EVIDENCE

Standing Committee on Health NUMBER 072 1st SESSION 42nd PARLIAMENT Tuesday, October 3, 2017 Le mardi 3 octobre 2017 Standing Committee on Health CANADA [Recorded by Electronic Apparatus] EVIDENCE October 3, 2017 Committee Edited Evidence * Table of Contents * Number 072 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 072 (Official Version) Témoignages * Table des matières * Numéro 072 (Version officielle) 72 03 10 2017 2017/10/03 09:00:00 House of Commons Comité permanent de la santé Standing Committee on Health HESA Chair Mr. Bill Casey 42 1

(0900) [ English ]

The Chair (Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, Lib.)) :

Seeing as how it's nine o'clock and we have a full house, we'll resume our committee meeting number 72 on clause-by-clause. Welcome back to all our guests. Mr. Davies, what took you so long?

Mr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP) :

Good morning, Mr. Chair. I have a point of order that I'd like to put forward this morning. Yesterday, there was some mention, I think from the chair, about the calling of potential witnesses. I want to start by pointing out that the motion passed by Mr. Oliver was to call a maximum of 90 witnesses. Now I've heard some numbers thrown around that we've had 96 or 100 witnesses. We could not have heard more than 90, since the motion passed by this committee was for a maximum of 90 and we never amended that motion.

The reason I point that out is that yesterday the chair mentioned that the committee was open to any member to call a potential witness from Uruguay, and on the New Democrats' list, our witness number 17 was Julio Calzada, the secretary-general of Uruguay's National Drug Council, who spearheaded Uruguay's cannabis legalization. Because there are only 90 witnesses and all the parties had witnesses proportional to their representation in the House of Commons, the NDP were only allowed 12 witnesses. Our witness was number 17, and we never got that far.

However, we would have gotten to our witness if the Liberals would have passed either the NDP motion to have an additional two days of hearings or the Conservative motion to hold another six days of hearings. If either of these motions had passed, we could have heard from a lot more witnesses. When the chair said yesterday that no party nominated a witness from Uruguay or any of the other groups, that was not correct. In fact, we could have heard from those witnesses had the Liberals not tried to limit witnesses to only five days.

I thought we would correct the record lest any Canadians watching be misled about the number of witnesses who appeared before this committee or who was actually nominated by the various parties to testify before the committee but ultimately weren't called.

The Chair :

I thank you for your clarification. I understand we had over 100 witnesses, and I acknowledge that the NDP had Uruguay on the list, but it wasn't a priority on the list. Nevertheless, I appreciate your correction. (On clause 11)

The Chair :

All right. Let's carry on now with NDP-11. Mr. Davies, do you want to lead?

Mr. Don Davies :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Picking up where we left off yesterday, we're talking about the penalty provisions of clause 11 that have to do with importing and exporting. In keeping with the government's approach to this bill, the provision I seek to amend with this proposal is the 14-year maximum penalty for violations of this section. I pointed out, throughout our amendments, that the bill continues the criminalization and prohibitionist model as an approach to cannabis regulation. In my respectful submission, this is completely contrary to the vast bulk of the weight of testimony we heard from witnesses on this bill.

We heard that the harms around cannabis are caused not really by the substance but by the criminalization and prohibition model that has been applied against this substance for the last 100-plus years. Interestingly, not one witness of the 90 witnesses that came before this panel testified that these penalties were appropriate. Not a single justification was offered by a witness that 14 years was an appropriate penalty for a violation of any

section of this act. On the other hand, every single witness who is directed to these penalty provisions—mostly called by the New Democrats by the way—testified that these figures, these maximum penalties were unreasonable, were disproportionate, and were completely out of sync with the reality of what's going on in Canadian courts today, and worse, are harmful. We heard that these penalties actually are applied disproportionately to young people, marginalized Canadians, racialized Canadians, and poor Canadians.

The stigma and the harms on the social determinants of health by incarceration and getting criminal records for possessing or dealing with a relatively benign substance of cannabis does a lot of harm to Canadians. Yet this committee rejected every one of the New Democrat amendments yesterday, and I expect will do so with this one, to reduce that 14-year penalty down to a reasonable amount, either a fine or a short jail sentence for a repeated or serious offence. That is completely ignoring the evidence that this committee heard. The government can go ahead; the Liberals can do what they want.

They can go ahead and pass the bill, but Canadians watching this should know the Liberals are passing this bill with 14-year sentences and with total disregard to the evidence that was heard before this committee, in total disregard for the harm that criminalization is going to cause. They can pass this but they've basically rendered moot, completely academic, the real evidence that was heard before this committee about the appropriateness of this penalty. This amendment would reduce the 14-year penalty down to fines. The evidence also suggested this was much more appropriate.

If we're going to legalize cannabis, and regulate it as a commodity, then the proper way to regulate this is similar to alcohol and tobacco, where monetary fines are used as a way of enforcing what is going to be a commercial commodity. That's an appropriate way, not to jail people but rather to deal with this through fines, exactly like you do for tobacco and alcohol. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

(0905) The Chair :

Thank you. Mr. Ayoub.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Ramez Ayoub (Thérèse-De Blainville, Lib.) :

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have said this already, but I will repeat it for the sake of the cause: the primary objective of this bill is protecting our young people. We are legalizing marijuana within a strict framework. This legislation is not comparable to the treatment of alcohol or cigarettes. As stated before, it is not full legalization. Mr. Davies, my colleague from the NDP, has said that the penalties in the bill are completely harmful, but that is not true. I am always concerned when I hear that kind of comment, in view of the testimony we have heard.

