by adding the following after line 31:
“15.1 For greater certainty, this Act does not affect the operation of any provision of provincial legislation that is more restrictive with respect to the possession of cannabis or the cultivation, propagation or harvesting of cannabis plants.”.
The Chair: Let me clarify: The last part here we already dealt with in 5.1, but possession of cannabis, what does that entail? You’re saying the provinces should have — does that in any way conflict with the federal law? I could ask the officials, if you like.
Senator Seidman: It starts out by saying, “For greater certainty, this Act does not affect the operation . . . .”
The Chair: In view of what we’ve done, I’ll ask the officials about 5.1.
What effect does this have? Is it just a duplicate, or is the possession of cannabis something quite different?
Diane Labelle, General Counsel, Health Canada Legal Services, Department of Justice Canada: To my knowledge, restricting possession of cannabis has not been an issue during committee debates in the house. There is a province that has restricted possession in private. So I’m not certain what we would be adding here in terms of trying to clarify the role of the provinces.
Senator Seidman: My general inclination is that this is a duplicate of what we’ve already passed, but the fact is that when the law clerk created this, it was created for a different clause. It’s only to be sure that it does provide the same protection.
The Chair: Can we call it a duplication?
Senator Seidman: It sounds like we’re calling it a duplicate.
The Chair: All right. Let’s move on, then. Thank you.
This brings us to the end of this division.
Shall Part 1, Division 1, entitled “Criminal Activities,” which contains clauses 8 to 15, as amended, carry? Is that agreed.
Senator Plett: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
We now move to Part 1, Division 2, “Other Prohibitions.” That brings me to JS-7 in the amendments. This relates to page 18 in the bill. Senator Seidman.
Senator Seidman: The committee heard that youth are at greatest risk from cannabis promotion, which experts have predicted will have a pernicious influence as the industry is commercialized. In particular, the promotion via the Internet is likely to reach young people even if measures are taken to ensure that the promotion cannot be accessed by a young person.
This amendment removes the exception for advertising by means of telecommunication where the person responsible for the content of the promotion has taken reasonable steps to ensure that the promotion cannot be accessed by a young person.
We know that age verification measures on the Internet aren’t effective. We’ve all seen that you can go to a website, check a box that says you’re 18, and you can gain access to any promotional content online.
I will tell you that the CAMH framework and the task force report both recommended that the government prohibit marketing, advertising and sponsorship — just a blanket prohibition for cannabis.
In this case, prohibiting advertising by means of telecommunications would still give companies plenty of opportunity to differentiate their products in the retail environment, in a place where young persons are not permitted by law.
We had in front of the Legal Affairs Committee Rebecca Jesseman, the Policy Director for the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse and Addiction. She said:
An additional concern I would flag in terms of online is the regulation of social media and other online sources of promotion. We know that is already a significant challenge for our regulators in general for media, for example, policing Canadian content regulations, let alone the promotion of controlled substances. That’s something to be aware of.
Again, I am proposing here to prohibit the promotion of cannabis by means of telecommunications. This is exactly comparable, by the way, to existing restrictions in the Tobacco Act.
Therefore, I move:
That Bill C-45 be amended in clause 17, on page 18, by deleting lines 22 to 25.
The Chair: Are there other comments on this?
Can I ask the officials about this? Does “communicated by means of telecommunication” include a telephone and stuff like that? The preamble to this clause talks about “informational promotion or branding preference promotion,” so I’m not sure about the implications of taking this out. We’re not just talking about television and radio; we’re talking about a broader field of telecommunications.
Senator Seidman: Sure, like the Internet. It removes the exception for advertising by means of telecommunications.
The Chair: Can I understand either from Mr. Costen or any of the Justice people about the implications of doing that in terms of the policy at least?
Mr. Costen: Sure. There are a few things.
If we understand the purpose of the motion, it would prohibit and eliminate, really, all opportunities for digital promotion or the use of even perhaps telecommunication things like the telephone.
I would make a few observations that might be of use to the committee.
One, it might be a useful caveat to understand that the thrust behind the task force advice around the prohibition of advertising to young people — you’re absolutely right: They did assert the need to take very strong measures to limit their exposure to all manner of prohibitions, and it was that advice that led to many of the proposals in the bill.
It’s important to remember, though, that there was also a caveat that talked about establishing or achieving the other government objective about creating a marketplace where the adult consumer can have access to fact-based information — not promotional in nature but facts regarding the purchase of the product being sold.
One consequence of the proposed motion would be eliminating that avenue for an adult to have access to information that would be helpful in determining whether to purchase cannabis. I’m thinking specifically of some of the digital online stores that many of the provincial governments are preparing to launch.
I would make a final observation around the point of enforcement. As a regulator currently, our experience has been entirely around the enforcement of promotional rules and the use of online platforms and digital technology. As you’ve heard me say before, the medical cannabis regime that exists today rests entirely on the use of online stores for adults and other medically authorized persons to buy cannabis.
There are very strict restrictions around what type of information a company is allowed to put on their websites. We have a regulatory program that’s equipped for enforcing the rules that exist today. That’s not to say it is perfect, but there are regulatory tools we have at our disposal for monitoring and taking action for these types of rules.
Senator Seidman: I don’t think this amendment asks for anything more than the current restrictions in the Tobacco Act. And I would say again that the task force and the CAMH framework both recommended that the government prohibit marketing, advertising and sponsorship, and they didn’t make any exceptions. This would not change the fact that factual advertising would be allowed in retail places where young people are not permitted by law. It would have no effect on that. So all the factual advertising and information could be very accessible in retail outlets where young people are not allowed.
The Chair: Is there anything else on this? I take it you’re agreeing to this, are you?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
That’s carried. I asked if anybody — okay, well, let me have a show of hands. Those in favour of this? You want a recorded vote.
Senator Plett: Show of hands.
The Chair: No, I’ve been asked for a recorded vote.
Senator Plett: You also called it carried already.
The Chair: I did, but then people said they weren’t ready, that I misread it, so we’ll have a recorded vote.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Eggleton?
Senator Eggleton: No. I’m against it.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Bernard?
Senator Bernard: No.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Dean?
Senator Dean: No.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Mégie?
Senator Mégie: No.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Munson?
Senator Munson: No.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Omidvar?
Senator Omidvar: No.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Patterson?
Senator Patterson: Yes.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Petitclerc?
Senator Petitclerc: No.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Plett?
Senator Plett: Yes.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Poirier?
Senator Poirier: Yes.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Seidman?
Senator Seidman: Yes.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Stewart Olsen?
Senator Stewart Olsen: Yes.
Ms. Anwar: Yeas, 5; nays, 7.
The Chair: Accordingly, the motion is defeated.
JS-8 is up next.
Senator Seidman: Witnesses told our committee specifically about brand stretching as a marketing strategy, and that’s what this amendment is about. We heard that brand stretching is effective in increasing brand awareness to help increase consumption, and that permitting cannabis brand elements on products such as ball caps and T-shirts is not in keeping with a public health approach because they may be reasonably seen by young persons who may find them appealing.
This amendment, as I’ve put it, was recommended by the Non-Smokers’ Rights Association, who testified that the loose interpretation and limited enforcement of whether or not an item is appealing to young people or associated with an attractive lifestyle, that’s what this represents.
Health Canada’s note in senators’ briefing binder identifies skate boards and guitars as off-limits but, of course, caps and T-shirts would not be off-limits. Experience with the tobacco industry has demonstrated the creativity of producing products that gain cachet among young people, such as lines of clothing, and these would violate the spirit of the law.
This amendment would not prohibit the use of cannabis brand elements on cannabis packages or cannabis accessories and would not interfere with product differential in the retail environment. So it would remove a portion of text from the bill. I’ll give you the amendment, and then you could look at the lines that would be deleted.
I do want to give you one more piece of witness testimony, that I think we all remember very well, from Professor David Hammond when he talked about the dangers of media and the influence of brand stretching. He said:
I think it’s worth noting for those of you who have been following the media that several cannabis companies have already gone on record stating that they intend to stretch the existing regulations as far as possible, through things like augmented reality technology and brand stretching for other consumer products. . . .
The general rule is you need to restrict brand stretching if you want to restrict youth promotion and lifestyle advertising.
He said that to our committee just a couple of weeks ago.
So I am proposing now to amend subclause 17(6) of Bill C-45 to prohibit the use of cannabis brand elements on items that are not cannabis or accessories, regardless of whether or not they would be considered appealing to young people or be associated with an attractive lifestyle.
So I move:
That Bill C-45 be amended in clause 17, on page 19, by deleting lines 16 to 27.
You probably have those in front of you.
The Chair: Yes, page 19.
Senator Seidman: Good. Thank you.
The Chair: Other comments?
Let me ask the officials about the implication of removing this whole subclause. Does it throw it up in the air as to whether this element is allowed or not allowed, or how does it work if it’s not in here at all?
John Clare, Director, Policy, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Health Canada: I can help answer that question, Mr. Chair. The way the provision works is that a blanket prohibition against all promotion is set out at clause 17, and then the way the part works is there’s a series of exceptions to that prohibition. Subclause 6 creates an exception to display brand elements on things that are not cannabis or a cannabis accessory.
Some of the unintended consequences of removing this subclause, for example, would be the Ontario Cannabis Store wouldn’t be able to put their brand logo on a sign outside of their store. The way the provision is crafted is similar to what exists in the Tobacco Act and now the tobacco and vaping products act which says the display of these brand elements can take place, but not on anything that is associated with a young person, associated with a particular way of life or where there are reasonable grounds to believe that it’s appealing to a young person.
There’s another dimension to this. I’ll turn to my colleague at the other end of the table with respect to the potential Charter implications of this division.
The Chair: So there are these provisions, associated with a young person, et cetera. So those provisions that are in the Tobacco Act are in here now.
Mr. Clare: That’s correct. This provision, this exception, is similar to an exception which is in the Tobacco Act.
The Chair: Yes, so it’s fine the way it is in terms of its relationship to the Tobacco Act.
Ms. Labelle: Yes, and in that light, the Department of Justice has assessed the bill in its entirety for consistency with the Charter. The restrictions here that have been placed on freedom of expression have been found to be consistent with the Charter.
I can’t speak to further restrictions. Those may have broader implications than we can assess.
The Chair: Are you ready to vote on this? All those in favour of JS-8, the amendment of Senator Seidman?
Senator Seidman: Could we have a recorded vote, please?
The Chair: Recorded vote.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Eggleton?
Senator Eggleton: No.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Bernard?
Senator Bernard: No.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Dean?
Senator Dean: Abstain.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Mégie?
Senator Mégie: No.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Munson?
Senator Munson: No.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Omidvar?
Senator Omidvar: No.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Patterson?
Senator Patterson: Yes.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Petitclerc?
Senator Petitclerc: Abstain.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Plett?
Senator Plett: Yes.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Poirier?
Senator Poirier: Yes.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Seidman?
Senator Seidman: Yes.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Stewart Olsen?
Senator Stewart Olsen: Yes.
Ms. Anwar: Yeas, 5; nays, 5; abstentions, 2.
The Chair: So it loses on a tie.
That takes me into JS-9, clause 26, page 22, which is again Senator Seidman.
Senator Seidman: The committee heard evidence from witnesses and from the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs that THC potency is a significant predictor of harm from cannabis products, including negative mental health outcomes. The committee also heard that consumers should be provided with accurate information about the THC content of cannabis products to help make informed decisions and to protect the most vulnerable, including youth and persons with mental illness.
While it is expected that regulations under Bill C-45 will require THC potency to be clearly indicated on the product label, this requirement is not enshrined in law, which witnesses told the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee would send a clearer message about the dangers and help protect the government from legal action; that is, if it’s in law that this should be required.
This amendment would make it illegal to sell cannabis in a package or with a label that does not set out the THC content expressed as the percentage of the THC the product yields and by unit or dose based on how the product is represented to be consumed.
You should note that this amendment is separate from other proposals to set a maximum level of THC content. This amendment comes from a unanimous recommendation from the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee’s report on Bill C-45.
The policy director from the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse and Addiction said to Legal and Constitutional Affairs:
I completely agree that the level of THC, and other cannabinoids, so CBD as well, should be clearly indicated on the packaging.
And the chair on the Committee of Consumer Protection of the Barreau du Quebec said:
You’re going to tell me that it’s possible to operate such warnings by way of regulation. We at the Barreau du Quebéc believe that the government has to be more severe than that. It has to set standards in the act that will warn society about the dangers of using marijuana for the simple reason, as an example, not to be stuck with a class action against the government 10 years from now, stating that you should have warned us and now you’re liable and we’re suing you . . . .
So it’s proposed to amend the bill in order to ensure that THC levels be clearly indicated on labels affixed on cannabis products and its derivatives.
I move:
That Bill C-45 be amended in clause 26, on page 22, by replacing line 23 with the following:
“daring;
(d.1) that does not set out the tetrahydrocannabinol content, expressed as the percentage of tetrahydrocannabinol the product yields and by unit or dose based on how the product is represented to be consumed; or”.
Senator Munson: I have a question. You talked about clarification. I’m interested in what you’re talking about.
How would a consumer with these new guidelines or percentages know any better? What would it say on the label that would help to really understand what he or she is buying?
Senator Seidman: This isn’t saying anything about maximum levels or percentages. What it’s saying is that there must be content expressed on the label, specifically the percentage of THC that the product yields and by unit or dose based on how the product is represented to be consumed.
But it’s not saying it should be this amount or that amount. It’s not proposing a maximum or a minimum, but it’s very clearly saying that you cannot sell cannabis in a package or with a label that doesn’t set out the THC content.
Senator Munson: So you know what you’re smoking?
Senator Seidman: Right. Of course.
Senator Munson: And what the effect may be. Thank you.
Senator Dean: Could we get advice?
The Chair: Mr. Costen?
Mr. Costen: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think you’ve heard from us a few times now that we don’t disagree. The government position on the importance of THC and, I would add, CBD on the label is something you heard from many of the witnesses and the task force made it a very clear recommendation.
I would, however, point out at 139(k) that there is a regulation-making authority specific to labels requiring information about potency. The government’s proposal on regulations has been very strong in suggesting that it be mandatory that every product produced for sale include THC as a percentage and, frankly, looking ahead to products that will not be smoked quantified in a slightly different way that it be prominently displayed on all labels.
In many ways, the requirements proposed in the motion are echoed through the regulatory authorities, but the spirit of the point being made, that it is absolutely essential that consumers trust and understand the potency of the product that they’re receiving, is very consistent with what the government view has been for quite some time.
The Chair: Are you saying it’s superfluous to put it in the bill?
Mr. Costen: It’s there in a different form right now and it’s there in a form that allows, to the point that was made earlier, for the regulator to quickly and adeptly respond to what we imagine to be a fair bit of innovation from an industry perspective.
One of the other recommendations we received loud and clear is the regulator needs to be as nimble as possible for adjusting to all sorts of things we can anticipate the industry to do in the future.
Senator Patterson: Just to follow up on the comments of the witness, we’ve heard and you just said that this important issue will be dealt with by regulation. Mr. Blair said earlier today that some regulations will determine whether matters are criminalized. He talked about the regulations having strong penalties.
I’d like to ask about this issue and also the other regulatory power. What scrutiny will be possible for Parliament for the regulatory powers enabled by this legislation? How will the regulations be reviewed and scrutinized by Parliament or otherwise?
Mr. Costen: As with many regulations, at least at Health Canada, we’ve got a robust process for regulation-making informed by significant public consultation and ultimately under the purview of the Governor-in-Council, not Parliament. That’s the way it is for the current medical cannabis regulations and that’s the proposal as it exists today for the regulations that would be made under the cannabis act.
Is there anything you want to add?
Mr. Clare: I would add that the Senate is probably familiar that there’s a Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations which has the mandate of scrutinizing every regulation made by the Governor-in-Council.
As well, senators may be aware that there is a provision in the bill that would provide for a review of the entire legislative framework, not just the act but also the regulations three years following the coming into force of the legislation.
Senator Seidman: It’s true that there is a committee called Scrutiny of Regulations, but everybody knows that committee is years behind. The regulations get written, and they don’t get reviewed until years later. That’s a little unfortunate, and that’s not what we’re looking for.
With all due respect, it’s very different to put something in a regulation as opposed to putting it in legislation where it’s actually in the law. I think that’s what this is calling for, that we don’t want to wait for regulation to be written on the off chance it gets written and gets written right. We want to see in the law that it would be illegal to sell cannabis in a package or with a label that does not set out THC content. That’s what we’re asking for.
Mr. Costen: I have one point of clarification and I believe my colleague also wants to add something.
I would just offer that senators may wish to give some consideration to the treatment of hemp in the proposed motion because, of course, hemp products, separate and apart from the consumer cannabis that we’re typically talking about, are both equally captured under the bill. The motion as written will require that all hemp products also provide this information which through regulations we can do a bit differently.
Ms. Labelle: To build on Mr. Costen’s comments, from a legal perspective, what the concern could be here is that there are many tetrahydrocannabinols. There’s more than Delta-9 or Delta-8. Currently we were not aware of all of the numbers. It would be very broad. To ask a licensed producer to list all of these may in some ways be almost impossible.
Senator Dean: I think we’re going to be talking about this again a little bit later. I’ll just say the following: There has been extensive work conducted on an approach to regulation that is quite exhaustive. We’ve all had a chance to look at the proposed regulation. I think we can trust that the government is going to do what is set out in the proposed regulations.
In general, many of us know that regulations are a valid, often-used part of the architecture of government policy implementation. They permit change and adaptability in response to changing circumstances, and we’ve just heard a good example of that. We think we’ve got it nailed by referencing one constituent and later find we have more and we have to amend the legislation to fix that. That’s why regulations are adaptable and that’s why they’re important.
It is unusual in the context of regulation to go to this level of granularity in a statute, and for that reason I will be opposing this motion.
Senator Stewart Olsen: I do sit on the Scrutiny of Regulations Committee, and I am telling you that “years” is correct. I haven’t seen the proposed regulations.
If you buy a bottle of liquor or beer, right on the label it says how much alcohol. I don’t see a problem with making sure that if people are going to buy this product legally, they know what they’re buying. I think that ingredient — tetrahydrocannabinol — is really important to have that on a label so you know what you’re getting.
Anyway, that would be my input.
Senator Plett: I have a question for Senator Seidman. Did you say at the outset this was unanimously passed by Legal and Constitutional Affairs?
Senator Seidman: Yes, I did. This amendment was a unanimous recommendation from Legal and Constitutional Affairs.
Senator Plett: And I expect they have a few good legal minds on there as well.
Senator Seidman: I suspect they do. Thank you.
If I might, since Mr. Costen brought up the hemp issue, I would be more than happy to have a redraft of this amendment to exclude hemp if that would be an improvement that would make this amendment acceptable.
The Chair: Well, it’s up to us, not the officials, to determine whether it’s acceptable or not.
Senator Patterson: I have a quick question that I will make through you, Mr. Chair, to Senator Dean.
Did I hear you say we’ve seen the regulations?
Senator Dean: I have seen the proposed regulations, yes.
Senator Patterson: Who’s “we”?
Senator Dean: They’re publicly available to all of us if we care to look at them.
Senator Seidman: It’s a consultation paper, but there are no regulations.
Senator Patterson: I thought the legislation enables the drafting of regulations.
Senator Dean: Indeed it does, and that too is not uncommon, that a piece of legislation creates the ability to make the regulations.
However, I understand that — and officials will talk to this better than I — the government wanted to get, as it should, in a planned way, ahead of the proclamation of the legislation. It consulted and sent out a consultation paper. As a result of that there was a report of the consultations which set out the government’s intentions in terms of regulating potency. If I got it wrong, I’ll ask the officials to correct me.
Senator Patterson: Draft regulations. You said regulations.
Senator Dean: They can’t be regulations before the bill is passed.
Senator Patterson: That’s why I asked the question.
Senator Lankin: I have a quick question to Mr. Costen. I heard you make a point, and I wanted to see if I had it correct. You were concerned about the word “percentage” where in the regulation it could be changed if over the course of time different measurements are more appropriate than percentage, particularly given the different kinds of product. Senator Seidman used the word “content,” not when reading the amendment but when she was speaking. I want to know if that’s an important distinction if it was to be in the legislation versus regulation — I don’t know how the committee will vote — but if that’s an important distinction, that would improve this amendment.