We have heard that, according to scientific evidence, marijuana is harmful to the development of young people's brains. I repeat that the primary objective of the bill is to protect the health of our children. The goal of this approach is to deter criminal groups that want to make a profit and that currently have a market. Even if we try to ignore it, the fact is that this market does exist. If we do not take appropriate action through this bill to impose prison terms or substantial fines, we will not achieve our goal of deterrence.

When there are trials and charges, the judges need the freedom to judge the situation and determine how severe a penalty to impose. There is a maximum, but the judge will be free to set precedent in the application of the law. For that reason, I am in favour of this approach. Otherwise, the deterrent effect would be watered down too much. If we remove all of that, there would be no penalty, and that is not the direction we want to take. We want to be sure to protect our young people by getting rid of the black market, that is, the organized crime market.

(0910) [ English ]

The Chair :

Thank you very much. Mr. Oliver.

Mr. John Oliver (Oakville, Lib.) :

Thank you. I want to echo what my colleague Mr. Ayoub said. Mr. Davies seems to feel there is a large audience watching, which he's addressing. I want to emphasize again that he said marijuana, cannabis, is relatively benign. Out of the 109 witnesses who came and spoke to this committee, there were many, many health professionals, physicians, nursing groups, and youth workers who came in. Every single one of them said marijuana is not relatively benign, and that this is a harmful drug for young Canadians.

For any young Canadian listening, what we need to correct with a large public awareness campaign is the misunderstanding by youth that marijuana is a benign drug. It is not. For young people this can cause both lasting and permanent brain damage or cognitive damage. It is not a benign drug. As Mr. Ayoub has quite succinctly said, the intent of this legislation is to ensure that those people who would deal this drug to our young Canadians need to be aware that there is going to be a very stiff fine or penalties if they chronically and repetitively abuse this law.

The Chair :

Thank you. Mr. Van Kesteren.

Mr. Dave Van Kesteren (Chatham-Kent—Leamington, CPC) :

Thank you, Chair. I repeat what I said yesterday with Mr. Davies. At least I think his approach is honest, that if marijuana is going to be legalized, let's legalize it. When I listen to the Liberals talk about the dangers of marijuana, and rightfully so, I wonder how many moms and dads, soccer moms, called them and said, “Doggone it, are you going to pass this legislation? I'm so worried about Billy. He's been selling marijuana. My kids are going to be smoking it. He shouldn't be touching that stuff until he's 18.” What a ridiculous argument.

When you pontificate on the dangers of marijuana, that just proves what a bad bill this is. At some point, Mr. Chair, I'm going to ask that we resume my motion, and that we dismiss this, because I hope there are a whole lot of people watching, and I hope there are a lot of people who recognize what's going to take place if this legislation passes. You opened it up and I couldn't resist stepping in. Let's get it on the record that, yes, this is a dangerous drug, and that this will be harmful to young people possibly to the age of 25 and we don't even know if it's worse past that date.

I firmly believe that there are many Canadians who are sitting in the background wondering what's going on here. Is this really happening? I'm hoping that the argument that Mr. Davies makes causes us to reflect on just what we're doing. The only logical conclusion would be that we need to scrap this or at least talk about this, put it into the public forum, talk about it, go to town halls, talk to the moms and dads, the people, the police officers, and really get this on the record. We haven't done that. We haven't done that. We have not had the opportunity to do that. I know I haven't.

I know that the government hasn't asked me to go and get a report from my constituents, and I know that's true with all my colleagues. Please, Mr. Davies, keep it up. I think you're doing a great job. Let's really reflect on what we're doing. Thank you.

(0915) The Chair :

Mr. Davies, keep it up.

Mr. Don Davies :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have just a few comments before we move to the vote. I can't let another reference to 109 witnesses pass. That's simply wrong. If this committee is going to ignore flat-out evidence.... I'll read the motion or a portion of it:

...and that the Chair be empowered to coordinate the witnesses, to a maximum of 90 witnesses, the resources, and scheduling....

That's Mr. Oliver's own motion. His motion said “a maximum of 90 witnesses”, but he says we heard from 109. If that's the kind of disregard for the truth in evidence that we're going to hear, then this is truly a bit of a kangaroo hearing. I don't think there's a wide audience watching, but it was my motion to televise this hearing because I think Canadians have a right to watch what's going on with what the Liberals call this groundbreaking legislation. They should be able to see how their representatives talk about this. We're not going to get very far if people use straw-man arguments. I didn't say benign.

I said relatively benign, and I did make references to having penalties relative to tobacco and alcohol, which I've heard not a word about. You don't get 14 years for an adult selling a carton of cigarettes to a 17-year-old. That carton of cigarettes will hook that person, and it will kill that person. Used exactly as designed, it will give them cancer. Where do I see the Liberal government bringing in 14-year sentences for tobacco or alcohol? They don't do it. I don't know why. Maybe it's because the big tobacco or big alcohol lobbies are too strong and they don't want to take them on.