Mr. Clare: Maybe I can help to answer the discussion on two points, Mr. Chair.
The first is to clarify that Health Canada and the Government of Canada put out a regulatory proposal in March that specifically spoke to the packaging and labelling requirements that would be required under future regulation should the cannabis bill be approved by Parliament and receive Royal Assent. In that, there was an annex of about two pages that detailed the requirements for the display of THC and CBD by different classes of cannabis and by different product forms, whether or not the product was intended to be inhaled in a bulk form or whether the product was in a discrete form like a capsule of cannabis oil, for example, then the requirements would be different. When it comes to a capsule of cannabis oil, the requirement is to indicate how much THC in terms of milligrams is in each capsule, as well as the total amount of THC in the package. When it comes to dried cannabis, the requirement was to label it with the percentage of THC content.
To my colleague’s point about the different forms, there’s a distinction between THC and THCA, which is often referred to as the acid form. THCA is actually not active. It doesn’t cause the psychoactive effect until it’s heated. So we want to make sure in the regulations that there’s no trickery going on by the industry, that they label only THC and not the THCA or vice versa, that they actually have to label the amount of THC that the product can yield under its intended use, so if it’s heated or burned.
That’s the complexity which the proposal set out and why the legislation provides for these regulation-making powers, so that the regulations themselves can address the different specific circumstances to achieve the exact policy objective behind the proposed amendment.
Senator Pratte: It would be useful if I quoted the recommendation by the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee. The recommendation reads:
Ensure that THC levels be clearly indicated on labels affixed on cannabis products and its derivatives, as recommended by the Quebec Association of Psychiatrists and provided for by the Proposed Approach to the Regulation of Cannabis, in order to protect the most vulnerable, including young persons and people with mental illness.
The recommendation does not say that the act should be amended.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: I will continue with that quickly. Although I share some of Senator Seidman’s concerns, we have often heard the comment in committee that we have to react very quickly to the different varieties of products that will come along. It is important for us to be able to react, to adapt, and to make changes in order to protect young people and adult consumers. The regulations will give us that rapid response capability, so that we are always up to date with the innovations. So, I am not going to support this amendment.
[English]
Senator Seidman: I just want to ask one question. I’d like to know: Were the regulations gazetted? In what Gazette were the regulations published? Because we keep talking about regulations, and usually they’re published in the Gazette. There’s the first and the second, so where have these regulations been published that we keep referring to?
The Chair: Can one of your team answer that?
Ms. Labelle: Because Bill C-45 is still under consideration before Parliament and we don’t know when and if it will become law, it is not possible, at this point in time, to even publish or make regulations.
What the Department of Health Canada has done, however, is set out a detailed consultation paper and a detailed response to that consultation paper so that those who are entering the industry will understand clearly what the labelling requirements will be.
Senator Seidman: But it’s my understanding that usually there’s a draft of the regulations published in the first Gazette — a draft of the regulations. One of the biggest complaints of the stakeholders has been there is no draft of the regulations published. There was a consultation. That’s correct, but we all sit here not knowing what the regulations are going to be because there never was a draft of the regulations published, as normally happens. I guess that’s my sense of skepticism about regulations, sadly.
The Chair: Are we ready for the vote?
Senator Seidman: Yes.
The Chair: All those in favour of the amendment of Senator Seidman, please show their hands.
Senator Seidman: I’d like a recorded vote.
The Chair: A recorded vote, yes.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Eggleton, P.C.?
Senator Eggleton: No.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Bernard?
Senator Bernard: No.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Dean?
Senator Dean: No.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Mégie?
Senator Mégie: Abstention.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Munson?
Senator Munson: No.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Omidvar?
Senator Omidvar: No.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Patterson?
Senator Patterson: Yes.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Petitclerc?
Senator Petitclerc: No.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Plett?
Senator Plett: Yes.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Poirier?
Senator Poirier: Yes.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Seidman?
Senator Seidman: Yes.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Stewart Olsen?
Senator Stewart Olsen: Yes.
Ms. Anwar: Yeas, 5; nays, 6, abstentions, 1.
The Chair: The motion is not carried.
We will now move on to JS-10, which is related to clause 33 on page 24. Senator Seidman.
Senator Seidman: So, again, this one is about THC potency. We did hear evidence that THC potency is a significant predictor of harm from cannabis products, including negative mental health outcomes.
Witnesses observed that THC potency in cannabis products has increased dramatically in recent years and that consumers are likely to seek higher potency products in the recreational market. The proposed regulations will impose a potency limit for cannabis oil, 30 milligrams of THC per millilitre of oil, and require only a volume limit on the quantity of pre-rolled dried cannabis. This amendment would amend Bill C-45 to require that a maximum potency for all cannabis products be prescribed in regulation.
Multiple witnesses told the committee that it’s easier to introduce tougher restrictions at the outset of legalization than try to put the genie back in the bottle. Imposing maximum THC limits for all cannabis products at the outset of the legalization is a prime example of where it would be very difficult to set limits in the future. So let’s start with the best limits we can set now.
Senator Dean did suggest there’s a natural maximum of 30 per cent THC for dried cannabis, so there’s no need to set a limit. But not only is 30 per cent THC much higher than what is considered by public health experts to be safe, it ignores the possibility that plants could be bred to produce dried cannabis with a THC potency of more than 30 per cent in the future. This amendment proposes to amend the bill to impose a maximum limit on the THC potency of cannabis products to be prescribed in regulation.
Ian Culbert, the Executive Director of the Canadian Public Health Association, said to SOCI, in his testimony.
We would have liked to have seen maximum THC concentrations in the regulation. . . .
Our original paper on the topic called for a maximum limit of 15 per cent, with exceptions for medical purposes, if there were extenuating circumstances.
Dr. Harold Kalant, Professor Emeritus in the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Toronto, told us:
I’m puzzled as to why Health Canada did not set strict limits on the maximum concentration of THC in preparations to be used medically. It is even more important to limit that concentration in preparations used non-medically where there is no supervision of how and how often and how much is used.
So, I move:
That Bill C-45 be amended, in clause 33, on page 24, by replacing line 20 with the following:
“cannabis of any class that is not referred to in Schedule 4 or that has a potency exceeding the prescribed maximum potency.”.
The Chair: Anybody else on this?
Senator Dean: Comment from officials, please.
The Chair: Is this in the same category as the previous one, bringing a regulation into the bill?
Mr. Costen: Chair, to a large extent, yes. The senator sort of reflected this in her introduction, that, in our proposals, particularly when it comes to certain types of cannabis, to the question that was asked earlier, questions of potency, maximum limits, portion sizes, all of these things are very particular to the mode of ingestion. What makes sense for one mode doesn’t tend to make sense for another. It has to be a very textured treatment, and, if you like, my colleague can elaborate on some of the technical elements of it.
I think, with respect to the motion, when we look at the schedule and the five classes of cannabis set out in Schedule 4, certainly some forms, as my colleague at the end of the table kind of indicated, will already be subject to limits through the regulations. In others, the limits will be different. The mention of dried cannabis was in the senator’s comments.
Then, when we start thinking about the application of this amendment for a cannabis plant or even cannabis seeds, which are also set out in the schedule, defining and determining what an appropriate potency limit might be is, frankly, not a very easy thing to do.
John, is there anything you want to add?
Mr. Clare: Yes. When we think about the potency of cannabis generally, we tend to always go back to the amount of THC in dried cannabis. Again, the government’s intention is absolutely, with the spirit of the motion, to ensure there are limits on the amount of THC set out in the regulations. The application of those limits, for example, to cannabis seeds themselves, which would not contain any THC, would just pose a challenge.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: As for amendment JS-9, I have the same reservations about the regulations. Although Senator Petitclerc has said that it will enable us to change our minds if we want to amend certain things, I have the same reservations as for amendment JS-9.
[English]
The Chair: Anybody else before who hasn’t gone the first time?
Senator Seidman: This is about the regulation. This isn’t an amendment that the THC potency should be in the law. It says this amendment amends the bill to impose a maximum limit on the THC potency of cannabis products to be prescribed in the regulation. So it’s saying there should be a maximum limit. It should be prescribed in the regulation. That’s what this amendment says.
Senator Plett: Was this unanimous at the Legal Committee?
Senator Seidman: It was a minority recommendation from the Legal Committee.
The Chair: Are you ready for the vote on this?
I have some advice to give you. We have a change. Senator Saint-Germain is now substituting for Senator Bernard. We have the appropriate form to that effect.
Show of hands vote? All those in favour?
Senator Seidman: Could we have a recorded vote?
The Chair: Sure.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Eggleton?
Senator Eggleton: No.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Dean?
Senator Dean: No.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Mégie?
Senator Mégie: Abstain.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Munson?
Senator Munson: No.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Omidvar?
Senator Omidvar: No.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Patterson?
Senator Patterson: Yes.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Petitclerc?
Senator Petitclerc: No.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Plett?
Senator Plett: Yes.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Poirier?
Senator Poirier: Yes.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Seidman?
Senator Seidman: Yes.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Saint-Germain?
Senator Saint-Germain: Yes.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Stewart Olsen?
Senator Stewart Olsen: Yes.
Ms. Anwar: Yeas, 6; nays, 5; abstentions, 1.
The Chair: So that’s carried.
Shall Part 1, Division 2, entitled “Other Prohibitions,” which contains clauses 16 to 39, carry as amended?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
We now go to Part 1, Division 3. There’s one amendment in this section. It’s on page 26. If there ever was a technical amendment, this is it. It’s putting in a comma.
An Hon. Senator: On division.
The Chair: On division again.
This is the only amendment to clauses 40 to 43, which is Division 3.
Shall Part 1, Division 3, titled “Obligations,” which contains clauses 40 to 43, carry as amended?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division, just for a comma.
Then we have TD-4. TD-6, TD- 7 and TD-10 relate to this as well, but we’ll deal with them as they come.
TD-4, Senator Dean.
Senator Dean: This is where we start talking about tickets and a more effective non-criminal approach that provides incentives for early payment and disincentives for late payment.
The first proposed amendment would establish an early payment option for individuals issued a ticket under the cannabis act, giving the accused the possibility of paying less than the amount identified in the ticket. That would include a statement to this effect in the information portion of the ticket.
I move:
That Bill C-45, in clause 51, be amended by
(a) adding after line 28 on page 30 the following:
(d.1) a lesser amount than the amount determined under subsection (4) that may be paid for the offence if it is paid within a specified period that is shorter than the period referred to in paragraph (d);
(b) replacing line 30 on page 30 with the following:
within the period referred to in paragraph (d) or (d.),.
In subsequent consequential amendments we’ll be seeing other references to (d) and (d.1).
The Chair: We will indeed.
Senator Poirier: Just a clarification, Senator Dean. Did I understand right that if somebody would get a fine and they would pay earlier, they would get a reduced amount? I’m just wondering what the fairness is of that for people who live in remote areas and may not have the ability to pay as quickly as somebody who lives in an urban area.
Senator Dean: If there’s access to an Internet-based service or a phone service to pay tickets, as there is in many places, there would be equity. If that isn’t the case, I would probably look to officials to provide further advice on that. I think this is a good-faith effort to incent early payment.
Senator Poirier: Senator, I feel that’s still discrimination. That’s assuming everyone has access to the Internet. I can tell you in remote areas, some places don’t even have the towers to have Internet, let alone to get on the Internet, if they even know how to do it. I feel we’re treating one group of people differently than other groups of people, and I have concerns about that.
The Chair: We’ll hear from the officials on this.
Paul Saint-Denis, Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice Canada: The early payment option is not limited to payment by the Internet. It can be done by telephone and it can be done by mail, and ultimately it could be done in person. There are a number of possible avenues for prepayment.
The Chair: Anything further on this? Is this agreed, then?
Senator Poirier: On division.
The Chair: On division. All those in favour? Let me see a show of hands, just to be sure. Those opposed?
On division. Carried.
TD-5 is Senator Dean. This is linked to TD-8, TD-9, TD-11 and TD-14.
Senator Dean: Yes, and this relates to another change in ticketing where there is a shift away from convictions to an absolute discharge on a plea of guilty. With that absolute discharge, there would be no record. The person would walk away with an absolute discharge, which would not have consequences at the border and not have consequences for employment applications.
So I move:
That Bill C-45, in clause 51, be amended by
(a) replacing lines 31 to 34 on page 30 with the following:
(i) a finding of guilt will be entered in the judicial record of the accused and the accused will be deemed to have received an absolute charge and not to have been convicted of the offence;
(ii) the judicial record of the accused in respect of the offence will not be used for any
We can get an explanation of that.
(b) relacing line 37 on page 30 about the following:
(iii) if cannabis has been seized in relation to the of-
This amendment would give an accused who receives a ticket the option of voluntarily — in essence, the shift is that the accused, if pleading guilty, would have an absolute discharge. That moves us away from a conviction which, to some extent or other, would have an element of criminality attached to it.
The Chair: Is there any other comment on that? Is that agreed?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
TD-6 depends on TD-4, and TD-4 was passed.
Senator Dean: This is an amendment flowing from the preceding amendment. I move:
That Bill C-45, in clause 51, be amended by replacing line 5 on page 31 with the following:
“within the period referred to in paragraph (d) or (d.1),”.
So that’s a consequential amendment.
The Chair: Is TD-6 agreed to?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
TD-7.
Senator Dean: I move:
That Bill C-45, in clause 52, be amended by replacing line 23 on page 31 with the following:
“cused within the period referred to in paragraph 51(3)(d) or (d.1) constitutes a”.
The Chair: Another technical amendment. Is that agreed?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Next is TD-8.
Senator Dean: This one is technical again. I move:
That Bill C-45, in clause 52, be amended by
(a) replacing lines 26 and 27 on page 31 with the following:
(a) a finding of guilt is to be entered in the judicial record of the accused and the accused is deemed to have received an absolute discharge and not to have been convicted of the offence;
(b) replacing lines 29 and 30 on page 31 with the following:
“offence must not be used for any purpose”.
The Chair: Anything further? Is that agreed?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
TD-9.
Senator Dean: I move:
That Bill C-45, in clause 53, be amended by replacing lines 9 and 10 on page 32 with the following:
“offence must not be used for any purpose that”.
The Chair: Agreed?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: On division.
TD-10.
Senator Dean: I move:
That Bill C-45, in clause 54, be amended by replacing line 14 on page 32 with the following:
“the ticket within the period referred to in paragraph 51(3)(d) or (d.1), the ac-”.
The Chair: Is that agreed?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
There was one thing I did forget. I have to go back to Division 4. There was nothing in Division 4.
Shall Part 1, Division 4, entitled “Miscellaneous,” which contains clauses 44 to 50, carry? We didn’t have any amendments to that.
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: On division.
We’ll continue, then. Most of what we’ve been doing now is in Part 2. Ticketable offences is the area we’ve been dealing with here.
JS-12.
Senator Seidman: The committee heard evidence from witnesses and from the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs that the 30-day time period to pay the fine associated with a ticket for possession of over 30 grams up to a specified amount marginalizes and discriminates against the poor. The committee also heard evidence from witnesses and from the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs that the 30-day time period to pay the fine is not long enough for those living in remote areas, including in northern regions and Aboriginal communities.
This amendment comes from a unanimous recommendation in the report on Bill C-45 from the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee. We heard from Michael Spratt of the Criminal Lawyers’ Association:
The ticketing provision is good in that it can divert adults away from the criminal law process, and it is good that it seals the court records so that some of those criminal collateral consequences don’t follow adults down this ticketing path. But we know that youth are excluded, and the poor will continue to be marginalized and discriminated against through this ticketing regime because you can only take advantage of getting a record sealed if you are rich enough to pay the fine within 30 days. There is not a clearer case of discrimination or an unconstitutional provision.
So, I am proposing to amend the bill to increase the allowable period to pay a ticket following conviction. I move:
That Bill C-45 be amended, in clause 54, on page 32, by replacing line 22 with the following:
“(d) the accused has 60 days after the day of the convic-”.
The Chair: Comments?
Senator Pratte, is that what the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee said? You’re our authority here today.
Shall this motion carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: So that’s carried.
Now we go to TD-11.
Senator Dean: This is a bit more substantive, so give me a minute. The proposed amendment is consequential to an amendment to remove the requirement that judicial records of the ticket conviction be kept separate and apart from judicial records.
The importance of this is that when this involved a conviction, the existing language in the bill would suggest that that conviction should be kept separate and apart from other judicial records. The government heard from provinces and territories that that would be hugely onerous, in some cases impossible. The fact that we’ve now moved to absolute discharge actually precludes the need for that record to be kept separately; thus, we’ve been responsive to a concern raised by provinces and territories.
That being the case, I move:
That Bill C-45, in clause 54, be amended by replacing lines 32 and 33 on page 32 with the following:
“accused in relation to the offence must not be”.
The Chair: Anything further on that? Is that agreed?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
TD-12.
Senator Dean: This is an amendment that, for the purposes of equity, extends a provincial provision to territories. The provision deals with delaying licences or permit issuance where a ticket has not been paid. This is at the back end where we have unpaid tickets and delay.
I move:
That Bill C-45 be amended by adding after line 40 on page 32 the following:
Licences, permits, etc.
“55.1 If the amount to be paid under this Part is owed to Her Majesty in right of Canada, the person responsible, by or under an Act or ordinance of the legislature of a territory, for issuing or renewing a licence, permit or other similar instrument in relation to the offender may refuse to issue or renew or may suspend the licence, permit or other instrument until the fine or fee is paid in full, proof of which lies on the offender.”
The Chair: Anything further on this? Is this agreed?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
TD-13.
Senator Dean: This connects with the early payment option.
I move:
That Bill C-45 in clause 58, be amended by:
(a) adding after line 18 on page 33 the following:
“(b.1) a lesser amount than the amount determined under paragraph 51(4)(a) or (b), as the case may be, that may be paid for the offence if it is paid within a specified period that is shorter than the period referred to in paragraph (b); ”
(b) relacing line 20 on page 33 with the following:
“within the period referred to in paragraph (b) or (b.1);”
The Chair: Anything further? Is it agreed?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
Now we have TD-14.
Senator Dean: This one relates back to the absolute discharge.
I move:
That Bill C-45, in clause 58, be amended by:
(a) replacing lines 21 to 24 on page 33 with the following:
“(i) a finding of guilt will be entered in the judicial record of the accused and the accused will be deemed to have received an absolute discharge and not to have been convicted of the offence,
(ii) the judicial record of accused in respect of the offence will not be used for any”
(b) replacing line 27 on page 33 with the following:
“(iii) if cannabis has been seized in relation to the of-”
The Chair: Anything further on this? Is this agreed?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division as always.
TD-15.
Senator Dean: Again, this amendment is consequential.
I move:
That Bill C-45, in clause 58, be amended by replacing line 31 on page 33 with the following:
“ferred to in paragraph (b) or (b.1), the accused must appear in”
The Chair: Anything further on that? Agreed?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Agreed, on division.
That brings to the end the amendments under Part 2. Shall Part 2, entitled “Ticketable Offences, ”which contains clauses 51 to 60, carry, as amended?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
We’re now on to Part 3, entitled “Licences and Permits.” The first amendment is TD-16.
Senator Dean: This is the first of a cluster of amendments that would provide greater flexibility to the minister in the enforcement world so that a minister in the enforcement activity could move beyond in some cases what is outlined in regulation.
I move:
That Bill C-45, in clause 62, be amended by replacing lines 26 and 27 on page 37 with the following:
Conditions — Minister
“(10) Subject to the regulations, the Minister may make a licence or permit subject to any conditions that he or she considers ap-”.
And that’s on a case-by-case basis. That would include cases where there are no conditions imposed by a regulation, so more flexibility in the enforcement world.
The Chair: Anything else on this? Is that agreed?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
On to TD-17.
Senator Dean: In the same light, I move:
That Bill C-45, in clause 64, be amended by replacing lines 13 to 17 on page 38 with the following:
“any cannabis specified by the Minister if
(a) the Minister has reasonable grounds to believe that the suspension is necessary to protect public health or safety, including to prevent cannabis from being diverted to an illicit market or activity; or
(b) any prescribed circumstance exists.”.