I want to bring it back to the motion. We're talking about the importing and exporting

section of the act. It says, “Unless authorized under this Act, the importation or exportation of cannabis is prohibited,” and, “It is prohibited to possess cannabis for the purpose of exporting it.” This

section has nothing to do with children. This has to do with exporting cannabis and what the proper penalty should be for importing or exporting. If criminalization of cannabis and giving hefty jail sentences protected children, then maybe Mr. Ayoub or other Liberal members could explain why Canada has the second-highest or the highest rate of use of cannabis by young people in the world when we have full criminalization and life sentences. The argument that's being made is absurd and it's belied by the evidence. You can't say we have a 14-year sentence here because we want to protect our children.

Life sentences didn't protect our children. That's the evidence that we heard. In fact that's the very reason the government says they want to legalize cannabis, to better control it and get it out of the hands of criminals. The criminalization approach doesn't work and if anybody in this room sat through the evidence and came out with a conclusion that criminalization of cannabis works to protect children, then they weren't listening to the evidence that I was listening to. Finally, for my last point, Mr. Ayoub made a reference to giving judges full discretion.

One of the reasons 14 years is a bad choice for this is that it does not give judges full discretion. As I've been pointing out repeatedly, any sentence of more than 10 years, or any provision that has a maximum sentence of more than 10 years, ties the judge's hands from giving a conditional sentence to anybody. Whether a first-time offender or a third-time offender, they can't give a conditional sentence to them because of the use of 14 years.

If you move that to nine years, you then give judges full discretion, yet for some reason the Liberals on this committee and the Conservatives continue to vote against that, tying the judges' hands so that no conditional sentences can be offered to anybody convicted under this section. That's not only poor policy-making; it's contrary to how the Liberals acted in last Parliament when they voted against Conservative legislation that took away the discretion of judges to give conditional sentences in this manner. Those are my points, Mr. Chair. I think we're ready for the vote when you're ready.

The Chair :

Dr. Eyolfson.

Mr. Doug Eyolfson (Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, Lib.) :

Thanks. I'd like to say a few things for the record. Mr. Van Kesteren, I have talked, as you say, to soccer moms. I've talked to school principals and teachers who were, in fact, very much in favour of this. As for town halls, many MPs, including some Conservative MPs, had town halls on this. I can tell you that at the town hall in my riding, which has actually traditionally been a Conservative riding, the support was overwhelmingly in favour of this legislation. In regard to Mr. Davies' comment about whether or not we're taking on big tobacco, we are tabling Bill S-5 , which is on plain packaging of tobacco. We are taking on big tobacco.

(0920) The Chair :

Mr. Ayoub.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Ramez Ayoub :

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me reiterate what I said yesterday. Our approach to the legalization of marijuana is halfway between the different ways of looking at the issue. For their part, the Conservatives would rather we do nothing at all. They do not offer any observations and do not in any way acknowledge what is happening in reality. They have their blinders on and really do not want to see the evidence. In my riding, 45% of young people have used marijuana in the past year. That is the reality. It is worrisome because these young people do not know who they are dealing with.

For my part, I never sent my children to buy any substance that is controlled by organized crime, which encourages us to use it even though we do not know where it comes from. That is my first observation. On the other hand, there are those who would completely open the door to cannabis use. Doing so would be disregarding the fact that cannabis use has effects, just as alcohol and cigarettes do. It must be noted, however, that the legalization of cannabis is for adults.

Legalizing these products for adults means giving them the choice to use products that are freely sold, while ensuring that these adults are informed and aware of the effects of using them. One of the positive things about the cannabis discussion we are having across Canada is precisely that we can inform people, hold public meetings, and encourage discussion between young people and their parents. Right now, many parents whose children use cannabis do not talk about it. Many parents are surprised by the thought that one of their children might have consumed it. I have three children myself.

Based on the statistics for my region, at least one if not two of the three has consumed it. That is worrisome. That is an average, of course. There is a happy medium between doing nothing and full legalization. We have to tackle this problem and that is exactly what we are doing. When parents receive information, they are happy to pass it on to their children, to talk to them about it, and to play a role in prevention. Parents do have a role to play. I told them that during the consultation I held.

Parents have a role to play in the use of cannabis, just as they have a role to play in teaching them about cigarettes, health, alcohol, and driving. They have a role to play in the general education of their children. As legislators, our role is to develop legislation to control that and set us on the right course in terms of our children's health and protection. What we are doing with respect to marijuana has never been done in recent decades. We are making huge progress right now, and I am very happy and proud to be playing a role in that.

[ English ]

The Chair :

Ms. Gladu.

Ms. Marilyn Gladu (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC) :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to respond to some of Mr. Ayoub's comments. He indicated that nearly 40% of people ages 18 to 35 are consuming marijuana, and that is true, but overall in Canada, 88% of Canadians do not use marijuana. We are standing up for those people who don't use the product and are going to receive all of the bad consequences from this bill: the increased impaired drunk driving, the fact that children are not protected in this bill and they can easily get access in the home grow situation. There is all of the damage that will happen to the youth's brains that will result in mental health issues.

That's who we're standing up for here, and that's why we're so opposed to this bill. It's flawed in so many ways. I don't take exception to the objections that Mr. Davies is bringing. That's what's important here. In Quebec—I'm not sure if you're aware—66% of Quebeckers are strongly opposed to the legalization of marijuana. There are a bunch of Canadians we are here to represent today. Thank you.

The Chair :

Mr. Van Kesteren.

Mr. Dave Van Kesteren :

Now we're clearly on the record. Mr. Davies, we oppose everything in this bill. You and I spoke privately, and I applaud you for your honesty. You're absolutely correct in much of your argument, but we will oppose this bill. If you think this is something Canadians want, then I dare you. Let's have a referendum. I dare you. Let's stop this nonsense right now, and let's go to the people and have an honest chat about marijuana. Let's have a referendum. You would never do that.

(0925) The Chair :

Make it a quick one, Mr. Davies. We're way over.

Mr. Don Davies :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just briefly, the amendment I proposed is not to take away any kind of consequence for importing or exporting under this. It's to replace the 14-year maximum with a fine of not more than $300,000, which is a significant fine, or imprisonment of not more than two years less a day, or to both. It just brings the penalties down to a fine or potentially a jail sentence, but a reasonable one in this situation. To respond to Mr. Ayoub's comments, I would like to say that the NDP is not suggesting that there be no consequence for this. We're suggesting that there be a reasonable consequence for the offence.

The Chair :

Seeing no more speakers on the speakers list, we'll go for a vote on NDP-11.

Mr. Don Davies :

I call for a recorded vote, Mr. Chair.

The Chair :

Mr. Clerk, we'll have a recorded vote. (Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings ])

The Chair: We will now go to PV-10. There's a little note here stating that some of the documents show “eight years” in the last line of the amendment. It should read “five years”. The amendment should thus read as follows:

prisonment for a term of not more than five years; or

Is there any debate on PV-10? Mr. Davies.

Mr. Don Davies :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I believe this is a Green motion. I regret that Ms. May is not here to speak to her motion, but I will just offer briefly that I think the intent behind this is similar to some of the points I was making about the NDP amendment. That is to say, if we do only one thing about these 14-year provisions, it should be to reduce it to the reasonable amount that the courts of this country are actually giving. I'll once again refer to the testimony of John Conroy, a noted criminal defence lawyer. His testimony was buttressed by the other criminal defence lawyers we heard.

They all told us that right now in Canada, the courts are giving out sentences between 18 months and two years for large-scale trafficking. I'll also mention the very important point about conditional sentencing. Every time we leave one of these sections with the maximum of 14 years, we take away the right of a judge to give a conditional sentence to anybody—anybody—who appears before them. I think that's unwise policy. I would urge my colleagues to support the reduction of the penalty from 14 years to five years, as per this amendment.

The Chair :

Mr. Blair.

Mr. Bill Blair (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.) :

I have just a point of clarification, if I may. These are dual procedure offences. If the crown elects to proceed by way of

summary conviction, then a conditional sentence would be available to a judge under those circumstances. It's only under those circumstances where the crown elects to proceed by way of indictment that the 14-year penalty would restrict the use of a conditional sentence for the judge.

The Chair :

Mr. Davies.

Mr. Don Davies :

I think that's absolutely false. Perhaps someone from the ministry could correct that. It's my understanding that the result of legislation by the Conservatives was that any penalty in the Criminal Code for which the maximum penalty is 10 years or more prohibits a judge from consideration of a conditional sentence. It has nothing to do with the way the prosecution decides to proceed by way of indictment. It's the nature of the penalty in the Criminal Code. That's my understanding. I'm just wondering if anybody from the ministry could clarify that for Mr. Blair and me.

Mr. Paul Saint-Denis (Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice) :

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The provisions dealing with conditional sentencing in the code specify that if a charge is dealt with by way of an indictment, then the conditional sentence would not apply if it's more than 10 years. The comment by Mr. Blair is correct in the sense that if the prosecution proceeded by way of a

summary conviction, then the judge would have the ability to impose a conditional sentence.

(0930) Mr. Don Davies :

I stand corrected.

The Chair :

Thank you. Seeing no more speakers on the speakers list, I call for a vote on PV-10.

Mr. Don Davies :

I call for a recorded vote, Mr. Chair. (Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings ])

The Chair :

Now we go to amendment NDP-12. Mr. Davies.

Mr. Don Davies :

I won't speak in a repetitive fashion, other than to explain that this motion would be an alternative to the one I just proposed, which was defeated, to reduce the 14-year provision simply to a jail term of two years less a day as a maximum.

The Chair :

Dr. Eyolfson.

Mr. Doug Eyolfson :

This goes back to what we said before. We want to take simply a cautious approach in drafting this and want to make sure there are penalties for those trafficking in large amounts.

The Chair :

Mr. Davies.

Mr. Don Davies :

I'll just briefly say I don't disagree with that position. The spirit of this amendment respects that, because it gives a jail sentence of up to two years less a day. I would just point out again that this is what the courts are giving now for large-scale trafficking. That's the evidence we heard from Mr. Conroy. We heard no evidence to the contrary. Second, the other advantage of this is of course that it would allow the sentence to be served in a provincial institution, not a federal institution.