The proposed amendment provides authority for the minister to suspend a licence or permit under prescribed circumstances which go beyond those specified in the statute, similar to provisions in the bill where the minister has authority to refuse a licence renewal or to revoke a licence in prescribed circumstances.
I think this is the kind of flexibility we would like the minister to have.
The Chair: So TD-17, anything further on it? Agreed?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
TD-18.
Senator Dean: I move:
That Bill C-45, in clause 65, be amended by replacing line 22 on page 39 with the following:
“been cancelled;”.
I think this is translation only. Again, the proposed amendment would ensure consistent wording throughout the bill when describing the cancellation of a security clearance by replacing the word “revoked” with “cancelled” in the English version of 65(f) and replacing the word “révoquer” with “annuler” in the French version.
The Chair: Anything further on TD-18? Is it agreed?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
On to TD-19.
Senator Dean: The next amendment relates to security clearances. I move:
That Bill C-45, in clause 67, be amended by
(a) replacing line 31 on page 39 with the following:
Security clearances
“67(1) Subject to the regulations, the Minister may grant or ”
(b) adding after line 33 on page 39 the following:
Security clearance required by Minister
“(2) The Minister may specify, by name or position, any person — other than a person specified in the regulations — who must hold a security clearance if the Minister is of the opinion that the person
(a) performs, has performed or is about to perform activities related to a licence or permit that is issued under this Part or that is the subject of an application under this Part; or
(b) has, has had or is about to have custody, management or control of the place where activities related to a licence or permit that is issued under this Part or that is the subject of an application under this Part, are being or will be performed.
Notice
(3) If the Minister specifies that a person must hold a security clearance under subsection (2), the Minister must provide the applicant for, or the holder of, the licence or permit related to that person with a notice to that effect in writing.”
In essence, the proposed amendment would provide the authority for the minister to specify an additional person or persons that would be required to hold a security clearance beyond those explicitly identified in the regulations.
The Chair: Any further comments on TD-19?
Senator Poirier: I have a question for clarification. Are we basically clarifying the power of the minister or are we giving more power to the minister? And is this consistent with other acts, other situations?
Senator Dean: I would just say that I think we’re giving more flexibility to the minister to deal with extenuating circumstances that involve security than might be in the regulations. But I’ll ask my colleagues, the officials, to comment.
Mr. Costen: I think that’s a fair characterization. Not only this committee, but many of the other committees, heard significant testimony about how certain criminal organizations will seek to influence the operations of companies from several steps removed. And in response to some of these concerns, our testimony and testimonies of others have pointed to the vetting of individuals who occupy certain specified positions in the company that we will identify through the regulations as being of particular influence to the operations of that company and therefore potentially vulnerable to influence.
This additional authority simply acknowledges that there may be positions other than the ones foreseen in the regulations where the minister makes a determination that there’s a point of vulnerability and the person occupying that position requires a security clearance.
Senator Poirier: Is this consistent with other acts?
Ms. Labelle: This type of security clearance process in statute is rather rare. There are things for air transport, for example, but a lot of it is policy based. So I don’t think I have an easy comparator. This is consistent with the intent of the security clearance process.
The Chair: Anything else on this?
Shall TD-19 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
That completes that section on licences and permits. Shall Part 3, entitled “Licences and Permits,” which contains clauses 61 to 68, as amended, carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
We now come to Part 4, which is “General Authorizations.” The first amendment we have is TD-20, which relates to page 41 in the bill.
Senator Dean: This one applies to a contractor acting on behalf of a person authorized under the cannabis act. It clarifies that contractors are authorized to perform activities on behalf of a person authorized under the cannabis act, such as a licence holder, as part of their contractual obligations and in a manner consistent with the conditions that apply to the person’s authorization. It would also clarify that agents and mandataries can be individuals or corporations. This new provision works alongside the existing provisions respecting employees’ agencies and mandataries.
I move:
That Bill C-45, in clause 71, be amended by
(a) replacing lines 23 and 24 on page 41 with the following:
Agents and mandataries — this Act
“(2) Unless the regulations provide otherwise, every person who is acting as an agent or mandatary of a per- ”; and
(b) adding after line 30 on page 41 the following:
Contractor — this Act
“(3) unless the regulations provide otherwise, every person who is acting under a contract with a person that is authorized under this Act to possess, sell, distribute or produce cannabis — other than an employee or an agent or mandatary of the authorized person — may do anything that is prohibited by any provision of Division 1 of Part 1 if they do so in the performance of their contract and in a manner that is consistent with the conditions that apply to the authorized person’s authorization.”
The Chair: TD-20 is linked to the next one, too. TD-20, is that agreed?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
TD-21.
Senator Dean: This is consequential. I move:
That Bill C-45, in clause 72, be amended by
(a) replacing line 33 on page 41 with the following:
“is prohibited by section 8, 9 or 10 if they do so as”;
(b) replacing line 37 on page 41 with the following:
Agents and mandataries — provincial Acts
“(2) Every person who is acting as the agent or man-”;
(c) replacing line 40 on page 41 with the following:
“section 8, 9 or 10 if they do so as part of their role as”; and
(d) adding after line 3 on page 42 the following:
Contractor — provincial Acts
“(3) Every person who is acting under a contract with a person that is authorized under a provincial Act to sell cannabis — other than an employee or an agent or mandatary of the authorized person — may do anything that is prohibited by section 8, 9 or 10 if they do so in performance of their contract and in a manner that is consistent with the conditions that apply to the authorized person’s authorization.”
The Chair: Anything else on this? Is it agreed?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
Shall Part 4, entitled “General Authorizations,” which contain clauses 69 to 71, as amended, carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
Now I get a bit of a run here. The next amendment doesn’t happen until Division 2 of Part 9, so let me just go through the script here.
Shall Part 5, entitled “Ministerial Orders,” which contains clauses 73 to 80, carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
Shall Part 6, entitled “Cannabis Tracking System,” which contains clauses 81 to 83, carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
Shall Part 7, entitled “Inspections,” which contains clauses 84 to 86, carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
Shall Part 8, entitled “Search Warrant,” which contains clauses 87 and 88, carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
Shall Part 9, entitled “Disposition of Seized Things,” which contains clauses 89 and 90, carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
Shall Part 9, Division 1, entitled “Non-chemical Offence-related Property,” which contains clauses 91 to 101, carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
Part 9, Division 2, “Cannabis and Chemical Property.” Now, here we come to JS-13. We are now all the way up to page 70 of the bill.
Senator Seidman: Thank you. This adds new clause 109.1, on page 70.
A little background: The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police told the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee that they believe Bill C-45 requires law enforcement to keep seized cannabis plants alive in certain cases while judicial decisions are pending.
The Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee heard evidence that some police services and municipalities may not have the capacity to store seized cannabis, cannabis-related products or cannabis plants. Imagine keeping a cannabis plant alive and watering it every day.
The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police has said that greenhouse facilities would need to be built to keep large numbers of cannabis plants alive.
This amendment that I am about to make would relieve law enforcement agencies of all responsibilities regarding the conservation, return or compensation for seized cannabis plants. This amendment comes from the unanimous recommendation of Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee’s report on Bill C-45.
I will give you a quote from Mario Harel, President of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police:
. . . the CACP has significant concerns regarding the return of property provisions, which appear to require police to maintain and return seized cannabis plants. Police services across Canada do not have the facilities or resources to accomplish this. Accordingly, we ask that the proposed legislation address these concerns by relieving police services of any responsibilities associated with the deterioration of seized cannabis plants and from having to provide compensation to the owner.
It is therefore proposed to amend the bill to relieve law enforcement agencies of all responsibilities regarding the conservation, return or compensation for seized plants. And it’s for the plants here, just so you understand.
So I move:
That Bill C-45 be amended, on page 70, by adding the following after line 16:
“109.1 A peace officer, inspector or prescribed person who seizes, finds or otherwise acquires cannabis in the course of the administration or enforcement of this Act or any other Act of Parliament is not obligated to maintain or preserve it.”.
Senator Munson: I have a question. Who would be responsible?
Senator Seidman: I suppose that’s a very good question. Who would be responsible? Clearly, the police don’t want to be responsible for watering cannabis plants on a daily basis in order to keep them alive so they can return them to whoever owned them. They’ve made that extremely clear. So that would have to be something that was worked out.
Senator Munson: Can the officials address this?
Mr. Saint-Denis: I think there may be a number of issues here that need to be addressed. One is what the CACP were concerned about, which was cannabis plants. This provision concerns all forms of cannabis, not just cannabis plants.
The second thing, if I understand correctly, is that the committee has just adopted the preliminary portion of Part 9, that is to say, the part just before Division 1. Am I right?
The Chair: Yes.
Mr. Saint-Denis: If you look at clause 90 of the bill, it says that sections 489.1 and 490 of the Criminal Code are applicable unless otherwise specified in the act.
The provisions of the Criminal Code require that property that is seized be maintained for the purposes of evidence, unless they are not needed. To a large extent, property seized by police typically forms part of the evidentiary process and would be needed for trial.
It is somewhat contradictory to tell the police, on one hand, you can seize this but you’re not responsible for maintaining it. That would put the police in conflict with some of the provisions of the Criminal Code.
With respect to maintaining plants, there are already provisions in the cannabis act that deal with the expedited disposition of plants and other cannabis products, if they’re not needed for proceedings. There’s also a provision allowing for the return of the plants if they’re not needed. So under those conditions, the police would not need to maintain them; they would be able to return them.
Often enough, in cases of procedures, the taking of pictures of the evidence is sufficient to use in a trial, so often the product seized will be returned to the individual because you don’t actually need the thing itself.
The other thing is that I find it a little odd in the criminal law context, which is what this is all about, to allow the police to seize things without them being responsible for the things they seize. It could lead to some significant cases of abuse of process, on the one hand.
On the other hand, if the property — because the proposed motion here does not make a distinction between licit cannabis or illicit cannabis, so it would be possible for a peace officer or an inspector to erroneously seize cannabis that was licit. It could be medical cannabis or part of the 30 grams a person is allowed to possess that would be seized. Then you would be depriving individuals of property to which they have a legal right to own. To then say to the police that they don’t have to maintain that seems to be somewhat contradictory to the whole notion of fairness.
To my way of thinking, there are some considerable concerns over adopting this kind of motion, Mr. Chairman.
[Translation]
Senator Pratte: Mr. Saint-Denis, a point of clarification, please. Currently, all cannabis is grown illegally. When cannabis is seized, what happens? Is it just destroyed? Are photos taken and then it is destroyed?
Mr. Saint-Denis: As far as I know, that is exactly right, especially for large quantities of seized cannabis plants. Then samples of the cannabis are taken, the cannabis is photographed, and it is subsequently destroyed.
Senator Pratte: Could we think of other examples where police forces have to look after an asset? When they seize a vehicle, they park it in a garage and it is all very simple. But with cannabis plants, they have to be watered and provided with light.
Mr. Saint-Denis: No. In our current system, as every cannabis plant is unlawful, there is no reason to keep them alive. However, for other controlled substance like heroin, cocaine, and all the other drugs, the police forces have to keep those substances for trial purposes.
Senator Pratte: Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Okay. Did you still want to proceed with this in view of these comments?
Senator Plett: No, I’d like to ask a question.
The Chair: You want to ask a question?
Senator Plett: Or make a comment, I mean.
Colleagues, we have had a number of committees studying this bill extensively. We’ve had expert witnesses at committees testifying, and I believe them to be as expert as anybody at the end of the table here. They have unanimously recommended something to us, and we are considering ignoring that.
This amendment doesn’t say that the police have to destroy; it says they are not obligated to maintain or preserve. They are not obligated.
Maybe the RCMP at the end of the table would say that they would just ignore the Criminal Code; I don’t think they would. I have a feeling that if they were obligated under the Criminal Code to do maintain something, they would do it, even if this bill says they don’t have to. The bill doesn’t say they have to destroy anything. It says they are not obligated. Surely, they will not break the Criminal Code.
I think we have an obligation to take the advice of committees that have studied this extensively and had expert witnesses. We have great people on the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee — legal and constitutional experts — and we are doing a disservice if we do not consider those recommendations seriously. So I certainly support this recommendation.
Senator Seidman: Even though we have Senator Pratte in the room who sits on that committee, I do have in my hand the twenty-third report of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs — recommendations adopted by the committee unanimously. Recommendation No. 3:
Amend the bill in order to relieve law enforcement agencies of all responsibilities regarding the conservation, return or compensation for seized cannabis plants.
The Chair: Okay. Anybody else on this?
Senator Lankin: Senator Seidman, I heard you say “cannabis plants,” and as has been pointed out and as I noticed, this just says “cannabis.” It’s broader than your intent.
Senator Seidman: Right. That could easily be the fault of the law clerk. I didn’t write this amendment. He was given instructions to write an amendment in accord with item number 3 from the Legal Affairs Committee, and this is what came from it.
I would be fully prepared to amend this amendment and put “cannabis plant” in there after “cannabis.”
The Chair: You’re adding “cannabis plant” to the amendment?
Senator Seidman: Yes.
Senator Gold: As a member of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, I appreciate Senator Plett’s confidence in us. We did our best, but we are hearing additional considerations and concerns from the officials, which, at least to my mind, has given me pause about the scope of the amendment that is before us.
The Chair: Mr. Saint-Denis, we now have “cannabis plant.” Is your comment still the same? We solved one problem, but you’ve still got the other.
Mr. Saint-Denis: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A number of my comments were related to the broader issue of maintaining evidence, whether that’s cannabis plants or cannabis. But reducing the focus to cannabis plants would limit some of the consequential harms that may be caused by this amendment.
I would like to point out, though, that some of my concerns would still exist with respect to medical cannabis plants, which patients are entitled to possess. If they’re accidentally seized, they would lose those, so that concern remains.
Senator Munson: I’d like to ask the RCMP the same question. Do they have a point of view about what was heard before the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee? Do you have a point of view on this amendment?
Chief Superintendent Dennis Daley, Director General, National Criminal Operations, Contract and Aboriginal Policing, Royal Canadian Mounted Police: As I stated to the same committee on Friday, I think the CACP has correctly pointed out the limitations on police with respect to facilities and resources around the live plant issue. So respectfully, I think I would just leave it at that.
Senator Stewart Olsen: Thank you for all of this.
I think we have to put some common sense into what we’re asking the police officers to do. Honestly, are we really asking them to build greenhouses and water plants? There has to be another way around it. If we amend this, I think another way around it will be found. Prosecutors will find a way to collect that evidence. I just don’t think that asking them to maintain a bunch of cannabis plants is even logical.
The Chair: We have a comment coming from Ms. Labelle.
Ms. Labelle: To restate, there is a disposition scheme under the cannabis act. It’s not all that different from the one under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, so there are means by which law enforcement can ask for these cannabis plants to be destroyed.
In other words, it would be displacing a lawful regime for lawful disposition.
Another concern I would have, with all the respect that I do have for anyone in law enforcement, there are instances where something may not be in good faith, and it is unusual for the Crown to take a position of immunizing behaviour without knowing what kind of behaviour we’re giving immunity to.
The Chair: Can we get to the vote now?
I might add that Senator Bernard has returned. She has taken over for Senator Saint-Germain.
Senator Bernard: I’ve been back for a long time.
The Chair: I need to get an indication whether you want to adopt this amendment or not. All those in favour?
Senator Seidman: Sorry. Could I just clarify one thing before we take the vote?
As I said, the law clerk wrote this, and I have been informed that there was much discussion about this amendment and using “cannabis” as opposed to “cannabis plant.” What was said by the law clerk is that “cannabis” includes “cannabis plant.”
The Chair: So what are you saying? Do you want to change this to “cannabis plant” or leave it as it is?
Senator Seidman: Well, when the law clerk writes an amendment, I hesitate to change it on the fly without consulting the law clerk.
The Chair: Let me take the vote JS-13 as it is written. All those in favour?
Senator Seidman: Could we do a recorded vote?
The Chair: JS-13, recorded vote.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Eggleton?
Senator Eggleton: No.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Bernard?
Senator Bernard: No.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Dean?
Senator Dean: No.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Mégie?
Senator Mégie: No.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Munson?
Senator Munson: Yes.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Omidvar?
Senator Omidvar: No.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Patterson?
Senator Patterson: Yes.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Petitclerc?
Senator Petitclerc: No.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Plett?
Senator Plett: Yes.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Poirier?
Senator Poirier: Yes.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Seidman?
Senator Seidman: Yes.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Stewart Olsen?
Senator Stewart Olsen: Yes.
Ms. Anwar: Yeas, 6; nays, 6.
The Chair: It’s lost on a tie. That’s the last one for that section.
Shall Part 9, Division 2, entitled “Cannabis and Chemical Property,” which contains clauses 102 to 109, carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
Next is Part 10, entitled “Administrative Monetary Penalties,” and TD-22 in that connection.
Senator Dean: Yes. It is a translation fix.
I move:
That Bill C-45, in clause 112, be amended by:
(a) replacing, in the French version, line 22 on page 71 with the following:
“c) les efforts raisonables que l’intéressé a déployés afin d’atténuer”;
(b) replacing, in the French version, line 26 on page 71 with the following:
“l’intéressé a retirés de la violation commise;”.
The Chair: TD-22, any further comments? Is that agreed?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division. That’s the last one in that section.
Shall Part 10, entitled “Administrative Monetary Penalties,” which contains clauses 110 to 127, as amended, carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
Part 11: We get into some more amendments here. Part 11 is entitled “General.” Under that, I have JS-14.
Senator Seidman: This amendment calls for two new clauses, and I’ll give you some background.
The committee heard that appropriate regulations will need to be developed in a number of areas, including requirements for the packaging and labelling of cannabis products, to ensure that the risks and harms of cannabis are appropriately addressed.
Furthermore, the government has indicated that it intends to add additional classes of cannabis to Schedule 4, such as edibles and vaping liquids, to allow time for the development of specific regulations to address the unique risks posed by these product classes.
The committee heard evidence that in areas where the government intends to enact regulations, the devil is in the details. This amendment would give the option for the House of Commons and the Senate to take 30 sitting days to review the proposed regulations expected next year for edibles and vaping products, in the appropriate committee, before they are enacted.
Given the degree of concern we heard about the packaging and type of products — a concern about public safety, especially for kids — this is the sensible thing to do. There is ample precedent for amending legislation to introduce greater parliamentary oversight. This amendment would introduce a degree of transparency to the regulatory process for edibles and vaping products next year and beyond for new classes of products without delaying the implementation of the cannabis act. It also provides a high degree of flexibility to the government in cases of emergencies or technical amendments.
Given the testimony our committee heard about the growing commercialization of the cannabis industry, introducing an additional degree of transparency without tying the government’s hands is the sensible thing to do.
It is therefore proposed to add a provision to Bill C-45 to stipulate that proposed regulations applying to additional classes of cannabis, such as edibles or vaping liquids, be laid before each house of Parliament and be referred to an appropriate committee, which may choose to conduct inquiries or public hearings with respect to the proposed regulation and report its findings to that house.
As I said, these would be new clauses, 139.1 and 139.2, on page 87. So I move:
That Bill C-45 be amended on page 87, by adding the following after line 31:
“139.1(1) The Minister must, before a regulation is made under subsection 139(1) in respect of any class of cannabis added to Schedule 4 after the day on which this Act receives royal assent, including any class of cannabis added to Schedule 4 on the coming into force of section 193.1, cause the proposed regulation to be laid before each House of Parliament.
(2) Each proposed regulation that is laid before a House of Parliament is, on the day it is laid, to be referred by that House to an appropriate committee of that House, as determined by the rules of that House, and the committee may conduct inquiries or public hearings with respect to the proposed regulation and report its findings to that House.
(3) A proposed regulation that has been laid pursuant to subsection (1) may be made
(a) on the expiration of 30 sitting days after it was laid; or
(b) if, with respect to each House of Parliament,
(i) the committee reports to the house, or
(ii) the committee decides not to conduct inquiries or public hearings.
139.2(1) No proposed regulation that has been laid pursuant to section 139.1 need again be laid under that section, whether or not it has been altered.
(2) If a proposed regulation that has been laid pursuant to subsection 139.1(1) is made without including an alteration recommended by a committee of either House of Parliament respecting that proposed regulation, the Minister must cause a report explaining why the alteration was not made be to laid before each House of Parliament.