My final point is going to be that if criminalization and jailing people were an appropriate way to deal with those who deal with cannabis, we would have no problem with cannabis in this country today. That's why the NDP thinks we should really be moving towards a regulated, non-criminal, non-prohibitionist approach to cannabis as a matter of public policy. It's not that we don't think there should be consequences for violating a regulatory regime. What we're proposing here is to have an appropriate regulatory response, one that actually will be effective.

If there's one thing we know in this country, it's that criminalizing cannabis has done nothing but create harm.

The Chair :

Seeing no further speakers, I call for a vote on amendment NDP-12.

Mr. Don Davies :

Could I request a recorded vote, Mr. Chair? (Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1)

The Chair :

We re on amendment NDP-13. Mr. Davies.

Mr. Don Davies :

Similarly, this is consistent with our approach. This is our third attempt to amend the penalty provisions of this bill, and it's our least favourite, but it would propose that we reduce the 14 years to nine years. At this point I would like to take the opportunity to apologize to Mr. Blair for my saying he was false. He was absolutely correct about this. The point still holds that when you have a criminal provision with a penalty of more than 10 years and, now that we know, the prosecution decides to proceed by way of indictment, it eliminates the possibility of a conditional sentence.

For that reason alone, we think the 14 years should be reduced to nine. I would point out that I don't think anybody is getting 14 years in this country for trafficking marijuana; at least, that's the evidence we heard. We're picking an arbitrary number. Whether it's 14 or nine or seven or 11, this is just a number that we're picking. It would seem to me that we as parliamentarians should take an evidence-based approach to this and at least choose a number that gives our judges the discretion to give a conditional sentence when they wish to do so.

(0935) The Chair :

Seeing no further speakers on the list, I will call for a vote on amendment NDP-13.

Mr. Don Davies :

May we have a recorded vote, Mr. Chair? (Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1) (Clause 11 agreed to) (On clause 12)

The Chair :

Now we'll go to clause 12, beginning with amendment Liberal-2. Mr. Ayoub.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Ramez Ayoub :

Mr. Chairman, I would like to change the wording of the bill to harmonize the syntax in the French version. In clause 12 of the bill, lines 37 to 39 on page 11 of the French version, should read as follows:

quelque méthode que ce soit, notamment par la fabrication ou la synthèse ou par l'altération, par tout moyen, de ses propriétés physiques ou chimiques;

The

article “la” was added before the words “fabrication” and “synthèse”, and “l'” was added before “altération”. It is as simple as that. I do not think there is much to debate, unless I am not aware of some new rules of grammar.

[ English ]

The Chair :

Ms. Gladu.

Ms. Marilyn Gladu :

Thank you, Chair. [ Translation ] I support our country's two languages and want the French version to say the same thing as the English version. [ English ] I want to make it clear that the reason that we will abstain from this vote is not that we don't want the language to be the same, but that we are not in favour of the bill. Thank you. (Amendment agreed to)

The Chair :

Now we'll go to NDP-14. Mr. Davies.

Mr. Don Davies :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, this has to do with the cultivation provisions of the bill, where the proposal is to permit every household to have up to four cannabis plants to a maximum of 100 centimetres. In short, it's the New Democrat's proposal that we eliminate the height restriction of 100 centimetres. We do so based on the evidence that we heard before this committee, logic, respect for police officers' time, and good policy-making.

There is no clear policy goal achieved by limiting the plant's height to 100 centimetres that we heard, other than some oblique reference to the average height of a Canadian's fence, which is four feet or something. I'm not sure that's correct. I actually think that fence height is higher than that in Canada. That was the only reason that we heard, in addition to one that was completely inaccurate, which was in fact repeated by the Minister of Justice , of all people, who suggested that the reason behind restricting the height limit of cannabis plants is to control yield.

The reason that's wrong is that we had Dr. Jonathan Page, the botanist from the University of British Columbia, who testified that height restrictions don't restrict yield because the shorter indica type plants tend to produce a higher yield than the taller sativa types. Of course, with pruning and having plants growing sideways, you could have quite enormous plants that are not more than 100 centimetres. There's simply no connection between plant height and yield. This plant height rule is easily circumvented by screening, horizontal growing, and very difficult to enforce.

Many Canadians are growing cannabis in their houses now, whether it's a plant in the closet or a few plants, or in some cases all the way up to highly illegal grow operations in basements that are concerning to everybody. It's very difficult to enforce what Canadians do in the privacy of their own home. We think that measures to reduce the visibility of plants grown on private property are best dealt with by municipal bylaws, not criminal law.

Perhaps there could be municipalities that pass laws on screening, so that if you're growing in your outdoor backyard, maybe there could be plant screens or something around it. But to have an arbitrary limit of 100 centimetres is simply not logical. This measure will continue to impose the harms of criminalization on individuals for what is essentially a harmless act. If you're not a criminal for growing four cannabis plants up to 99 centimetres, it's hard to understand why you're a terrible criminal for growing a plant to 101 centimetres. I'll read some of the testimony we heard.

Jonathan Page, from the UBC department of botany, said that:

The limit of 100 centimetres is potentially problematic from the perspective that cultivators might break the law simply by providing fertile soil and water and then going away for a week's vacation. Their plants might grow from 95 centimetres to 105 centimetres during that time. I wonder what the goal of the 100 centimetre limit is, which was also contained in the legalization task force report. Is it to reduce the amount of cannabis that each Canadian is capable of growing so they don't go on to sell it, or is it to reduce the visibility of plants grown on private property?