(3) A regulation may be made under subsection 139(1) without it being laid before either House of Parliament if the Minister is of the opinion that the changes made by the regulation to an existing regulation are so immaterial or insubstantial that section 139.1 should not be applicable in the circumstances.
(4) A regulation made under subsection 139(1) may be made without it being laid before either House of Parliament if the Minister is of the opinion that the making of the regulation is so urgent that section 139.1 should not be applicable in the circumstances.
(5) If the minister forms the opinion described in subsection (3) or (4), he or she must cause a report that includes the reasons why he or she formed that opinion to be laid before each House of Parliament.”.
I must remind you that it’s very clear here that there’s a 30-day window, so it’s not that either house can sit on these regulations for an extended period of time. There’s a 30-day window. This is not an unusual requirement in pieces of legislation. In fact, I do believe we find it in other acts.
The Chair: Thank you. This is any and all regulations, including the current draft ones, not just the ones —
Senator Seidman: Specific to the future — edibles, vaping liquids and any other new class of product after that. It’s not for anything that falls under the current law, so it won’t hold up the implementation of the cannabis act at all. It’s only new products — edibles and vaping liquids, which they’ve promised us, and then any other new products in the future.
Senator Omidvar: Senator Seidman, you’re proposing what other people have called a super-regulation. In another committee, this was tabled and it was called a super-regulation by someone. I think that describes it pretty well. I wonder if we can get the experts’ opinion on that.
Senator Seidman: Before we do that, I might help you out a bit. I don’t think there’s a super-regulation here. For example, the Official Languages Act has exactly this stipulation. The Emergencies Act, the Firearms Act, the Referendum Act, the Tobacco Act, the Canada Small Business Financing Act, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Assisted Human Reproduction Act, the Citizenship Act, the Quarantine Act, the Human Pathogens and Toxins Act, the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act — all of those acts have precisely this request for regulations in new classes to be brought before both houses of Parliament and to come before the appropriate committees. Those committees have 30 days to hear witness testimony and report back. If they don’t, the regulations come into effect. That’s it.
The Chair: Do you want to comment on this? Is it a policy issue, or does it have ramifications?
Mr. Costen: It’s a little bit of both, to be honest, chair. The senator outlined some really critical points. Maybe I can offer a few things in response.
It sounds certainly like many of you are very familiar with the process that exists today. I would suggest that the regulation-making process currently foreseen under the cannabis act, should it be approved, is very much in line with the regulation-making process that exists today for other regulations made pursuant to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act — regulations for other narcotics and other drugs.
The principles behind the motion around the importance of transparency and robust scrutiny of a public process, those are all laudable and appropriate. I think they also govern the regulation-making process under the purview of the Governor-in-Council that we adhere to today.
The opportunity for Parliament’s scrutiny around the legislative package in its entirety — and my colleague made reference to it earlier — that three-year statutory review exists and does add a helpful and significant ability for parliamentarians to assess, determine and recommend where changes need to be made, should they be made.
Finally, the point about agility, which was made in the introduction, is critical. All of you, in various committees, heard about unforeseen circumstances and to be prepared for unforeseen issues, whether they arise from an industry perspective or otherwise. The ability to respond with deftness and agility is paramount. We’re building this infrastructure of regulatory controls to the best of our knowledge today, but we understand there will be a considerable amount of manoeuvring among the regulated parties. The regulator ought to be able to respond as quickly as possible on a variety of issues that we’ve talked about already and that you’re very interested in, from labelling to security, recordkeeping — all of those regulatory details. The paramount feature will be for the regulator to be able to adapt very quickly to protect the public health of Canadians.
Senator Seidman: I appreciate that, Mr. Costen. You did make reference to the fact that I mentioned transparency, but I also mentioned a high degree of flexibility and agility. That’s built into this amendment. In cases of emergencies or technical amendments, there’s plenty of room right here in this amendment for that. The minister has full authority to move forward if she needs to in an urgent situation or in the event of a technicality.
As I said, there’s a 30-day requirement for both houses of Parliament to do their work. If they do not do their work in 30 days, that’s it; it’s over. The minister can move and regulations can be fully enacted.
The Chair: Anybody else on this? Ready for the vote? All those in favour of this motion, JS-14.
Senator Seidman: Recorded vote.
The Chair: Okay.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Eggleton?
Senator Eggleton: Yes.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Bernard?
Senator Bernard: No.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Dean?
Senator Dean: No.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Mégie?
Senator Mégie: No.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Munson?
Senator Munson: Yes.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Omidvar?
Senator Omidvar: No.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Patterson?
Senator Patterson: Yes.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Petitclerc?
Senator Petitclerc: No.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Plett?
Senator Plett: Yes.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Poirier?
Senator Poirier: Yes.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Seidman?
Senator Seidman: Yes.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Stewart Olsen?
Senator Stewart Olsen: Yes.
Ms. Anwar: Yeas, 7; nays, 5.
The Chair: It’s carried.
We are in Part 11, entitled “General.” We are now up to TD-23.
Senator Dean: The proposed amendment here would explicitly authorize the minister to amend, suspend or revoke an existing order made by the minister for the purposes of exempting a person or class of persons from the application of the proposed cannabis act or its regulations. This would use clearer language to express the range of flexibility the minister requires in order to amend, revoke and exempt those exemptions.
I move:
That Bill C-45, in clause 140, be amended by:
(a) adding after line 39 on page 87 the following:
For greater certainty
“(1.1) For greater certainty, the Minister may, by order, amend or revoke an order made under subsection (1) or suspend its application in whole or in part.” and
(b) adding after line 3 on page 88 the following:
Suspension
“(2.1) The minister may, by order, suspend, in whole or in part, the application of an order made under subsection (2).”
The Chair: Anything else on this one? Is this agreed?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
Next is TD-24.
Senator Dean: This is a consequential amendment. I move:
That Bill C-45, in clause 141, be amended by replacing line 4 on page 88 with the following:
Statutory Instruments Act
“141 An order made under subsection 140(1) or (1.1) is not a”
The Chair: Anything further on this one? Is it agreed?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
TD-25.
Senator Dean: I move:
That Bill C-45, in clause 142, be amended by:
(a) replacing, in the French version, line 11 on page 88 with the following:
“taires ou de l’attribution d’approbations, d’autorisations ou d’exemp-”
(b) replacing, in the French version, line 25 on page 88 with the following:
“procédés réglementaires ou de l’attribution des approbations, des autorisa-”
The Chair: Anything further on this? Is it agreed?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
Finally in this series, TD-26.
Senator Dean: I move:
That Bill C-45, in clause 145, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 89 with the following:
Non-payment of fees
“145 The Minister may, by notice in writing and for a period that he or she specifies, withdraw or withhold a service, the use of a facility, a regulatory process, approval, autho-”
The purpose for this is that the minister would be able to withhold a service provided to somebody licensed where they haven’t paid their fees for those licences.
The Chair: Anything further on this? Is it agreed?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
The next three amendments are all related, and they’re all CPs — Senator Petitclerc.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: Actually, there are three amendments. The three amendments go together and their aim is to strengthen and improve the review and enforcement process in the act. At the outset, I would like to highlight the work that Senator Raymonde Gagné has done on this amendment. At the moment, Bill C-45 requires the minister to wait three years after the bill is passed in order for the bill, and the way it is enforced, to be subject to review. The text of the current bill mentions this quite briefly.
This amendment adds three amendments, the first of which, amending section 151.1, is designed to strengthen the minister’s requirement to conduct a review of the act, and the way it is enforced, three years after the bill is passed, and to submit it to both Houses of Parliament no later than 18 months after the start of the review. It is also designed to establish a requirement for the Minister of Health to conduct a separate review on the impact of the act, and specifically on the consequences of the act for public health, particularly the health and cannabis consumption habits of young people. Basically, we are asking for a review to be held by one or more parliamentary committees, five years after the act is passed.
These amendments reflect the concerns the committee has heard. They are modelled on a number of other federal acts and they specifically parallel what was done in the act on medical assistance in dying.
The amendments read as follows. I move:
That Bill C-45 be amended in clause 151.1, on page 91, by replacing lines 4 to 9 with the following:
“force, the Minister must undertake a review of this Act and its administration and operation.
(2) No later than 18 months after the day on which the review begins, the Minister must cause a report on the review, including any findings or recommendations resulting from it, to be laid before each House of Parliament.”
[English]
Are we doing them one at a time?
The Chair: You’ve given the explanation behind all three of them, but we’ll take them one at a time.
On CP-2, is there anything further on that?
Senator Seidman: I have a question. If I understand this correctly, it leaves the three-year review as it is, as it was amended by the House of Commons, by HESA, but it says there’s an 18-month period to conduct the review. Is that correct?
Senator Petitclerc: Yes, exactly. It leaves the three-year review as planned, but in the present wording, it doesn’t detail or give a lot of precision on that review. So those three amendments do that. This first one really asks that the result of this review be tabled 18 months after.
Senator Seidman: Basically the minister has 18 months after the three years to table her report to both houses.
Senator Petitclerc: Correct.
Senator Seidman: Thank you very much.
The Chair: Anything further on this?
Senator Plett: I’m wondering why you aren’t going to ask the officials why they would be opposed to this amendment.
The Chair: You can feel free to ask them.
Senator Plett: You’ve been asking for every other amendment, chair.
The Chair: When I’m not certain what the amendment is about, I ask, of course.
I’ll ask them. Do the officials have something to say about this particular amendment or even the series of three amendments?
Mr. Costen: I think the only observation I would make is that the proposed wording would suggest that the minister must undertake the review. I think the original language in Bill C-45 is that the minister must cause a review, which would also allow for the minister to appoint an independent third party to do the review. So it’s a slight nuance between the two. But the proposed language doesn’t seem to allow for the identification of a third-party group to undertake the review on behalf of the minister.
The Chair: Does the law clerk or anybody have any suggested wording that might accomplish that?
Senator Seidman: “Cause a review”?
The Chair: “Cause a review”; would that do it?
Mr. Costen: That would mirror the language as it’s in 151(2).
The Chair: “Cause a review.” Is that okay?
Senator Petitclerc: I’m fine. Do we need to have an equivalent in French?
The Chair: All three would be the same, “cause a review.”
Is that your only comment? Okay.
Ms. Anwar: What is the French terminology?
The Chair: “Cause” in English.
Senator Petitclerc is moving her motion with the change of “undertake” to the word “cause” in English and the equivalent in French is “veille.”
Anything further on this? Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
CP-3: Do you want to read that into the record, changing “undertake” to “cause”?
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: The amendment reads as follows. I move:
That Bill C-45 be amended, on page 91, by adding the following after line 9:
“151.2 (1) Three years after this section comes into force, the Minister of Health must undertake a review of the impact of this Act on public health and, in particular, the health and consumption habits of young persons in respect of cannabis use.
(2) No later than 18 months after the day on which the review begins, the Minister of Health must cause a report on the review, including any findings or recommendations resulting from it, to be laid before each House of Parliament.”.
[English]
The Chair: You have “cause” in the second part and you still have “undertake” in the first part. So you want to make them both “cause?”
Senator Petitclerc: I would think.
The Chair: The law clerk is suggesting in (2):
The minister must cause a review of this act and its administration and operation to be conducted.
[Translation]
Ms. Anwar: And, in French: “article, le ministre veille à ce qu’un examen portant sur la présente loi et son application fasse l’objet d’un examen.”
[English]
That is to complete the sentence.
The Chair: Could we go back and change that in CP-2? Is that agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
What other words do we need in CP-3, other than “cause” and “undertake?” Do we need those words too?
It’s causing a review of the impact and then causing a report on the review.
Senator Seidman: You have to say “a review to be undertaken”; no? It says “undertake.” Say “cause a review.”
The Chair: To make it consistent with the other language in the other section that the officials have pointed out.
Ms. Anwar: In English, it would be, “Three years after this section comes into force, the Minister of Health must cause a review of the impact of this Act on public health and, in particular,” all the way to the end of “cannabis use,” then “to be undertaken.” Then it would be consistent.
[Translation]
Then, in French: “Trois ans après l’entrée en vigueur du présent article, le ministre de la Santé veille à ce que l’examen portant sur l’impact de la présente — ”
[English]
And then the rest of the text ends in:
[Translation]
“— l’usage de cannabis fasse l’objet d’un examen.”
[English]
The Chair: Is everybody clear?
Senator Seidman: No. It’s not the language; it’s the intent of this.
We’ve just asked for a review of the act, and now we’re asking for a review. What are we trying achieve? Is this directive to the kind of review that we want to see? Is it another review on top of the one we just asked for? I’m trying to understand, because now we’re saying another review, to undertake a review of the impact of this act. So what are we asking for?
Senator Petitclerc: It was not in the bill as it is written now. What we are doing is making sure that the Minister of Health proceeds to this review with a focus on how to determine health and consumption habits.
Senator Seidman: Is it because we want to determine the content? I’m just trying to understand, because we just passed an amendment that said the minister would cause a review.
Senator Petitclerc: Yes.
Senator Seidman: Okay. The one we just passed doesn’t say which minister. It says “the Minister must cause a review of this act.” The previous one. It doesn’t say which minister.
Senator Petitclerc: No, it doesn’t.
Senator Seidman: You’re saying now we’re saying the Minister of Health, but isn’t the Minister of Health responsible for this act? Wouldn’t the first one be that “the Minister of Health must cause a review of this act”?
Senator Petitclerc: You would hope, but I don’t think it is necessarily that minister who would do it. This is why it’s important to have the second one.
The Chair: Let’s just clarify this. You also have to understand the context that’s getting into this document here.
Mr. Costen, this question about the minister in CP-2 —
Mr. Costen: The minister referred to throughout the course of this act, whether in this portion or others, is thought to be the Minister of Health. So the proposal that the minister responsible for undertaking the development of a report, as outlined in 51.1, is the Minister of Health.
The Chair: But the fact that she’s got Minister of Health spelled out in the second one doesn’t really matter; either way, it’s the Minister of Health.
Mr. Costen: Yes, as the case may be, but following the thinking of the motions, in both instances the Minister of Health would be charged with the development of two reports.
The Chair: Okay. So we don’t need anything further on CP-2. I think we’re okay on that one.
With CP-3, I don’t think it matters if you spell out the Minister of Health here, but we’re changing “undertake” to “cause” and putting those words “to be undertaken” at the end. That’s the English version.
Anything else on CP-3? Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
CP-4: We’ve got another “undertake” here. Just read it out.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: I move:
That Bill C-45 be amended, on page 91, by adding the following before the heading “PART 12”:
“151.3 (1) Five years after this section comes into force, a committee of the Senate, of the House of Commons or of both Houses of Parliament is to be designated or established for the purpose of reviewing this Act.
(2) The committee designated or established for the purpose of subsection (1) must undertake a comprehensive review of the administration and operation of this Act and must, within a reasonable period after the review, cause a report on the review, including any findings or recommendations resulting from it, to be laid before each House of Parliament.”.
[English]
The Chair: So I take it we need to change “undertake” to “cause” again. Do we need the other words at the end? This one looks a bit different.
Ms. Anwar: In this case it doesn’t make sense because it’s the committee.
The Chair: The committee undertakes. So “undertake” is fine. That’s true. And it is “cause a report.” So it’s just as it is.
Is there any further discussion on CP-4? Is this agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
That is the end of the Part 11 section.
Shall Part 11, entitled “General,” which contains clauses 128 to 151, as amended, carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
Part 12 is entitled “Transitional Provisions and Related Consequential and Coordinating Amendments.” The first amendment here is TD-27.
Senator Dean: I move:
That Bill C-45, in clause 160, be amended by replacing, in the English version, line 17 on page 98 with the following:
“fore the commencement day is deemed to be a permit is-”
It’s a consequential amendment from the permitting mentioned earlier.
The Chair: A technical amendment. Anything else on TD-27? Is it agreed?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
Now we come to TD-28, which is rather longish.
Senator Dean: This is long, chair, and requires a bit of explanation.
It had been clear for some time that provinces and territories have raised a number of questions about the period between Royal Assent and proclamation in the sense that during that period, regardless of what that period is, producers and retailers of cannabis would have to be authorized to actually make preparation for post-proclamation day. This would introduce a new clause that would provide for the pre-positioning of cannabis by allowing licensed producers and provincially authorized persons to conduct specific activities that would otherwise be immediately prohibited upon Royal Assent, because it would be without proclamation. It would authorize federally licensed producers, employees, agents and mandataries on their behalf to sell, provide, send, deliver or transport cannabis for the purpose of doing so to persons authorized by a province or territory. It allows for cannabis to be actually moved across the country to prepare for proclamation.
I move:
That Bill C-45 be amended by adding after line 2 on page 99 the following —
The Chair: Can we take this as read? We could dispense. It’s rather long. We all have it in front of us.
May he dispense from having to read all this? Okay. Is there anything further on TD-28?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
That finishes Part 12. Shall Part 12, entitled “Transitional Provisions and Related Consequential and Coordinating Amendments,” which contains clauses 152 to 193, as amended, carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
Shall Part 12.1, entitled “Cannabis Act,” which contains clause 193.1, carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
Part 13 is the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. There is one amendment here: TD-29.
Senator Dean: The draft amendment has been replaced, yes.
The Chair: We get to try your French again.
Senator Dean: Happy to do it. I move:
That Bill C-45, in clause 195.1, be amended by replacing in the French version, line 16 on page 114 with the following:
“195.1 L’article 4.1 de la même loi est remplacé”.
The Chair: Anything further on TD-29? Is that agreed?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Carried.
Senator Dean: Can I ask a favour of the committee at this point? Might I be allowed to finish up and move to TD-30, as I’ve got to get out of here fairly urgently?
The Chair: Sure. Well, it is a consequential amendment from TD-28. Can I first of all, before doing that, finish up on this one?
Shall Part 13, entitled “Controlled Drugs and Substances Act,” which contains clauses 194 to 206, as amended, carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
Let me do Part 14, and then I’ll come to your TD-30.
Part 14 is relates to Criminal Code clauses. I don’t have any amendments for that.
Shall Part 14, entitled “Criminal Code,” which contains clauses 207 to 225, carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
Part 15 relates to the coming-into-force provisions. The only other amendment I have is JS-15. I’ll go to TD-30, then, and come back to JS-15.
Senator Dean: I move:
That Bill C-45, in clause 226, be amended by replacing line 21 on page 124 with the following:
of this Act, except sections 160.1, 161, 188 to 193, 194, 199.
That is a consequence of the motion to add the provision on the pre-positioning of cannabis.
And with that I am done, if you are done with me.
The Chair: Is there further discussion on TD-30? Is that agreed?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
That brings me to the only other one left, and that’s JS-15. Senator Seidman.
Senator Seidman: Actually, I’m going to pass the torch to the Honourable Senator Patterson.
Senator Patterson: Thank you. As a member of the Aboriginal Peoples Committee, I’d like to take a bit of time to discuss this amendment.
Mr. Chair, as committee members will know, consultation with Aboriginal peoples is very demanding and there’s a lot of litigation around it. We’ve had issues with consultation with Aboriginal peoples with Bill S-3, which was dealt with in the Senate, I think, very respectfully.
The Prime Minister and the government are working to advance reconciliation and renew the relationship with Aboriginal peoples based on recognition of rights, respect, cooperation and partnership.
This amendment would heed the pleas of Indigenous and northern communities to be adequately consulted and supported in that spirit of reconciliation.
I do want to point out that Senator Christmas recommended that this issue be studied by the Aboriginal Peoples Committee. We were grateful that the Senate agreed to assign that important task to us. We found a very high degree of interest in the bill, and a large number of concerns were expressed to us by witnesses.
We asked the government for a summary of engagement and consultation with First Nations, Inuit and Metis government organizations and communities on cannabis legalization and regulation. With the greatest of respect to Parliamentary Secretary Blair, the consultation was really quite threadbare.
First of all, the task force consultation involved five meetings. They said they wanted to consult with the Inuit, so they met with the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami. I’ve spoken in the chamber about consultation with the Inuit, and I represent the largest population of Inuit in Canada, in Nunavut. And the designated rights holder for the Inuit in Nunavut and in the other Inuit regions of Canada is not Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami. It’s a national organization conveniently located in Ottawa, which is an effective advocacy and lobbying organization, but it is not the designated rights holder. The President of ITK appeared before our committee and confirmed that the few meetings that had been held with ITK did not represent consultation under the land claims agreements with rights holders.