If it is the latter, I think this is best dealt with by municipal bylaws. If it is the prevention of diversion to the so-called black market, I would suggest that achieving this through enforced pruning is quite silly, and that the 100-centimetre height limit should be removed.

Michael Spratt said:

The criminal law power is a very blunt tool to deal with social problems. It's an even blunter tool to deal with gardening problems. When you look at the rationale that has been disclosed for the criminalization of that one extra centimetre—looking at fence height, not looking at yield or potency or problems with distribution—that could very well lead to some charter problems with respect to the rationality of that somewhat arbitrary benchmark.

Finally, Kirk Tousaw testified that:

Cannabis, particularly outdoors, can easily grow five or more metres high in its natural state. Do we really need or want a rule that would require Canadians who wish to grow a few plants in their gardens to continually tie down the branches or otherwise artificially manipulate a plant during its growth to keep it no more than 99 centimetres high? The 100-centimetre limits are the height of absurdity.

Mr. Chair, we heard a lot of testimony from police officers. Contrary to the purpose of this bill to reduce the burden on the criminal law system, I think the police forces were very clear that they see a lot of extra work from the bill.

(0940) They're going to have to be policing the impaired-driving provisions, which are new. They're going to have to be policing 100-centimetre plant limits, over 30-gram possessions in public, over five-gram possessions by teenagers 13 to 18, and possession of over four plants. I really don't think we want the police officers of this nation to be walking around with metre sticks attached to their holsters so that they can go into Canadians' houses and measure plants to see if they're 99 or 101 centimetres.

For all the reasons that I just suggested and most importantly, for the evidence that we just heard, I really hope that all members of this committee can at least agree that the evidence we heard was quite clear. There was not one witness who said that 100 centimetres was a necessary or highly justified plant restriction. If we are going to allow Canadians to grow four plants...and I'm in favour of that and congratulate the Liberals for having the courage to allow that. There are good reasons to allow Canadians to grow a few plants.

If you want to get organized crime out of this, then let Canadians grow their own cannabis and share it with each other just like any other plant. Let's allow Canadians to grow four plants and limit it to that, but not have an arbitrary and unjustified height limit that doesn't make sense.

The Chair :

Thank you very much. Ms. Gladu.

Ms. Marilyn Gladu :

Thank you, Chair. This is one of the most troubling sections of this whole bill. This is the part where the 88% of Canadians who don't use marijuana are going to be impacted. We heard testimony, as Mr. Davies said, from the police about the difficulty of trying to enforce this. They will have chronic complaints. People will be calling and saying that their neighbour has five plants instead of four, or that their neighbour's plants are too tall. They can't see inside the house. They can't enforce it.

We heard testimony about the smell, the mould that people will have to put up with, the fact that they are 24 times more likely to have a fire because of the bulbs they're using. You could have up to 600 grams of marijuana hanging around in the house. There's no provision for lock-up, and this definitely is not going to keep it out of the hands of children. When we look at this and we look at the rights of property owners, who are now going to have people who rent from them able to grow and consume it right there, and they can't do anything about it, I think this

section should have been eliminated altogether. We heard from Washington that they only allowed home grow for people who were too frail to get out to a dispensary for their medical marijuana. The reason they did that, as we heard in testimony, was that organized crime does get into home grow. That's what happened in Colorado. That's why it shouldn't have been allowed. This is problematic for all the Canadians who don't want these unintended bad results. Thank you.

(0945) The Chair :

Mr. McKinnon.

Mr. Ron McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Lib.) :

Thank you, Chair. I agree with Mr. Davies in every respect. However, his motion is incorporated in Liberal-3, which is the one I prefer to support. On that basis, even though I agree with Mr. Davies' well-made points, I will oppose this amendment.

The Chair :

I should point out that this one as adopted, Liberal-3, cannot be moved.

Mr. Ron McKinnon :

Correct.

The Chair :

Mr. Oliver.

Mr. John Oliver :

On the same point my colleague raised, I support the principles Mr. Davies has put forward, but in our review of the language, Liberal-3 hits the language better. We have actually the reverse problem in respect of Liberal-6 and NDP-27. We think NDP-27 has better language and we'll be supporting it versus the Liberal one when we get there. So I would be opposing your motion just on a language technicality, not on the principles you've put forward.

The Chair :

Mr. Van Kesteren.

Mr. Dave Van Kesteren :

Thank you, Chair. I think Ms. Gladu ably articulated what I was going to say, so I don't need to repeat her thoughts. Thanks, Marilyn.

The Chair :

Mr. Davies.

Mr. Don Davies :

Thank you. I appreciate the comments from Mr. Oliver and Mr. McKinnon. I take it that their motion will also eliminate the 100-centimetre height restriction, so I respect that and I appreciate that they may choose their motion. It doesn't really matter how we get there, as long as we amend the provision accordingly. I do want to make two quick points. Ms.

Gladu brought up the excellent point that regarding the current provisions regarding medicinal marijuana, owing to the Supreme Court of Canada decision that Canadians have the right to grow their own medicinal marijuana now, we've heard no testimony about how that may be impacted by this bill.