But there were five meetings held by the task force and one meeting held by Health Canada officials with the chiefs of Ontario up until February 28, 2017 — and I’m looking at the document the government provided us — and that was all that happened until the bill was drafted and presented to Parliament at first reading in the House of Commons on April 13, 2017.
So consultation really, to be respectful, should be in advance of government action, not after government action. There have been consultations that took place following government action, and I have the list here.
Frankly, Mr. Chair, this is not the kind of broad, respectful consultation that is expected and has been demanded by litigation and precedent. Some of the consultations were by teleconference. Some of them were panel presentations at other meetings. Some of them were round tables, information sharing. This is what we heard at the committee: “We haven’t been consulted.”
In fact, Parliamentary Secretary Blair said, “Many people told us they weren’t ready.” In fact, I think he was actually admitting the point that the committee wished to make to the Senate, that the Aboriginal people were feeling, generally, that they haven’t been properly consulted and they’re not ready for this legislation.
I do have the two resolutions of the Assembly of First Nations at their special assembly on December 5, 6 and 7 in Ottawa. There were two detailed resolutions that very clearly said that they weren’t ready, that the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples required free and informed consent on initiatives like this. They asked that their inherent right to self-government be respected and reflected in the legislation.
We heard from the First Nations Tax Commission — and this is a body established by Parliament — that they tried to be consulted on the legislation and didn’t get the opportunity. They’re the folks that gave us compelling evidence that First Nations governments are going to be bearing the impact — health, social and education — of some of the negative impacts of cannabis. Yet, because of their exclusion from the excise tax agreement that has already been made to divide those revenues up among the provinces, territories and federal government, they’re going to be left out of the opportunity to have resources to deal with these social impacts in their self-governing communities. They said that if the excise tax issue is not dealt with before the bill is passed or comes into force, it will become yet another legal morass like for the illegal cigarette trade.
Parliamentary Secretary Blair told us today that engagement is ongoing, that issues that I’m going to refer to shortly that were cited by the Aboriginal Peoples Committee were being engaged on with Aboriginal communities. He gave us a list that I think addressed the subjects that the Aboriginal Peoples Committee had identified — economic opportunities, the need for additional consultation, funds for community-based treatment, funding for culturally appropriate educational materials — and he talked about the new fiscal relationship. But, colleagues, we’re being asked to trust the government that these talks are going on and will presumably have good results.
So the Assembly of First Nations made a recommendation, as did the Aboriginal Peoples Committee, that implementation be delayed for a year to allow these consultations to properly take place. I’m not proposing an amendment to delay the coming into force by a specific time, but I would suggest to committee members: Parliamentary Secretary Blair assured us today that the items set out in the unanimous recommendation of the Aboriginal Peoples Committee are well in hand. So all this amendment asks is that the government report to Parliament on what it has done or not done. I do understand that Parliamentary Secretary Blair was sincere about the compelling discussions and conversations he’s had with Aboriginal peoples and at the Assembly of First Nations, so let’s hear some results, other than a short report at this committee stage, before the bill comes into force.
Thanks for the opportunity to present our recommendations, which were unanimous. Our committee, I may not need to say, operates on a non-partisan basis. It includes most of the Aboriginal senators who sit in the Senate, and we worked together in a non-partisan way on this issue.
The amendment proposes simply that we ask the government to come back to Parliament and report on these issues. I do say that the fiscal relationship, and the excise tax collection and sharing issue, is of vital importance to First Nations self-governments. It can’t be left until after the pie has been carved up and after the law is put in place. We don’t want another situation like illegal cigarettes, which is precisely what Chief Manny Jules warned us could and would happen.
So subsequently, Mr. Chair, I move:
That Bill C-45 be amended in clause 226, on page 124,
(a) by replacing line 20 with the following:
“226(1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3), the provisions”; and
(b) by adding the following after line 29:
“(3) No order may be made under subsection (1) unless the Minister has caused to be tabled in both Houses of Parliament a report setting out
(a) a summary of the observations made and concerns expressed at public consultations with Indigenous peoples, including those in relation to
(i) the development of educational materials and programs culturally and linguistically adapted to Indigenous peoples respecting the health risks associated with cannabis use,
(ii) the need for the establishment and funding of mental health and addiction programs, residential treatment and healing centres and treatment centres culturally and linguistically adapted to Indigenous peoples, both in and in proximity to their communities,
(iii) the need for nursing and police services culturally and linguistically adapted to Indigenous peoples,
(iv) the desirability for Indigenous communities to adopt their own measures respecting the legalization of cannabis, and
(v) tax collection and revenue sharing with the Indigenous peoples; and
(b) the measures to be taken respecting the concerns expressed by Indigenous peoples during the public consultations.”.
The Chair: Further comment? Well, I’m going to enter into the commentary here.
These different parts that are noted here that need to be discussed, I don’t think there’s any disagreement with any of that. As Mr. Blair pointed out, these are under way. Later, in our observations, we even have a resolution to that very effect, that these matters need to be undertaken immediately.
The difficulty I have with this is the first part that says: “No order shall be made under subsection (1) unless the minister has caused to be tabled . . . .” That means there would an indefinite hiatus between Royal Assent and whenever those conditions are met. That, I think, is the biggest problem.
From the day this bill gets Royal Assent, people out there will think, “It’s the law now; it’s legal,” but it won’t be if there’s this delay. It could take, the Aboriginal Committee suggested, up to a year. He’s not putting a time frame on it, but it could be a year. It could be longer. It could be shorter, but it’s indefinite. I think that kind of hiatus will be very damaging to Indigenous people. It will be very damaging to Indigenous youth because it means that, even though the Royal Assent has been given, there is a lot of uncertainty as to what law is really in effect. I guess the existing law, until it finally comes into effect, is still prevailing, even though most people will think it isn’t, that it has changed.
I think that’s the difficulty that I see with this one, that first part.
Senator Seidman: Having listened to Senator Patterson, who actively participated in pre-study review of the Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, and having listened, on Friday, to people from the department tell us that things are in the initial phases of putting funding together, planning, preparing, putting down various organizational things — for example, we heard on Friday that there are no residential addiction treatment centres, none, zero, up where they’re needed.
Senator Patterson: In the three territories.
Senator Seidman: Exactly. Knowing that we’re dealing with a community that is particularly vulnerable — at least that is what we heard in our witness testimony, young people who were at risk — how could we possibly ignore it? That’s just one item in a long list of issues that remain to be dealt with and reported about.
I think that’s really, then, the bottom line, as Senator Patterson put forward. He’s not saying one year. It’s up to the government. If the government produces a report to Parliament, which is what he’s asking for, which is what this amendment is asking for — the minister caused to be tabled in both houses of Parliament a report setting out a summary, and he lists it all. That could happen in a month, for example. There’s no requirement that it’s a year. So it’s really up to the government when that report is tabled, and that’s what’s being asked for.
I can’t imagine how a committee that listens to expert testimony for weeks, understands the North far better than we do and makes a unanimous recommendation, all members of the committee, non-partisan — it’s not like it’s a Conservative recommendation or an ISG recommendation or a Liberal recommendation. It’s made by all members of the committee. I can’t see how we could possibly ignore it, so I will support this amendment.
Senator Gold: I think we all share the concerns that were raised both before the Aboriginal Peoples Committee and by members of the committee. Certainly, I hope that all Canadians become sensitized to the real challenges, the lack of resources or the inadequate resources, and the possible impacts on some communities.
I think we were also encouraged that the government has placed significant resources, financial and other, and is now working with communities to plan, and it takes time, whether it’s treatment centres or appropriate educational provisions.
But I think this amendment, with all due respect, is inappropriate and I would not support it. Let me give you my reasons briefly.
First, a true nation-to-nation relationship between the Government of Canada and our Indigenous peoples requires consultations, to be sure, and those consultations will and should take time. We have a lot of different communities. They’re differently situated both geographically and in terms of their legal status.
Indeed, it’s not even clear what the duty to consult fully comprises. It’s currently the law in Canada that the duty to consult does not actually extend to the legislative process. I think that might change. There’s a case before the courts. I’m not suggesting for a moment that we stand on the narrow parameters of the law, but it is still the case that there has been discussions, engagement. It’s not enough, according to some. It was enough, according to others. But there is a grey area of law in which we have to realize we’re operating.
Different communities have different legal powers, through bylaws or other legislative measures, to restrict or regulate cannabis on the lands over which they have control. They range from full rights of self-government, either recognized in treaties or by virtue of rights never ceded, to those who are under the auspices of the Indian Act, where the bylaw powers over intoxicants are the subject of some considerable disagreement, at least between certain communities and the government. There are complicated issues that will take some time, that are under way but will take some time.
Most importantly, this will have the effect of delaying the implementation, and that will continue to expose Canadians, including Indigenous Canadians, to the ongoing criminalization that follows from the maintenance of the status quo.
Indigenous men, women and youth are overrepresented in our criminal justice system, tragically overrepresented in our prisons, and every day that this bill does not come into force exacerbates the problem.
I believe, colleagues, that despite the serious issues and important needs that are identified and were identified by the committee, it is not appropriate to delay implementation of this bill, and I’ll be voting against the amendment.
The Chair: I should point out we have a couple of membership changes here. They’ve gone to vote, and we have with Senator Gold for Senator Omidvar, and Senator Lankin is now here for Senator Dean. They have the appropriate paperwork.
Senator Plett.
Senator Plett: You know, we have not had a cannabis bill in 150 years, and now all of a sudden we’re in an awful hurry to get it done because people are breaking the law.
We have a government who ran an election on bringing in a cannabis bill. We’re two and a half years into their mandate, and now all of a sudden we’re in an awful hurry to bring in a law. If they were in such a hurry to bring in a law, they should have brought it in on October 20, two and a half years ago.
The chair talked about people being in limbo because they will think it is the law after Royal Assent. Well, the fact of the matter is that even if the bill is passed as is, it will not be legal after Royal Assent. There is a period of time, and we’re told it might be in September, before this is in fact becomes legal. So there is a period of time there.
I have said this on a few of the amendments: We have highly reputable senators on all of our committees, including Legal and Constitutional Affairs, that unanimously approved a few amendments that we have rejected here, and the same thing with the Aboriginal Peoples Committee. As Senator Seidman said, it is a very non-partisan committee. They have unanimously recommended an amendment.
There is no desperate hurry to bring this bill to fruition. The government has their right — if we pass the amendment here today, it will be in our report that will be debated in the Senate, and the entire Senate can overturn it if they choose. If they don’t and we pass it and send it over to the other place, the government can reject it, as they do with amendments, if they don’t think this is an amendment that they want to deal with. They have that option.
It is our responsibility to do the right thing here; not the expedient thing, but the right thing.
The minister and the government, the Prime Minister, they can rush this along if they think it is necessary. There is no one-year time limit here. It is up to them to decide whether they want to consult, as they have an obligation to do — and in fact as they have said they have done, which is clearly not entirely accurate. So they can move this along and start consultations tomorrow morning if they really think this is necessary.
Colleagues, it’s our responsibility, as I said, to do the right thing, not the expedient thing. First Nations people have a right to be heard on this. We allow them a certain amount — I should rephrase that. Not “we allow.” They have certain rights in self-government, and they should certainly have that right here too. They have the right to declare their communities dry reserves. They should have the right to deal with this as they best see fit.
It’s been said that they are overrepresented in the prisons. Well, the chiefs and councils are trying to deal with that, and here we’re going to push marijuana bills on them when they haven’t been consulted. So if we’re concerned about their overrepresentation in the prison system, let’s let them make some decisions for their communities.
With that, I will certainly be supporting this amendment.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: I do not want to go back over everything that has been said, such as the idea of time between consultations that is not well defined. That is clear. At the risk of appearing simplistic, I was wondering, with all the points on education, addiction and the resources for people with addiction problems, whether we could not just use the implementation of the act to promote it all. That would speed things up rather than slowing them down.
The cannabis act will let us move forward, but the problem is deeper than that. There are the hard drugs, and services are not always at hand. If we specify that, with the legalization of cannabis, we need education, things will keep moving. We may not have rehabilitation centres, but at very least, services will be provided to people who are addicted to drugs and to those with mental health issues. I see an opportunity for those measures to work. Am I being naïve? I do not know. Let me put it like this. The more we delay, the slower those things will be put in place.
[English]
Senator Stewart Olsen: I’m going to support this amendment. We hear the Indigenous community, time after time, saying, “You push things on us, create laws that don’t fit for us and force us to accept this.” We’ve promised we’re going to change. When are we going to start to listen to the wisdom of the elders and the wisdom of the people whom this will directly impact?
I’m going to support it because I think we’ve clearly heard an ask for a delay. They’re just asking to be able to deal with it better. My goodness, we know there are an awful lot of problems. I don’t think we want to add one more problem. So I will support the amendment.
Senator Lankin: The content of the bullet points that you spoke to I think are very important. I don’t support a delay in the legislation, and that’s what this is about; that’s what this would cause.
I appreciate that lots of voices weren’t heard, but were lots were as well. One of the problems that I have with characterizations that I hear is when we talk about the Indigenous communities, if it was one community, because we know it’s not. It’s multiple communities. It’s multiple nations. It’s multiple governance structures. There are some, like the Mi’kmaq in New Brunswick, who have said, “Don’t delay,” and there are people in communities and nations out west that have a different perspective on this. So it’s not all the same, like we heard in testimony on the pipeline issue as well. There are different views out there.
I support the content of what you want the minister to report on, which I realize is a lever that you want to use — the delay. I understand it can be an effective lever, but I don’t support delaying the legislation.
Later on when we do observations, if the intent of an observation on this is accepted, as has been proposed, I also have no problem with putting in some of these specifics. I think they can be useful in terms of guidance.
I also think that we have the minister returning — Senator Patterson, you would know when better than I — but on phase 2 of Bill S-3. I know that broad consultation in communities is not going to be confined to only the issues set out there and that these issues will be coming to the table as well. So maybe there’s an opportunity when she comes back to ask her in advance to respond to some of these points as well.
Senator Munson: I’ve been hearing the argument that this government is in a hurry. Well, the country certainly hasn’t been in a hurry. We had 1969 Le Dain commission on decriminalizing the use of marijuana, and that sparked quite a debate at that time. That’s a long time ago. We had a Conservative leader and a Senate Speaker, Pierre Claude Nolin, in 1993 who certainly had his feet on the ground when it came to discussion and leading the way on a Senate report on legalizing marijuana. That’s 15 years ago.
Since 1969, what has happened? Criminality, the bad guys, so to speak, have taken over the market. Children have abused the drug because they’re buying it on a dark back street instead of a main street in a regulatory form, not understanding the health impacts of over-consumption of marijuana. So a learned debate has gone on for many years in this country, and I think the present government finally has responded responsibly to doing something about it.
Dealing with the First Nations people, there has been consultation. There was, in the task force. We have to take the parliamentary secretary at his word in what he said.
One phrase I have a difficulty with is “with the deepest of respect,” or “with the utmost of respect, I say this, I say that.” What does that mean? I don’t think it’s very respectful, because he should be saying what it is without saying “with the greatest of respect,” because I don’t think it’s totally there.
When it comes to changing things in the North and having the things that this amendment calls for, you have to keep fighting for things. Yes, because that’s what reconciliation is all about, isn’t it? But I’ve been fighting for 12 or 15 years in the Senate of Canada for the government to have a fiduciary responsibility for dealing with autism and other issues in Aboriginal communities, both in the North and all across the country; and it hasn’t. But if you keep pushing these things, bit by bit, incrementally, change does take place.
So what do we want in the next year? For the Aboriginal children and elders to live in the shadows of no regulation? I don’t think anybody wants that. And I think that as we continue on the road of reconciliation, we’ll be able to follow visionaries, like Le Dain, Pierre Claude Nolin and like this government. Even though I have issues with some parts of the bill, we have to get on with it.
That’s why I will not be supporting your amendment, sir, but at the same time you do have, at third reading, another opportunity in another public forum to express your views.
The Chair: I have JS-15. I take it you want a recorded vote.
Senator Patterson: Some closing remarks.
Senator Woo: I’ve had my hand up.
The Chair: I’ll take Senator Woo and then yourself.
Senator Woo: I don’t want to delay this much longer, but I do have some fresh points to put on the table.
I thank Senator Seidman for proposing the amendment and Senator Patterson for relaying the views of the Aboriginal Committee, which he’s a member of. He’s correct in saying this amendment reflects some ideas that were brought up in Aboriginal Affairs.
I have the report in front of me. It should be very clear, though, that this amendment was not proposed by APPA. If you look at it really carefully, in some senses, let’s say it’s a pale version of what was recommended by APPA. To that extent, it may even have some unintended consequences that are contra to the objectives of the very recommendations of the Aboriginal Peoples Committee.
I’m referring, of course, to what this amendment calls for, which is simply that a report be tabled summarizing information gleaned on a range of things that Aboriginal peoples have expressed concerns about but not implementing or not executing any of them.
What we heard from Senator Seidman, from Senator Patterson, from Senator Plett, was how important it was to have action, to have these treatment centres, to have these programs in place, before the bill can go ahead. I think that’s unrealistic. But even this amendment doesn’t do that. To the extent that you even believe that it is important for all these things to be put in place in First Nations communities before a bill can go ahead, this bill does not do it.
In some senses, with due respect — and I will use that phrase — it comes across as a little bit platitudinous, because all the minister has to do is to table this report that she has heard: This is the litany and this is what we intend to do over the next so many years. This is not what First Nations people want.
I do not have a vote, but I think it’s wise of committee members to not further delay the implementation of the bill because of the negative consequences on Canadians and many First Nations communities. Use the resources that this bill will unlock — the legalization framework, the monies that are available for health care, for education, for training — to do the things that APPA called for rather than this amendment, which simply calls for a report summarizing what was heard.
Senator Patterson: I proposed this amendment because I thought it was a reasonable response to the concerns expressed by the Aboriginal people.
Yes, indeed, Senator Woo is right that it calls for the government to make a detailed report on the issues and the measures to be taken. That would require commitments from the government respecting the concerns expressed by Indigenous peoples.
The timing of the report is in the hands of the government, and this is a priority to carry out this election promise. But may I remind colleagues that the Prime Minister himself has said there’s no more important relationship for this government than that with Aboriginal peoples.
I will respond to Senator Munson. It’s a parliamentary tradition to say “with the greatest of respect.” I disagree with the parliamentary colleague. The consultation was inadequate. I’ve got the record here. There was an online consultation with the task force. Zero responses from Yukon, Northwest Territories and Nunavut. Zero. No responses whatsoever, because they didn’t go there. The first consultations were held in Toronto, two in Vancouver, and nobody ever went to the territories until questions started to be asked long after the bill had been drafted and tabled.
I also want to say respectfully to my colleague Senator Gold that I don’t agree that the duty to consult does not extend to the legislative process. When Aboriginal peoples are impacted by legislation, there is a duty to consult, I believe. This is a terribly vulnerable population. I don’t want to speak about the epidemics of suicide, the crises of social issues. I don’t think I need to speak about that here.
People in my region are paying $50 to $100 for not even a gram of marijuana. It’s supposed to be a gram. It’s not even a gram. Because of geography and remoteness, it’s inaccessible. Under this legislation, the price will go down to $10 and it will be available by telephone or online.
We’ve heard evidence that Aboriginal people and people who have been victims of intergenerational trauma and post-traumatic stress are vulnerable to mental problems from the use of marijuana, especially young people. We have severe problems with alcohol and drug abuse in our Aboriginal communities.
I made this recommendation for this amendment because I thought it would be an impetus to shine a light on these issues.
Parliamentary Secretary Blair gave us a few minutes on what’s happening. There were things in Budget 2018 that allowed these things to happen. There’s no detail. There’s no guarantee of any results. I think we need more detail and more attention focused on this issue.
If we can get the government to move and act more effectively and more respectfully because of these amendments, it will be a win-win for all concerned. Nobody wants social issues and a vulnerable social fabric in Aboriginal communities to get worse, and that’s what Aboriginal peoples are saying.
The communities that support the legislation want a piece of the revenues. That’s a very big issue: the new fiscal relationship.
Do you think after the bill is passed the federal, provincial and territorial finance ministers will say, “Yeah, we made a mistake and we should have carved up the pie amongst Aboriginal peoples”? It has to happen beforehand.
I will also say this to Senator Gold, who I believe made the point. There’s no clarity about the ability of Aboriginal peoples to govern themselves on this issue, about their ability to prohibit marijuana in their communities. Justice Canada counsel at the Aboriginal Peoples Committee said that laws of general application will prevail over the Indian Act, given there are no express provisions in the Indian Act to allow prohibition of cannabis.
This law is going to impinge on the right of self-government that many Aboriginal peoples have been encouraged to think will be respected by this government.
Minister Bennett is coming to the committee next week to report on Bill S-3, to answer your question, Senator Lankin. With all respect, the government’s consultation has been abysmal with the Aboriginal people. Our committee is an expert in this because we have studiously examined consultation and found it wanting with Bill S-3. The Senate as a whole supported us to have the proper job done.
So it hasn’t been effective and that’s why the Assembly of First Nations made a clear resolution to delay for a year. All 600 chiefs specially assembled to look at this bill. Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated made the same recommendation.
I’m not asking for a delay of up to a year. With this amendment, I’m giving the government an opportunity to focus on this issue and come back to us in a timely manner with what they’re going to do.
It may be a great story. According to Parliamentary Secretary Blair, there are great things happening in this area. Let them come back and tell us and satisfy us.
The Chair: JS-15 is before us. Do you want a recorded vote on this?
Senator Seidman: Please.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Eggleton?
Senator Eggleton: No.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Bernard?
Senator Bernard: No.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Gold?
Senator Gold: No.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Mégie?
Senator Mégie: No.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Munson?
Senator Munson: No.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Lankin?
Senator Lankin: No.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Patterson?
Senator Patterson: Yes.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Petitclerc?
Senator Petitclerc: No.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Plett?
Senator Plett: Yes.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Poirier?
Senator Poirier: Yes.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Seidman?
Senator Seidman: Yes.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Stewart Olsen?
Senator Stewart Olsen: Yes.
Ms. Anwar: Yeas, 5; nays, 7.
The Chair: Accordingly, the motion is defeated.
So now we have the following question: Shall Part 15, entitled “Coming into Force,” which contains clause 226, as amended by the TD-30 amendment, carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
I have no amendments proposed in the six schedules, so I will take them all as one.
Shall Schedules 1 to 6 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall the title carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
Shall the bill, as amended, carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
Senator Plett: I’d like a recorded vote.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Eggleton?
Senator Eggleton: Yes.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Bernard?
Senator Bernard: Yes.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Gold?
Senator Gold: Yes.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Mégie?
Senator Mégie: Yes.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Munson?
Senator Munson: Yes.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Lankin?
Senator Lankin: Yes.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Patterson?
Senator Patterson: No.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Petitclerc?
Senator Petitclerc: Yes.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Plett?
Senator Plett: No.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Poirier?
Senator Poirier: No.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Seidman?
Senator Seidman: No.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Stewart Olsen?
Senator Stewart Olsen: No.
Ms. Anwar: Yeas, 7; nays, 5.
The Chair: Accordingly, the motion is carried. The bill, as amended, is carried.
Now, I have a motion — perhaps Senator Petitclerc can put it — that the law clerk and parliamentary counsel be authorized to make technical and typographical changes and adjustments to the amendments adopted by the committee. This is if there’s any need to make a slight adjustment to fit the minutes, not any substantive stuff. Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Does the committee wish to consider appending observations? Yes, we do have a lot of those. We have an option. The committee can proceed to operate in camera on the text of the observations. I’d recommend we stay in public session. Is that agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: They’re now being passed out. I would invite the officials to stay. We still may have more questions for you, even though we’re finished the bill itself. We may have questions with respect to some of the observations.
In case you’re interested, we adopted 40 amendments: 4 from Senator Seidman, 29 from Senator Dean — many of which were technical, government-related ones — 5 from Senator Petitclerc; 1 from Senator Omidvar; and 1 from Senator Bernard.
Observations: Are we ready to go?
Senator Munson: Are you going to have each person who has an observation read the entire observation or make an argument about the observation so we can get into the thrust and debate it and say yes or no?
The Chair: If it’s okay with the committee, I think that’s reasonable. There is an operative part in each of these recommendations, which is very brief. We don’t have to read the whole text. If you look at Senator Seidman’s, if she just read the bold parts, that would be good enough. Same with the first one from Senator Petitclerc, just the bottom part and then you can say what you want about it.
We do have two additional observations to those you would have received on the weekend. There are two from Senator Petitclerc and then we have a group from Senator Dean. Senator Lankin will move those.
Let’s start with the first observation, which is Petitclerc 1.
Senator Lankin: I want to make sure we’re dealing with the correct one. Is this the one that’s included in this package?
The Chair: Yes, I’ve got the looseleaf version. The one that says, “Given the evolving nature of this undertaking . . . .”
Senator Lankin: Let me speak to that. The part that the chair was just speaking to, colleagues, the recommendation in the third paragraph, talks about the committee recommending that the minister establish an independent task force to monitor and evaluate the implementation of this act and to provide public reports on the implementation and outcomes of this undertaking in accordance with the principles of the legislation.
The reason for this is that there are so many issues that have been talked about and people have come at trying to solve those issues in many different ways. Some have proposed amendments. There are other approaches where people have rejected certain ideas but have said they need to do more research. There is no doubt in my mind that the implementation of this complex public policy will hit road bumps. It’s going to. There will be problems, and it’s one of the reasons why we’ve heard people talk about the need to be able to flexibly respond, whether in regulation or other ways.
It’s also the reason why I think this committee has focused on and brought forward amendments that have caused various reviews to be tabled in a different way: a five-year review, in addition to tabling the three-year reports already referred to in the legislation.
This proposal is not about doing something at the end of three years or at the end of five years. This is about having an expert committee, something akin to a task force. Depending on the issue, the experts may change because matters with respect to the administration of fines and penalties under the Criminal Code or under provincial statute are quite different than public health issues, so there may be variable experts brought to the table.
The bill actually contemplates in, I think, clause 151 that the minister is authorized to contract experts to come in and provide advice. The ability to do this is already contained within the legislation. This is just an observation saying we think you need someone to be monitoring, on an ongoing basis, some of these key policy areas and be giving you advice as we hit the road bumps about course correction.
I think anyone who works in complex public policy knows that developmental evaluation is an appropriate and best practice to watch as things unfold, to see where there are problems and to, of course, correct. You need good advice on that. I don’t think it can be done just within the department, although the secretariat that’s been established to monitor this legislation can provide a supporting role to these various expert groupings that come in. So that’s the reason behind it, Mr. Chair.
Senator Seidman: I know in various studies the Social Affairs Committee has done that we have often recommended a kind of oversight body because things get complicated, so you have a steering committee or something to manage all the component parts. I get a sense that there’s a bit of a flavour of that here for monitoring and evaluation.
The problem with things like that is always who is in charge? Who is the boss and to whom do they report? Who has real control. So you have an independent task force, but are they really independent or do they report to the minister? I wonder.
And where does Health Canada fit in? We’ve established that Health Canada does an awful lot of surveillance and monitoring. We’ve asked the minister to report back to us in three years. I’d like to know how this fits in with that.
Senator Lankin: Those are all good questions. One of the reasons is because it is not entirely prescriptive in terms of what shape that takes for the very reasons you set out.
Let me tell you where we heard this. We began in our office to do a lot of work on concerns about the mental health issue. Beyond the testimony at various committees, we reached out and spoke with a large number of people. I called the head of CHEO to talk about children’s mental health, as well as CAMH and other organizations.
Initially, I was looking to recommend some kind of a federal-provincial process on mental health supports and services more urgently as a result of this legislation. I heard over and over again that we don’t need another strategy or another study of that sort. There are lots of recommendations. We just need to monitor — in that case, the dollars the feds have put forward for mental health and how they’re being spent by the provinces.
In this case, that led a number of them to a recommendation that began to develop about three weeks ago, saying that we should have some kind of independent monitoring committee that can provide good advice. The reason we didn’t say one oversight body is because of the complexity and the number of different areas of expertise that would need to be tapped into. That’s all part of what would have to be considered.
Your question is a good one. It’s not prescriptive for the reasons I’ve suggested.
Senator Seidman: Okay. That’s fine.
The Chair: Anything else on this? Do you want to adopt this? Is that agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Now we have a series of observations coming from Senator Seidman, based on various things coming out of different committee witness recommendations. We’ll start with number 1. If you can just read what’s in the bold and then whatever you want to say.
Senator Poirier: I’m going to go through the first four. The first one is:
Your committee urges the federal government to limit the minimum age for legal cannabis to 21 instead of 18 to protect the developing brains of youth.
This is a recommendation supported by the testimony from the Canadian Medical Association. Dr. Jeff Blackmer from the association testified to the committee on April 18. He said:
If you are asking if there is consensus in the medical profession on the age, there is, and it’s 21. We’d like to see that across the country. The CMA is the only body that represents all physicians, and you’ve heard that from our esteemed psychiatry colleagues as well. So there actually is medical consensus on that age.
That’s the first one.
The Chair: Anybody else on that?
I would disagree, if I can comment on it, that there was any medical consensus. There were a lot of medical people, including the people from CAMH, who wouldn’t have agreed with this.
I think there’s another observation to that effect: There needs to be a special campaign effort to make sure that people in this age group, up to even 25, are getting the right information they need to be able to make a decision.
But if you could make a decision at age 18 on all sorts of things, including voting, you can make a decision on what’s good for your health if you’re given the right information — but not to move the age from 18 up to 21. It’s 18 in the federal law, but it can be adjusted by the provinces to make it in coordination with their drinking age, which is 19 in the case of Ontario and other provinces.
So I would hope we would not support this.
Senator Poirier: That’s testimony from the Canadian Medical Association.
The Chair: Sure, but there were a lot of other people. It’s easy to be selective about where you take your evidence from, because there is all sorts of evidence to the contrary.
Senator Lankin: Committees heard conflicting evidence on this, but there’s lots of evidence on both sides about how grounded any of it is.
The most recent evidence I’m aware of is the JAMA Psychiatry report from the States. It is a meta-analysis of all the research done on youth and cannabis, and the impact. They come to a very bold statement, after reviewing all of the studies that have been done, that the impact is minimal. There are specific instances where there is impact; for instance, where someone has a predisposition to schizophrenia, it may cause earlier onset.
With regard to risk factors in terms of age of beginning — but they’re talking about beginning as a teenager — and daily abusive consumption over a long period of time, there is some indication that correlates with other activities, but the causal relationship isn’t proven.
So there’s a lot to be done here. I don’t think it’s appropriate to recommend an age. A lot of policy work has been done to try to land on an age. It’s not just medical evidence-based, but the medical evidence doesn’t support one or the other — the government’s position or the people who have come forward saying it should be 21 or 25, as some people have suggested.
I don’t think it’s appropriate for us to be looking at recommending consider changing that age, but I do think it is appropriate to make an observation about the kind of research that needs to be directed to that to provide, over time, a more sound evidentiary base. That’s why you want government to be able to take advice from people on the leading edge of this and to be able to respond nimbly, if possible.
Again, the nature of the concern is one I agree with, but in terms of the hard recommendation in terms of changing the age, there’s no medical evidence or evidence base to support that.
Senator Gold: Senator Lankin made the points I was going to make — even better, as always, than I could.
But I do want to underline the point, because the research to which Senator Lankin refers came out in April. It is peer-reviewed. It should give us all pause in the face of the litany about how harmful cannabis is on the developing brain. I’m not minimizing the possibility that, in some cases, it is. Certainly, the stronger, the more often and the earlier you smoke, there is some risk. But it appears as if the most recent peer-reviewed research suggests it’s not as harmful as some people are making it out to be. So let’s not be on the wrong side of the science when we speak about this bill.
I oppose this as an observation. Eighteen is the right age under all the circumstances.
The Chair: Anything else on this?
All those in favour? Do you want to do a show of hands?
Senator Seidman: We’re going to vote, so I guess we should probably do a recorded vote.
The Chair: It’s an observation, so can we have a show of hands?
All in favour of this observation moved by Senator Seidman? Five.
All those opposed? Seven. So that is defeated.
Please read the second one.
Senator Poirier: The second observation is:
Your committee urges the federal government to introduce a mandatory alcohol and drug testing framework in safety-sensitive federal workplaces.
The recommendation is supported by the testimony from Federally Regulated Employers – Transportation and Communications, FETCO:
Employers have no moral judgment on the legalization of cannabis. Our concerns are exclusively rooted in safety. We therefore ask the following: that your committee amend Bill C-45 in such a way as to introduce a mandatory alcohol and drug-testing framework in safety-sensitive federal workplaces that focuses on the full complement of testing approaches, pre-employment, reasonable cause, post-incident, return to work, and random.
These were comments made by Mr. Derrick Hynes in testimony to our committee on April 26.
Senator Munson: I’d like to have an explanation of what constitutes “safety-sensitive federal workplaces.” Wouldn’t every workplace in the Government of Canada, if you’re going to make a decision on the lives of all of us, be a safety-sensitive place? Or are you just talking about physical places? I think it would be discriminatory in some ways.
Senator Seidman: I think we heard in testimony here that certain workplaces are more sensitive than others because these workers can either injure themselves, fellow workers or clients: for example, pilots flying an airplane, conductors on trains, workers using heavy machinery with other people around. You can think of a whole series of workplaces that are much more sensitive as far as safety matters are concerned because of the vast number of people they would affect if anything went wrong because somebody was under the influence of cannabis.
We heard a lot of testimony here in this committee, specifically, as you quote, from FETCO, which is transportation and communications.
Senator Lankin: As you know, I sat in on the committee from time to time but I wasn’t here the day this testimony took place, so I’m looking for your understanding of this issue.
There are a lot of workplaces where there are already policies or negotiated frameworks and collective agreements in place for testing, and there are a lot of places where employers have looked to bring that in, impose it, and there have been challenges and it has been overturned by the court.
I actually don’t understand the need for this. I would think that in terms of workplace — well, Senator Plett, I’m hoping maybe you can speak and help me. This is a genuine question.
For example, Darlington, where my brother worked for a number of years, he had to do mandatory testing. He’s a crane operator, heavy equipment, up high, all of that, and there is a lot of potential to hurt others. That’s part of the system in place.
I believe that it’s already in place for train conductors. I don’t know about pilots. I don’t know how they test pilots, if it’s just on observation, but I know there are lots of sanctions if you are intoxicated, whether it’s illegal, illicit or alcohol.
Why would we leave this for the government to do as opposed to workplaces to determine?
Senator Seidman: In the testimony we heard, we were urged to do this because places of employment were worried that they would be served with human rights violations if they tried to do this.
Senator Lankin: That’s currently the situation, isn’t it?
The Chair: Let me point out something. That’s one side of the coin, but we also had other people at the table at the same time. The President of the Canadian Labour Congress was there and pointed out that there are existing protocols because there are problems with intoxication of people for alcohol and other kinds of drugs. There are a series of protocols that he felt sufficient to deal with this.
The other entity we had there was the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety. They’re an independent agency that tries to pull the parties together and tries to focus. They said there are those kinds of protocols and that kind of dialogue going on. One particular entity said they would like to make it compulsory, but that wasn’t the total evidence put before the committee.
Senator Gold: I was wondering, given dangerous driving, why people seem to be opposed to mandatory alcohol testing for driving, but that’s another bill, so the question is out of scope.
The Chair: That’s another argument for another day.
Senator Gold: So I will not make the comment. Thank you.
The Chair: Do you want a show of hands on this?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Those in favour of this particular observation, please show your hands. Four.
Those opposed? Seven. So that is defeated.
Number 3.
Senator Poirier: The third one is:
Your committee urges the federal government work with the provinces and territories to facilitate the development of workplace impairment policies.
This recommendation is supported by the testimony from the Canadian Centre of Occupational Health and Safety. Chris Moore from the centre testified to your committee on April 26, 2018:
Typically when a major legislative change happens that is going to have a profound impact in the workplace, some major [education] program will be developed. . . .
So far I’ve not heard of anything like that around cannabis or impairment. Yes, there are lots of initiatives around mental health, violence, youth awareness and all of these sorts of things, but I have not heard anything around impairment.
Those were some of the comments made by Chris Moore.
The Chair: Any other comments on this one? You want to agree to this?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Number 4?
Senator Poirier: Number 4:
Your committee urges the federal government to ensure that law enforcement be provided with the appropriate tools and resources to address concerns about continued illicit production, diversion and sales of cannabis to youth.
This recommendation is supported by testimony from municipalities and of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. Deputy Chief Constable Mike Serr, Canadian Association of Police, testified on April 30 and said:
. . . division is one of our priorities, and we don’t want to see the product diverted. As we said, youth have typically had it diverted to them through these types of means of production, so to try to give us more tools to address that.
That was the reason they gave us through their testimony.
The Chair: Any other comment on this one?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Number 5.
Senator Seidman: I’ll read this one. It states:
Your committee urges the Minister of Health to require mandatory health warnings for cannabis products to include warnings about the danger of smoking cannabis, the danger of exposure to second-hand cannabis smoke, and the risks of combining cannabis and tobacco.
This observation is supported by many, but I will just tell you about the testimony from the Non-Smokers’ Rights Association, who testified in front of Social and said:
We know from tobacco research that package warnings can be a highly targeted, effective and cost-effective form of public education. However, the current proposal for six warnings includes no warning regarding the relative risks of smoked versus other forms of consumption, no warning of the dangers of exposure to second-hand cannabis smoke and no warning of the risks of combining tobacco and cannabis. We urge senators to recommend that warnings on these issues be included in the list of mandatory health warnings on cannabis products.
That’s what this observation does exactly.
The Chair: Could I ask the officials, Mr. Costen, to tell us how this relates to your plans in terms of the regulations, if you have any concerns about all of this?
Mr. Costen: No concerns, chair. The observation is consistent.
I would maybe just read one of the warning messages that I think is topical. The predominant warning would be that “cannabis smoke is harmful” with a sub warning beneath that, “harmful chemicals found in tobacco smoke are also found in cannabis smoke.” This would be one of the six mandatory warning messages that the senator made reference to.
If there’s an interest to have other types of warning messages, we’ve anticipated that over time the messages would need to evolve and change. Part of the research you’re referring to notes that you need to rotate messages so consumers don’t become accustomed to them. Diversity of messages is a reasonable thing that we’ve been thinking about.
The Chair: Do we agree with this?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Number 6.
Senator Seidman: Number 6:
Your committee urges that testing procedures for THC content be standardized to ensure accurate measurement to better protect consumer health and safety.
We had testimony from the Chief Medical Officer in the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services, Dr. Jay Butler. From every state from which we heard that had already done this, we asked the benefit of their experience. He said:
If there’s a recommendation I would make, I think you want to think long and hard about how to standardize the testing process so that you get accurate measures. If you’re going to do this in a way that is as safe as possible for the consumer and so that the consumer can be informed, the testing procedures have to be standardized.
That’s what this observation does: It urges. The observation doesn’t standardize, but it urges that testing procedures for THC content be standardized.
The Chair: Mr. Costen, do you have input on this one? Is that your intent?
Mr. Costen: The Canadian Standards Council and other international standards-setting bodies are also seized with the need to identify and determine appropriate standards for THC testing.
The Chair: Can we agree on this?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Number 7.
Senator Seidman: Number 7 states:
Your committee urges the federal government to ensure that forthcoming regulations for edible products and other forms of cannabis should ensure that product packaging is child-resistant and does not appeal to young people, and that the type of available products should be strictly limited.
The Chair: Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Number 8.
Senator Poirier: Number 8 is:
Your committee urges the federal government to provide adequate and ongoing funding for sustained, evidence-based cannabis education and prevention programs to provide Canadians, especially young Canadians, with knowledge about the health risks of cannabis use.
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Number 9.
Senator Seidman: Number 9 is:
Your committee urges the federal government to impose a moratorium on reviewing the regulations of branding, marketing and promotion of cannabis for 10 years.