One of the many reasons that I support allowing Canadians to grow a limited amount of cannabis for recreational purpose is for that very reason, that we could have a two-tiered system where Canadians are growing for medicinal purposes under a claimed constitutional right, and Canadians who don't have a medicinal purpose would be prohibited from doing that. I think that would lead to a bit of disrespect for the law, because Canadians who want to grow recreationally would then simply claim that they have a medicinal right, which is what's happening now in many respects in Canada.

I think for uniformity purposes it's important to have a consistent approach to growing cannabis in this country. If medicinal users can grow it, so should recreational users be allowed to. Finally, in terms of the fires and mould, my only concern about bringing up those features is that any evidence of mould and increased risk of fires has come from the police experience of dealing with cannabis as an illegal substance, where growing has been done underground and by organized crime.

We have lots of stories of organized crime and people renting houses and filling a basement with 100 plants, cutting into electricity illegally, and not venting properly because if they were to vent outside the house, they'd risk detection. That then increases the mould. I'm satisfied that limiting Canadians to four plants will mean that those very legitimate concerns about large-scale, illegal grow operations won't be applicable to a rational, reasonable limit of four plants.

I'll bet your average Canadian has more than four plants in their house now, and certainly in their backyards people have foliage all over the place. I'm not worried about the mould or the fire problem, at least based on the evidence we heard for four plants in a Canadian household.

(0950) The Chair :

Ms. Gladu.

Ms. Marilyn Gladu :

Thank you, Chair. We did hear lots of testimony as well about landlords in huge apartment buildings. I am in an apartment building where my next door neighbour loves to consume cannabis and smoke it. It smells horribly and is very irritating to me. That certainly will be one of the problems. The other problem is that there's no quality control. What this bill was supposed to do is protect the health of young people by restricting their access. Clearly, home growing does not do that. It was supposed to deter illicit activities and we've heard testimony that it doesn't do that.

It was supposed to provide access to a quality-controlled supply of cannabis, and we know there is absolutely no quality control happening in home grows. For those reasons it's not consistent with even the goal of the bill, not to mention the fact that I disagree totally with the concept.

The Chair :

Seeing no more speakers, I call for a vote on amendment NDP-14.

Mr. Don Davies :

Could we have a recorded vote, Mr. Chair?

The Chair :

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

The Chair: Now we go to amendment Liberal-3. Mr. Oliver.

Mr. John Oliver :

Thank you very much. In the last motion Mr. Davies has already articulated quite well what we heard from witnesses. This motion basically accomplishes the same ends that his motion did, but with language that is probably more appropriate to the bill. Just to reiterate the main points, we heard from the chair and co-chair of the task force that their reason for recommending height restrictions had to do more with fence height and what we would view as civil rules, not criminal factors. No other jurisdiction that we heard from that allows personal cultivation of cannabis plants had a plant height limit.

We, like Mr. Davies, just can't see a rationale for a height restriction. The motion we are putting forward removes those restrictions but uses different wording in replacement.

The Chair :

Mr. Davies.

Mr. Don Davies :

Could I ask Mr. Oliver to explain what the fundamental difference is between his motion and my motion? What does his motion do that adds, subtracts, or differentiates between my motion?

Mr. John Oliver :

I don't know if that's helpful. I think the motion from the NDP basically removed words, and this removes certain words and puts different language in place. I think it's mostly about the numbering associated with it.

The Chair :

Ms. Gladu.

Ms. Marilyn Gladu :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I agree that putting height restrictions on is problematic because we did see evidence of people talking about how plants would then become wide. I especially remember one of the testimonies we had where they showed different plants without height restrictions. Some of them looked like trees and had a huge yield. There doesn't appear to be any limit on how much cannabis people can be growing, so I will be opposing this.

The Chair :

Hearing no more speakers, I'll call for a vote. Before I do that, there's a note here that says, if adopted, Liberal-6 is also adopted as a consequential issue, and NDP 26 cannot be moved because of a line conflict. I call for a vote on Liberal-3.

Mr. Don Davies :

Can I have a recorded vote, Mr. Chair? (Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings ])

The Chair :

We now move to PV-11. (Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings ])

The Chair: We'll now move to PV-12. If PV-12 is adopted, NDP-15, NDP-16, and NDP-17 cannot be moved. (Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings ])

The Chair: I'll go to NDP-15. If adopted, NDP-16 and NDP-17 cannot be moved. Mr. Davies.

(0955) Mr. Don Davies :

Mr. Chair, in the interest of expediting this process, I'd ask for the clerk's advice on this. I'm happy to speak to NDP-15, NDP-16, and NDP-17 at once and vote on all three at the same time. These are the same types of amendments I've been moving. Am I allowed to do that?

The Chair :

I think we'd better just do it one at a time now.

Mr. Don Davies :

Okay, thanks. I'll try to be brief again. My first amendment is to remove the 14-year maximum provision for a violation of the cultivation, propagation, and harvesting prohibition in this bill and to replace that with a fine of not more than $300,000, or imprisonment for a term of not more than two years less a day, or both. In the case of a first offence, it would be a fine of not more than $3,000, and for any subsequent offence, a fine of not more than $50,000 for a proceeding by

summary conviction. The first one is by indictment and the second one is by

summary conviction. Once again, in my respectful view, it's to make the penalty provisions of this bill more in keeping with a legalized approach to cannabis and an attempt to take the criminalization, prohibitionist model out of cannabis, and also to have the penalties aligned with the reality in Canadian courts today.