This observation was recommended by Drug Free Kids Canada, the same organization the government partnered with to create Cannabis Talk Kit for parents, one of the few educational initiatives the government has undertaken prior to legalization. Basically, testimony to SOCI from Drug Free Kids Canada was as follows:
. . . we’ve been closely observing the recreational cannabis industry and have huge concerns that they plan on lobbying the government to relax their tight regulations after a couple of years, their argument being that they need to differentiate their product from the illegal stuff. . . .
The youth segment represents the biggest group of consumers of cannabis, just like alcohol. If we relax the regulations to allow the marketing promotion of cannabis products, who do we think they’ll target first?
We propose that this committee include in the legislation a moratorium on reviewing the regulations on the branding, marketing and promotion of cannabis for 10 years. The basis for this timeline is that it will take at least a generation to measure the true societal impact on youth of the legalization of cannabis. The government’s approach to legalization of recreational cannabis was to better regulate and control the sale and distribution in order to protect our children. Let’s not leave a crack in the door for our kids to become targets of exploitation by big business.
Senator Gold: I have more of a question than a comment. I was surprised by this. Given all we’ve heard about the importance of flexibility and adapting to all the moves that the industry players would make, I would have thought that this actually might hurt our ability to protect kids from the kind of advertising and other targeting campaigns the senator properly worries about. Am I missing something, Senator Seidman?
Senator Seidman: I’m missing something. There’s an incorrect word. It should read “impose a moratorium on loosening the regulations.” I’m sorry. The language was taken directly out of the quote from Drug Free Kids Canada, but in context, that isn’t what they meant. They meant loosening. I’m sorry about that. You’re quite right.
The Chair: Do you have anything further, Senator Gold?
Senator Woo: That answered my question. Senator Gold stole the words from my mouth, but maybe there’s a secondary question on whether “loosening” might actually be tightening the freedom of flexibility to make regulations more obstructive for young people. “Loosening” is a loosey-goosey word, if you know what I mean. That would be my only remaining caution.
The Chair: If I could comment too, I think it’s too imprecise. It’s unreasonable to suggest that something needed to be held in place for 10 years when there could be a shorter period of time where something is so obviously requiring direction. We have to be fair to everybody. If we’re going to review, let’s review on a more consistent basis on all aspects of it, not just this particular loosening kind of aspect.
I won’t be supporting this one.
Senator Lankin: I will be supporting this one. The experience with the tobacco industry — different but related, and there are cross-players, particularly on the marketing experience — is that it has been a constant battle for public policy to make gains. Again, this is a recommendation, but I think it is a shot across the bow to say that we shouldn’t be looking at loosening regulations right away. We may hear a lot about that, but there may be occasions when we want to tighten them. I appreciate that addition.
I agree with you — that’s a valid point, too — but this is a recommendation, and it’s something that needs to be said at some point in time to give a focus to that concern. So I will support this.
Senator Munson: Can you read it with the new term?
Senator Seidman: It now reads:
Your committee urges the federal government to impose a moratorium on loosening the regulations on branding, marketing and promotion of cannabis for 10 years.
And I will read the two lines before that:
Your committee heard evidence that no further loosening of the promoted regulations of branding, marketing and promotion of cannabis should be permitted until the societal impact on youth can be measured.
Senator Woo: A moratorium is something that you put in place to stop a trend that is already agreed upon. A moratorium on loosening means that you will loosen over time and that you will just not loosen for the first 10 years. If you don’t want to loosen, you say “prohibit,” not “loosen.”
I don’t think “moratorium” is the right word or connotation. At the end of the 10-year period, if the moratorium on loosening is over, then loosening is the preferred path.
The Chair: Let’s not spend a lot of time on rewording. If we’re doing one word, that’s fine.
Senator Seidman: It’s not an amendment; it’s just an observation. I think it’s clear what it means.
Senator Patterson: I think if you said “prohibit loosening the regulations,” it would be better. I agree with Senator Woo. “Prohibit loosening the regulations” would work.
The Chair: That’s two words.
Senator Patterson: It’s taking three words and putting in one.
The Chair: Remember, these all have to be translated, too. It’s being introduced in the chamber tomorrow, so there won’t be a lot of time for them to get all this ready.
Senator Seidman: I think you have them all in English and French. If there’s one word here and there to be translated, I don’t think it will be a problem.
Ms. Anwar: Just so I’m clear, what is the change? I have that the word “reviewing” is changed to “loosening.”
Senator Seidman: “Your committee urges the federal government to prohibit loosening the regulations on the branding . . . .” No? It sounds kind of funny, doesn’t it?
Senator Plett: Leave the wording the way it is.
Senator Seidman: Let’s leave it the way it is:
Your committee urges the federal government to impose a moratorium on loosening the regulations on the branding, marketing and promotion . . . .
That was the recommendation made to us by a pretty significant organization.
The Chair: Is that agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
An Hon. Senator: On division.
The Chair: Yes, on division.
Next is number 10.
Senator Seidman: It states:
Your committee heard evidence about the health harms of cannabis use. Furthermore, witnesses stated that legalization combined with the commercialization of the cannabis industry may result in the normalization of cannabis use. Your committee recommends that the Minister of Health act immediately to set aggressive targets comparable to the successful federal tobacco control strategy to reduce the number of youth and adult cannabis users.
Senator Gold: I’m now shy to say “respectfully,” but I don’t support this.
I’m going to focus on adults, because this includes youth and adults. We get focused on youth, understandably; we all have kids and grandkids. I don’t see why we should assume that it’s appropriate policy and that we should decide today that responsible use by adults is something that should decrease as opposed to increase. If it increases and people are getting off opioids and stop boozing themselves to death, I don’t think that’s a terrible thing.
The point is I don’t have any basis for saying that this is the right way to go as opposed to saying nothing. So I’m not comfortable with this observation.
The Chair: Anybody else on this?
Senator Seidman: I might respond and say that Parliamentary Secretary Blair sat right here at this very table twice and said exactly that their intent was to set a target. The health minister made an announcement that in 2021 she was going to set a target. So why wouldn’t we recommend that they set those targets?
The Chair: Was that on smoking cannabis?
Senator Seidman: It was on cannabis use.
Senator Gold: Adult cannabis use?
The Chair: And youth.
Senator Patterson: Ages 15 to 24.
Senator Gold: The price of being independent is that I can disagree with Mr. Blair, I guess.
The Chair: Is it your wish to adopt this?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
An Hon. Senator: On division.
The Chair: On division.
The next one, number 11.
Senator Seidman: It states:
Your committee heard evidence that other jurisdictions have implemented a seed-to-sale tracking system to help maintain the integrity of the legal cannabis supply. The proposed Cannabis Act would authorize the Minister of Health to establish and maintain a national cannabis tracking system to track cannabis throughout the supply chain. Your committee urges the federal government to ensure that the cannabis tracking system be operational upon the coming into force of the Cannabis Act.
The Chair: Could I ask the officials whether they see any difficulty in that?
Mr. Costen: No, Mr. Chair. This is in fact our intention.
The Chair: There you go; pick up what their intention is, put it in a motion, and you’ll succeed.
Senator Seidman: They hadn’t provided any information about when the system would be rolled out, so we hear it now. That’s good.
The Chair: Anything else on this? Is this agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: So number 12.
Senator Patterson: If I may, this observation would read:
This committee urges the federal government to not allow such operations —
— and that refers to outdoor cannabis cultivation —
— until they conduct a thorough, public analysis of these and other concerns and produces, through the normal process of the Canada Gazette, a regulatory framework.
The first part of that, I’m sorry, I omitted to read:
Your committee heard evidence that outdoor cultivation is problematic in a number of ways. It will increase the potential for the diversion of cannabis to the illicit market, which is counter to one of the objectives of the bill. In addition, outdoor cannabis cultivation will not be as secure as indoor facilities, which operate under the strict regulation of Health Canada.
We heard about this from Canopy Growth, one of the largest, who expressed concern that permitting commercial outdoor cultivation by regulation will increase the possibility of domination by the illicit market and will discourage continued investment by licensed producers. Outdoor cannabis cultivation will not be as secure as our current indoor and greenhouse production facilities.
This recommendation was also supported by the testimony of the Honourable Benoît Bourque, New Brunswick Minister of Health.
Senator Lankin: Senator Patterson, you talked about outdoor commercial cultivation. Is that what you’re talking about in this recommendation? If it is, could that word be inserted, only because of confusion over time with four plants for home cultivation.
Senator Patterson: Good point, yes. That should be the adjective.
Senator Lankin: Outdoor “commercial” cultivation. It’s the first sentence. It’s not really in the recommendation.
The Chair: It should go into the recommendation somewhere.
Commercial operations.
Senator Seidman: The observation, right? Number 12, the entire paragraph is the observation.
The Chair: The part in bold is actually what you’re recommending to the government. You should have it in there.
Senator Seidman: Okay.
The Chair: Where are you putting that?
Senator Lankin: Where it says “such operations.”
This committee urges the federal government to not allow outdoor commercial cultivation until they . . . .
The Chair: “Outdoor commercial cultivation.”
Can I ask Mr. Costen about the implications of this? I realize the big players wanted this kind of provision to ban outdoor cultivation, but I thought this would have been an issue for some of the smaller players. Maybe I’ve got that wrong, but just tell me.
Mr. Costen: This is a pretty significant policy question. The proposal that the government has put out through the regulatory papers we discussed earlier do propose indoor and outdoor cultivation. It does propose a number of security requirements associated with both indoor and outdoor at small scale and large scale.
I believe what you’re suggesting, Mr. Chair, is there was a diversity of views on the questions of indoor and outdoor. Some, and you referenced one of the big companies, certainly have expressed their concerns with the proposal. Others have noted that it can be done responsibly.
It was an issue that was put to the task force. It was something they consulted on specifically. When they made their recommendations to the government, they recommended that we allow for outdoor and indoor with appropriate safeguards put in place.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Gold: I didn’t attend any hearings on this, but were there any representations from Indigenous communities or intentions expressed about the desire to become part of the production cycle, but growing it outdoors? I wouldn’t assume one way or the other, but was there any evidence one way or the other from Indigenous communities?
The Chair: Not in our committee.
Mr. Costen: Thank you for the question. When we did our consultations on our regulatory proposals, we heard directly a number of these diverse views.
While I certainly don’t deny there were those who expressed concern, the strong majority of people that we consulted with expressed support. Many of them, and that would include representatives from Indigenous communities, noted that it was more economical to grow outdoors and certainly more environmentally sustainable, so number of arguments along those lines were made.
You can expect with the climate we have in Canada there were certain regional interests as well where outdoor growing really isn’t viable across the country. There are certain pockets of the country where the interests are greatest.
Senator Patterson: This should be handled very carefully because of the security issues. It doesn’t say it can’t be done; it just says it should be a thorough regulatory framework, a thorough public analysis of concerns.
The Chair: What’s the wish, committee members?
All those in favour? Five.
Those opposed? Seven. That’s defeated.
Next is number 13.
Senator Stewart Olsen: I have a suggestion for the remainder of these, which all come from committees that were referred portions of the bill. Out of respect for the committees who spent a lot of time — and I’m assuming the observations come to us approved by the committees — I don’t see why we would assume a proprietary air and override any of these. They’re not going to change the legislation; they’re just advice from committees who did take a lot of time to put their observations forward. So I put that forward as a motion on the floor.
The Chair: These may be based on testimony in front of the committee, but they’re not necessarily what was recommended by these individual committees. The matter is completely in our jurisdiction.
Secondly, the committee reports are reported to the Senate Chamber as well. So their recommendations are on the public table. If we’re talking about just duplicating what they’ve already recommended, then we should stop processing any of these at all.
Senator Stewart Olsen: Sorry. I thought they were from the actual committee reports.
The Chair: They’re based on it, but they’re not the wording that the committee used.
Senator Stewart Olsen: So why would we change the wording?
The Chair: They’re not necessarily related to the recommendations that the committees made. They’re part of the content and the reports from the committees, but they’re certainly not verbatim what the committees recommended.
Senator Seidman: Excuse me. With all due respect, the fact is that what you see in bold is the exact recommendation. That can’t be in amendments. What you have here is the observations that came from those four standing committees that did pre-study. That would be Foreign Affairs, Aboriginal Peoples, National Security and Defence, and Legal and Constitutional Affairs. They submitted reports. There were unanimous recommendations that could not be amendments. They were just observations.
As Senator Stewart Olsen rightly puts forward and has been the principle that we’ve taken to this whole clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, these four committees did substantial work and there were unanimous recommendations for amendments and for observations. We felt that it was critically important to put those forward for a vote at our committee meeting tonight, when we did clause by clause, because they spent weeks listening to witnesses and writing a report. They obviously had insights that we don’t necessarily have. Out of respect for the work that these committees did, we felt that it was critical to put those observations and recommendations forward.
Senator Munson: They put these into this report. The way it sound to me, the observations keep saying “Your committee.” If there’s going to be an addendum to our clause-by-clause consideration, it should be saying, for example, the “Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples recommends that . . . .” as an observation.” It’s not us. I’ve been pronouncing on things thinking “Your committee” means this committee.
The Chair: It’s just duplicating what is already in the Senate, because they’ve already reported to the Senate. So what we should do is just remove the rest of these. We shouldn’t deal with them at all.
We also heard different evidence in some cases, and so we may come to different conclusions. There were at least two or three in the first bunch that we said we didn’t agree on because it only pertained to some of the evidence. Whereas this, we did hear our own evidence. If we’re just going to say out of respect for the committees, let’s just leave it. Let’s not deal with any of this because they’ve already got their reports in the chamber. I would say that if you’re saying this is all a duplicate, then let’s stop it.
Senator Seidman: What it does say in the observations is “Your committee,” meaning Social Affairs, Science and Technology. It means our committee, which is turning in this report to the Senate, supports the recommendations. That’s what it says, “Your committee.”
The Chair: It’s asking us to do it automatically, and I don’t think we’re obligated to do anything automatically.
Senator Seidman: I’m not asking us to do it automatically, but I thought out of respect for those four committees, we should go through each of them and agree, yes or no, not vote on them.
The Chair: Senator Stewart Olsen withdraws her motion, so we’ll continue.
Senator Lankin: I have a process question on this. It’s slightly different than what was just suggested.
I hear people saying that committees did a lot of work, and some of them heard different evidence than us. We may not agree with the conclusion. We may want to amend it, or whatever. Do we do that, or do we instead append to our report appendices of the observations that other pre-studies produced and not comment on them? That’s another way to go, but they’re there as part of the record that is sent over.
The Chair: Those reports are already in the Senate. All the committees reported to the Senate as well as to us. We had different evidence and different people come in as witnesses. So if we’re being asked to deliberate on these various possibilities that Senator Seidman has moved as motions, then I think we’ve got to exercise our judgment on them.
What the other committees have done is put it into the Senate. It’s in the Senate, and it will be part of the overall consideration.
Senator Seidman: I have one question about that. I wondered if we were clear that all four committees tabled their reports in the Senate. I certainly knew of two.
Ms. Anwar: All four did, and I believe the Aboriginal Peoples Committee report was adopted.
Senator Seidman: That I do recall.
Ms. Anwar: All four were tabled and they’re part of the record now.
Senator Seidman: They were supposed to report to us as well, so we had the obligation to consider their reports, since they did pre-study and they reported to us.
Senator Plett: Mr. Chair, Senator Stewart Olsen withdrew her motion. We are three quarters of the way through these observations. Now all of a sudden you’re suggesting that we change gears. The amount of time that we spent here in the last 15 minutes debating, we could have finished these last observations. So I strongly encourage us to continue with the rest of the observations and either approve them or reject them so that we can all go home.
The Chair: Let’s do that.
Senator Lankin: Senator Stewart Olsen had changed that.
Senator Plett: The chair wanted to do nothing.
The Chair: No, no. I said you go one course or the other.
We’re at number 13.
Senator Patterson: It reads:
Your committee notes the evidence presented to the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples about the desire of Indigenous communities to fully participate in the economic opportunities that the legalization of cannabis provides. Your committee supports the recommendation of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Peoples that the Minister of Health reserve 20% of all cannabis licenses for production activities on lands under the jurisdiction or ownership of Indigenous governments to encourage a diverse, competitive cannabis market, and to ensure that Indigenous peoples are in a competitive position to generate own source revenues and employment opportunities in this new industry.
Mr. Chair, we did hear from Mr. Blair that that issue is on the government’s radar, that Indigenous Affairs Canada is supporting — I don’t have to talk about it?
Senator Stewart Olsen: No.
The Chair: I’m sorry. I’d like to hear from the officials. I have a problem with the first part, given what we heard from officials about reserving the 20 per cent.
The second part, absolutely no problem at all, “to encourage a diverse, competitive cannabis market,” et cetera. That I think is fine. But on the “20% of all cannabis licenses,” we did hear from Mr. Costen, and I wonder if we can hear from him again about the difficulty of this.
Mr. Costen: Mr. Chair, I think the point you’re making reference to is the way the current licensing program operates, and the way it’s proposed to operate in the future, is that there’s no maximum number of licences or minimum number of licences anticipated. There’s no quota system whatsoever.
So truly, there are an unspecified number of licences that can be issued, an infinite number of licences, as it were, because the government’s policy has been to not control or manage the market in any way that would allow for determining and allocating quotas of the market to different individuals or entities.
The Chair: Okay. I would suggest we split that first part off and vote on the second part.
Senator Stewart Olsen: I’m sorry, Senator Patterson, but why did the Aboriginal Committee put in the 20 per cent?
Senator Patterson: Frankly, it was an arbitrary figure that we picked to make sure they were on the radar and would have an opportunity to participate in this new economic opportunity, given the paucity of own-source revenues in First Nations on reserve. So we picked that arbitrarily.
The Chair: Well, the second part puts them on the radar clearly: “encourage a diverse, competitive cannabis market and to ensure that Indigenous peoples are in a competitive position to generate their own source revenues and employment opportunities in the new industry,” without getting into a number.
Senator Plett: I would support that. If 20 per cent is just an arbitrary number, I don’t think we should be making that a recommendation. There’s got to be a reason for a percentage in there.
The Chair: So could we take out “the Minister of Health reserve 20% of all cannabis licenses,” and it would read, “the Minister of Health encourage a diverse, competitive cannabis market,” et cetera.
Senator Patterson: And “ensure that Indigenous people are in a competitive position.”
The Chair: Is that agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Senator Patterson: On 14, I was heartened by the support for the bullets in my failed amendment. You will recall I made an amendment about requiring the government to report back on critical issues identified by the Aboriginal Peoples Committee: development of educational materials, culturally and linguistically adapted funding of mental health and addiction programs.
Senator Seidman: He’s referring to JS-15.
The Chair: Where are you talking about putting it in?
Senator Patterson: I was talking about putting it in observation 14, which is about the duty to consult under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. I was going to suggest that we alter this recommendation with material that’s already been translated in JS-15. It simply would say:
Your committee notes the evidence presented to the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples in the context of Bill C-45 and Canada’s international obligations with respect to Canada’s duties as outlined in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, specifically Article 19 regarding the duty to consult.
Then I would add:
In particular, your committee notes the recommendation of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Peoples to ensure that consultation efforts include, . . . .
And then we go to (a).
The Chair: And then (i), (ii), (iii), (iv)?
Senator Patterson: Yes, the list many members of this committee said they had no difficulties with. They’re already translated.
The Chair: I see that.
Is there anything further? Do you want to add that to number 14? Is that agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Number 15.
Senator Plett: The next four or five are all observations that were unanimously recommended, the first four of them by the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.
Number 15 states:
Your committee supports the recommendation of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs that the Government of Canada engage with the relevant U.S. federal authorities in order to develop a common understanding among Canadians and Americans of the changes in Canadian domestic policy, of the consequences of these changes, and of the different approaches undertaken by the two states regarding the legalization of cannabis.
The Chair: Is there anything else on this? Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Plett: The next one:
Your committee supports the recommendation of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade that the Government of Canada take such action that mitigates Canada’s violation of the three drug control treaties. The action to be taken should be communicated in a clear and transparent manner to Canadians, the Parliament of Canada and the international community.
The Chair: Anything further on that?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Now, number 17 looks the same as number 15. It’s a duplicate.
Senator Plett: I’d like to read it again. Could we just approve it again, please?
The Chair: We already adopted it.
Senator Plett: I’ll go to 18, then:
The committee concurs with the observation of the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade that the Government of Canada should examine Part 1, Division 1, Clause 8 of Bill C-45 by which Canadian youth are criminalized for behaviour that is legal for adults.
The Chair: Let’s see. I think this is over the 30 versus the 5. It’s legal for adults to have 30 but it’s not legal for — “criminalized” is kind of a heavy word here. Do our officials have any comment about this in particular?
Senator Plett: Right now they are being criminalized, aren’t they? Or they will be.
The Chair: When I asked Mr. Blair about that, he said it comes under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, but there are other means.
Senator Plett: It was argued by the chair the other way. I think we’re going back and forth here. This is an observation, not an amendment.
The Chair: Any comment from officials on this?
Ms. Morency: I think I spoke to this issue on Friday and earlier today when Mr. Blair was here.
The distinction is, as the chair has said, between the 30 grams versus the 5 grams. When a young person would be charged with an offence under Bill C-45, it would be with respect to, for example, possession over 5 grams. And, yes, the Youth Criminal Justice Act would apply throughout and all of the provisions that are available there.
As the chair has said, if the police found a young person in possession, for example, of 10 grams, police would be directed now under the Youth Criminal Justice Act to consider alternative measures, warnings, cautions, diverting the youth to a community program before necessarily jumping towards the full process with a charge, et cetera.
Cautions are required to be documented by police since 2012, but it’s still not the same full force of the process that an adult who’s committing an offence would be facing.
The Chair: Anything further on this?
Senator Lankin: We’ve heard testimony on both sides of this issue from conflicted constitutional experts. I am concerned, but I can’t answer the question about whether there’s a real constitutional basis for concern here because we’ve heard very different testimony on that.
However, is it not true that even if a young person was treated with alternative measures under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, any violation of a condition or something like that would bring them back into a system where they could be criminalized? And how does that stand up against the intent of the Youth Criminal Justice Act?
When I think about, for example, other substances — I know this is different — like alcohol where it’s a ticketable offence, they can’t at the end of the day be criminalized for that which an adult can’t be criminalized. So that between 5 and 30 gives cause for concern if, at the end of the day, they can be criminalized for that. Is that incorrect in terms of my understanding?
Ms. Morency: I would refer the committee the minister’s Charter statement that she tabled on Bill C-45. In particular, page 39 of the Charter statement speaks very much to the issue about the equality constitutional issue by treating young persons differently than adults vis-à-vis 30 versus 5 grams.
I think the committee has also heard that youth are treated differently whether it’s with provincial law with alcohol and certainly within the criminal law as well.
To the extent that there have been differing views expressed to the different committees, I do encourage the committee to bear in mind the Charter statement that speaks very much to this. Section 15 looks at whether there is a different treatment of young persons. The government’s evidence and position on Bill C-45 has been that cannabis poses a particularly higher risk for young persons because of their developing minds, et cetera, and that’s why the bill, as a whole, has as one of its overarching objectives to prevent young persons from having access to cannabis. The 5 grams recognizes the reality of the existing completely prohibitory framework whereby youth in Canada have amongst the highest use of cannabis as it is.
The idea is to prevent youth from having access to cannabis lawfully under Bill C-45. Nobody can sell it, give it or distribute it to young persons, subject to the amendment adopted tonight. If a young person, though, is in possession of that small amount, the choice that Bill C-45 reflects is that it would cause greater harm to expose a young person to the full burden of the criminal justice system for that small amount. That said, all of the provinces have indicated and/or adopted legislation that they will not allow young persons to possess any small amount through their powers, not criminal law powers.
Senator Lankin: I understand what you have said and have read the minister’s statement and would say we’ve heard conflicting evidence around that. It’s not that I don’t accept your statement, but what I’m saying is outside that constitutional conflict we’ve heard in terms of interpretation — and the intent I understand completely, which is not to criminalize — are there circumstances where, if someone is sentenced to alternative measures, if there is a breach of a condition or something like that, they could be criminalized? That’s what I understood a couple of the witnesses to say. Maybe they weren’t correct.
Ms. Morency: My understanding is that under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, as I’ve explained, there are options short of a charge. Once a charge is laid, then the overarching objectives of the act are still to rehabilitate the young person and to move the young person towards an outcome that will help to achieve that outcome.
If there’s a situation once charges have been laid, if there’s a breach of what we would call, for example, an administration of justice offence, there are directions in there for police not to lay new charges for that but to deal with the situation in a more effective way.
In short, my answer would be the Youth Criminal Justice Act, in and of itself, is completely designed to treat youth who come into contact with the criminal law in a different way than adults, to recognize their state of dependency and their immaturity. There’s a different objective here to try to get them back on the right path.
My colleague has just reminded me that if there is no charge laid but there’s a warning, once the young person has been issued a warning, no further criminal actions would be taken under the YCJA for that incident. Whether it’s another incident at a future time, I don’t know.
Senator Lankin: I’m sorry, but I’m not hearing an answer to my question about whether, in the process under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, a youth could be criminalized at the end of the day if there’s a breach of a condition or something in the alternative measures that have been put in place, that eventually ends in a charge and there’s a condition as opposed to criminalization or incarceration?
Ms. Morency: Again, under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, the warning, for example, is an alternative measure in lieu of a charge. A caution would be an alternative measure in lieu of a charge. Once the charge has been laid, the formal process has been triggered.
As I mentioned, to the extent that there may be a breach related to that charge — police are supposed to treat the youth before them by finding alternative ways rather than laying a new substantive charge.
Once a charge has been initiated under the criminal justice system, the act lays out how that’s supposed to go forward. It’s all that pre-charge in particular that is really the alternative approach, plus the overarching objectives of the act to deal with the young person before the court. Bill C-45 completely builds upon that. It’s absolutely clear in section 5, and now in 5.1 adopted by the committee tonight, that that is the intention of a committee of Parliament.
The Chair: There’s no criminal record, though, at the end of the day. When they say “criminalize,” I guess it’s because it’s the youth criminal justice system. You say it’s criminalizing them, but they don’t get any criminal record and they don’t go to jail, presumably.
Ms. Morency: If a caution is issued, that is documented by police — since 2012. If a young person is convicted under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, a record is created but it is not accessible generally by the public. There are rules in place in the act. Depending on the nature of the offence, namely, if it’s a lower end summary conviction offence versus a more serious offence, the period of being able to access the record is limited. Once the youth serves the sentence imposed by the youth court and that access period is gone, the record is essentially not accessible beyond that.
Senator Plett: I vote we change the wording to “by which Canadian youth perform an illegal activity” for “behaviour that is legal for adults.” If we’re that stuck on the word “criminalized,” they are doing something illegal and it’s not illegal for adults.
The Chair: What’s the wording again?
Senator Plett: By which “Canadian youth are performing an illegal activity” or “behaviour that is legal for adults.” I don’t know; something along those lines.
The Chair: We’re starting to do them on the fly now.
Anybody else on this? Do you want to accept that change and go for it? “Youth are performing an illegal activity for behaviour that is legal for adults.”
Senator Plett: “An illegal activity that is not illegal for adults.”
The Chair: “Are performing an illegal activity that is not legal” —
Senator Lankin: “Not behaviour considered to be illegal” —
The Chair: Do you want to agree to that?
Senator Saint-Germain: I have an issue. It’s an excerpt from the report of the Foreign Affairs Committee. We can’t change it.
Senator Plett: This is our report. It’s not their report. We’re accepting their recommendation.
Senator Saint-Germain: We should comment differently because that’s not what the committee, of which I’m a member —
Senator Gold: You can’t concur with the observation if you change the language of the observation.
Senator Plett: We’re not concurring with it. We are making it our committee observation. We’re talking about our committee. The chair made it clear that this was our committee and our observations.
In any event, I’m happy to leave it exactly the way it is and move along too.
The Chair: Or if it’s from the Foreign Affairs Committee, it’s in their report that’s on the table in the Senate.
Senator Plett: Well, then, it certainly shouldn’t hurt to have it there twice.
Senator Seidman: What about if we say the “committee supports” instead of “concurs”? “The committee supports the observation” of the standing committee.
The Chair: Why not stick with the wording here?
Senator Plett: I agree. Let’s stick with the wording and move ahead.
The Chair: Either support it or not support it. Does anybody not support it? Do you want to agree to this?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Okay. Agreed.
Senator Plett: Number 19:
Your committee supports the recommendation of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade that the Minister of Foreign Affairs report to the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade the actions that the Government of Canada has undertaken regarding Canada’s compliance with the international conventions impacted by Bill C-45.
The Chair: Any comment on that?
Senator Lankin: Senator Plett, I know this is another committee’s recommendation, but number 16, which we adopted and support, I think accomplishes the same thing because whatever they do to mitigate the violation being referred to here, they have to communicate to Canadians, Parliament and the international community. Then 19 says you’ve got to also send it to the committee. It’s kind of redundant.
Senator Plett: No, 16 talks about action; 19 talks about the ministering reporting what they’ve done.
The Chair: Okay. Do you want to agree to this?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Senator Plett: Number 20 is from the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence:
Your committee supports the recommendation of the Standing Committee on National Security and Defence to continue this dialogue with the United States government, and calls on the federal government to present a plan in Parliament which will clearly and firmly communicate Canada’s position so as to minimize the impact on Bill C-45 on Canadian travelers.
The Chair: Anything on that?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Senator Plett: Number 21:
Your committee supports the recommendation of the Standing Committee on National Security and Defence that the federal government increase the scope of its awareness campaign to make it clear to Canadians that they may be denied entry to the United States if they admit to past cannabis use, including a campaign targeting youth, and a campaign focused on those who hold or apply for trusted traveler programs such as NEXUS and FAST.
The Chair: I should point out that we had officials come in last Friday and comment on all these various committee reports. That’s another reason why I say we need to take decisions because we had additional evidence ourselves.
One of the things we were told is that the United States is not going to be asking the question about past cannabis use on the basis of primary questioning. I’m not saying we change this. I’m just telling you what we were told.
If the person exhibits some intoxication, that may get into questioning about the use of it relevant to the current condition of that person. But in terms of asking whether they have ever used cannabis, we were told by officials that in fact that would not be a primary question that would be asked.
Anyway, what do you want to do with this? Adopt it?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Number 22 has wording in here that says “amend the bill.” The bill has already been dealt with. It reads:
Your committee supports the recommendation of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs to amend the bill to impose a limit on the quantity of dried cannabis for its equivalent that an individual is allowed to possess for personal use . . . .
Well, we’ve already dealt with the bill.
Ms. Anwar: I think it’s the wording in the report itself. The bill can still be amended in the Senate.
The Chair: Yes, but I think in terms of this committee, we’ve already dealt with the bill. So we can take out “amend the bill.” Do you want to do that?
Senator Seidman: Yes, take it out.
Senator Gold: Notwithstanding that I was a member of the committee that recommended it, I think I was here when we heard officials. I have to say that they gave me some pause in terms of whether this was actually something worth pursuing.
On the assumption that it’s an observation and we’re not trying to specify what it is, I can live with it. But we heard conflicting testimony on this, notwithstanding the recommendation subsequent to the committee. I just want to register that thinking does evolve with more evidence. On this one, I was maybe lukewarm to start with and I’m tepid at best at this point.
The Chair: I agree with you. Maybe we shouldn’t adopt this one. Can we put this one aside? Is that agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Number 23.
Senator Patterson: I would like to withdraw that. It is redundant in light of the amendment.
The Chair: In light of the amendment that we passed earlier, yes.
Senator Seidman: There’s a replacement for 23.
The Chair: Where?
Senator Patterson: Number 23. May I go ahead?
The Chair: Well, is it not the 23 that’s written here?
Senator Seidman: No. That one is redundant because of the amendment.
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Seidman: So another 23 was substituted for that 23.
The Chair: Do we have it in both official languages?
It wasn’t submitted here. Can you not put that in the chamber on third reading?
Senator Patterson: It’s designed as an observation.
The Chair: But it wasn’t submitted. We asked that they all be submitted in both official languages.
Senator Patterson: I’ve got it in both official languages.
Senator Seidman: But the other ones, we didn’t have them either. There were a whole bunch of them that we were going to deal with now but they weren’t submitted.
The Chair: This all came from the staff. We better pass it around and have a look at it.
While you’re doing that, let me go on to the other ones we’ve got here.
So we’ve got Petitclerc 2. The committee is calling on the government to take the time — I’m sorry, go ahead.
Senator Petitclerc: Thank you, chair. I will make our lives easier because I feel this is pretty much covered in observation number 8. My concern was the same thing as observation 8 on education and awareness, although I did specify that I wished to see education and awareness right now, like immediately.
But the way I read observation 8, it urges the government to provide adequate and ongoing funding. So I would assume that it incorporates that it is also immediate. Would you agree?
Ms. Anwar: So, “Your committee urges the federal government to provide immediate . . . .”?
Senator Petitclerc: I’m asking for your advice.
The Chair: Number 8 reads:
. . . provide adequate and ongoing funding for sustained, evidence-based cannabis educations and prevention programs . . . .
Senator Petitclerc: It is implying. I would think it is immediate.
The Chair: It’s substantially the same. Will you withdraw it?
Senator Petitclerc: That’s what I’m saying.
The Chair: So that one is withdrawn.
Revised 23 looks the same as the one we already adopted.
Senator Patterson, we already adopted one along this line in Senator Seidman’s recommendation number 18.
Senator Patterson: Mr. Chair, this is a recommendation from the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs about the differential manner in which youth are treated under the cannabis act relating to the legal rights of a child.
The Chair: How is that different from the one we adopted in number 18? The wording above is the same. It’s the same issue.
Senator Seidman: Do you mean the youth protection —
The Chair: Number 18.
Senator Seidman: The amendments that were made?
The Chair: Yes. For example, a young person could face criminal charges for possessing 6 grams of cannabis, whereas an adult possessing less than 30 grams would not. That’s the same issue as in number 18 in your name, Senator Seidman, which was adopted.
Senator Patterson: If I may, why don’t we just add to number 18 that the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs also recommended that no harsher sanctions be applied to youth than are applied to adults? That gives it more strength, having come from two committees which have reported to this committee. It also supports the recommendation that no harsher sanctions be applied to youth.
Ms. Anwar: Number 18 is from Foreign Affairs.
The Chair: I realize that.
I think it gets awkward and confusing. I think we made the point in 18. You could also say that the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs agreed on this. Just adding those words that they also agreed.
Senator Patterson: That no harsher sanctions are applied to youth than are applied to adults?
The Chair: Do you want to adopt that?
Senator Plett: We already approved this.
The Chair: That’s what I’ve been arguing here.
We have to be careful how we present ourselves on all these things.
Senator Patterson: One is about criminalization and one is about harsher sanctions.
The Chair: No, they’re both about the same thing. They’re both relevant to the 30 grams, 6 grams issue.
Senator Seidman: They are. I think the issue here is it strengthens it when you say it was an observation, recommendation —
The Chair: What I would suggest is you attempt to combine these somehow when we get to third reading, rather than try to do it on the fly here now.
Ms. Anwar: Are we dropping this one?
The Chair: Yes.
We just have the observations from Senator Dean, who is not here.
Senator Lankin, are you moving them?
Senator Lankin: Yes.
The Chair: Do you want to take them one at a time? There are five of them.
Senator Lankin: I do. Let me just indicate that I will withdraw number 2, “Consultation of First Nations.”
The Chair: I think we covered that.
Senator Lankin: We covered that.
Senator Plett: You’re withdrawing number 2?
The Chair: Because we covered that. It was Senator Patterson’s.
Senator Lankin: Senator Plett, I know you get enjoyment speaking against things that I say, but these are Senator Dean’s observations. I am doing this on his behalf.
The first is with respect to THC potency. We talked earlier about putting an amendment in the bill versus this being in the regulations, and the collective decision was that it stays in the regulations.
This an observation says that we support the recommendation that labelling clearly indicate THC levels. It says “levels.” It doesn’t say “percentage.” The reason, as we’ve heard, is that there will be different measures, depending on the type of cannabis product that there is over time. But we support that labelling recommendation. This is maybe a bit gratuitous, but obviously we want to be careful and have a science-based approach. We recommend that the Senate monitor the regulation of THC levels in cannabis products and expect the minister to report to the Senate after the regulations are adopted.
So it’s just to give our support to that issue of proper information being provided to consumers so they can make informed decisions about their behaviour and use of the product.
The Chair: It says, “The committee recommends the Senate monitor the regulation.” Why would the Senate monitor the regulation?
Senator Lankin: I’ll ask Senator Dean’s staff to let me know if I’m wrong, but I think the intent was that we wanted the minister to report back on this after the regulations are put in place so that we can hear about the requirement for labelling and THC content. If you want to change that wording, I’m fine with that.
The Chair: How about “review” instead of “monitor”?
Senator Lankin: That’s fine.
The Chair: Are there any other comments on this? Is that agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Number 2, “Consultation of First Nations,” has been dropped because it’s covered otherwise.
Senator Lankin: Number 3 has potentially been covered as well.
The Chair: We did cover that.
Senator Lankin: So I’m going to withdraw it.
The Chair: Okay.
“Pricing and taxation issues,” number 4.
Senator Lankin: We’ve heard a lot about the sensitivity of pricing on the issue of access and the issue of the black market and the balance between them. We’ve also heard about issues around the actual type of taxation and its application to medical marijuana versus recreational cannabis. This is simply saying, look, there’s a balance to be struck. Don’t go completely on the issue of the black market. You have to also look at ensuring that the prices aren’t so low that there’s ease of access.
This is the ongoing dance that we have on excise taxes with tobacco, and we see from time to time the up and down of the taxes and the reflection of the growth in the black market or undermining of the black market. It is a flag on that. There’s a balance of those two things. Public health is as important as eliminating the black market.
Senator Stewart Olsen: The prices are set. Is that not provincial? We’re stepping into provincial territory, are we not?
Senator Lankin: I don’t think so.
Mr. Costen: Bill C-45 doesn’t prescribe a price. You’re right; we can influence it through the excise tax and a few other things, but it will ultimately be set by the retailer. In most provinces that will be a provincial Crown agency, not everywhere. But predominantly the decision on price is not a federal one.
Senator Lankin: It doesn’t actually say which government. It recommends that the prices set reflect the dual objective, the prices and the taxes. So part of it is provincial, but part of it is definitely federal and the actual amount of excise.
The Chair: It is a statement of principle more than anything.
Should we adopt that?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Finally, number 5.
Senator Lankin: We’ve had a lot of discussion about this in a bunch of different areas. I’m not sure that it is already covered, but if I’ve missed something tonight, let me know.
This says that the ongoing research initiatives, the money that’s been announced and ongoing, is to have a real focus on youth and the effects of cannabis. Again it’s just flagging that issue because we don’t have enough evidence base right now one way or the other.
The Chair: You recommend “federal government.” You put in the word “federal” there?
Senator Lankin: Yes, to make it consistent with the other one.
The Chair: To make it consistent. Where else do you have it?
Senator Lankin: In the other observations.
The Chair: So just “the federal government” in there. Is that agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Don’t anybody move yet. We also have this common practice that the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure, also known as the steering committee, be empowered to approve the final version of the observations being appended to the report, taking into consideration today’s discussion and with any necessary editorial, grammatical or translation changes required. Is that agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you.
I’m about to finish up here, but I’ve got two quick announcements, so please stay. They’re both important. They’ll be less than a minute.
Is it agreed that I report this bill, as amended, with observations, to the Senate?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed; carried. That finishes it.
The first announcement is that we will not meet this Wednesday and Thursday. We do have two small reports to finalize, the one on the Disability Tax Credit and the one on forced adoptions, but they haven’t been sent out because we didn’t want to burden everybody while we were going through two months of this process. So they will now be sent out a few days apart.
The following Wednesday and Thursday, we will deal with them. We’ll look to see if there’s any other business, but at this point in time, we won’t be having a meeting this Wednesday and Thursday.
The second thing I want to announce is that I want to just say thank you. I want to say thank you to our clerk and her assistants, the law clerk.
I want to thank the Library of Parliament. I want to thank all of those people at the opposite end of the table who have been here the entire time, helping to guide us and explain things to us. You’ve done a wonderful job.
And to the members of the committee, thank you for hanging in.
An Hon. Senator: What about the chair? Thank you, chair.
The Chair: Unless there’s anything else, I declare this meeting adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)