The Chair :

Seeing no speakers, we'll call for a vote on NDP-15.

Mr. Don Davies :

Can I have a recorded vote, Mr. Chair? (Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1) [See Minutes of Proceedings ])

The Chair :

Now we go to NDP-16. Mr. Davies.

Mr. Don Davies :

Again, this amendment seeks to amend the 14-year maximum penalty and to replace it with a term of imprisonment of not more than two years less a day.

The Chair :

Seeing no speakers, I will call for a vote on NDP-16.

Mr. Don Davies :

Could we have a recorded vote, Mr. Chair?

Mr. John Oliver :

On a point of order, are we allowed to apply previous votes at committee, or do we need to proceed with the calling of the vote?

The Chair :

The opinion here seems to be no, but nice try. (Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings ])

(1000) The Chair :

Now we go on to NDP-17. Mr. Davies.

Mr. Don Davies :

It's our third attempt to amend the criminal sanctions in this bill. It's our least favourite one. We at least would ask that parliamentarians consider reducing the 14-year maximum sentence to nine years in order to preserve the ability of judges in this country to have the discretion to impose conditional sentences in cases that they deem appropriate.

The Chair :

Thank you very much. We all see your effort here and we understand what you're trying to do.

Mr. Don Davies :

Could we have a recorded vote, Mr. Chair? (Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1) [See Minutes of Proceedings ]) (Clause 12 as amended agreed to) (On clause 13)

The Chair :

On clause 13, the first one here is PV-13. Again, if this one is adopted, NDP-18 and NDP-19 cannot be moved. (Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings ])

The Chair :

Now we go to NDP-18. Mr. Davies.

Mr. Don Davies :

This provision would amend the penalty provisions by removing the indictable offence for this offence, and instead leave the

summary conviction as the only way to proceed, which leaves a fine of up to $5,000 and up to six months in prison.

The Chair :

Seeing no further comments, I'll call for a vote on NDP-18. There's a note here that if adopted, NDP-19 cannot be moved.

Mr. Don Davies :

Could we have a recorded vote, Mr. Chair? (Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings ])

The Chair :

Now we go to NDP-19. Mr. Davies.

Mr. Don Davies :

I'll just take a moment to explain what the penalty provision relates to. It relates to the prohibition in this bill to possess, produce, sell, distribute, or import anything with the intention that it would be used to produce, sell, or distribute illicit cannabis. The part that is most confusing to me about this bill is that after Prime Minister Trudeau promised legalization to Canadians in 2015, as I've said repeatedly, this bill contains a heavily criminalized approach to cannabis.

Leaving aside the philosophical or policy differences to that, I think simply in terms of efficacy the one thing we know is that the criminalized approach to cannabis has not worked.

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

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

Once again, I think it's inappropriate to criminalize that act. I think you can prohibit it and regulate it and you can put fines on it. That would be the decriminalized approach to it. The second question is whether that is really something that anybody thinks a seven-year jail sentence is appropriate for, or will have any deterrent effect upon. I will point out one more time, if life sentences didn't deter people in this country from doing those very activities, I don't think a seven-year sentence will.

This amendment would replace the penalty provisions and substitute, instead of a seven-year jail sentence, a fine of not more than $300,000, or imprisonment for a term of not more than two years less a day, or both. By the way, if you want to effectively control behaviour, then hitting someone with a $300,000 fine for importing or distributing or selling material to produce illicit cannabis will have a greater deterrent effect than a potential jail sentence, and of course, my amendment does preserve the ability to have a jail sentence of two years less a day.

They do face that as well, but I still think that a jail sentence is much more proportionate to the offence under question.

(1005) The Chair :

Thank you. Ms. Sidhu.

Ms. Sonia Sidhu (Brampton South, Lib.) :

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

The Chair :

Thank you. Mr. Fortin.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Rhéal Fortin (Rivière-du-Nord, BQ) :

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

[ English ]

The Chair :

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

Mr. Rhéal Fortin :

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

The Chair :

Thanks very much, and welcome to the committee. Seeing no further speakers, I call for a vote on NDP-19.

Mr. Don Davies :

May I have a recorded vote? (Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1) (Clause 13 agreed to) (On clause 14)

The Chair :

On PV-14, does anyone want to debate or comment? (Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings ])

The Chair : On NDP-20, if this adopted, PV-15, NDP-21, and NDP-22 cannot be moved. Mr. Davies.

(1010) Mr. Don Davies :

For the benefit of my colleagues, essentially, it removes the 14-year penalty and replaces it with the $300,000 fine or imprisonment for two years less a day for indictable proceedings, and in the case of proceeding by

summary conviction to fines of not more than $300,000 for first offence, or not more than $50,000 for second offence. I would also like a recorded vote.

The Chair :

We're not there yet. Mr. Oliver.

Mr. John Oliver :

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

[ Translation ]

Mr. Rhéal Fortin :

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

[ English ]

The Chair :

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

[ Translation ]

Mr. Rhéal Fortin :

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

[ English ]

The Chair :

Would you like to explain that?

[ Translation ]

Mr. Olivier Champagne (Legislative Clerk, House of Commons) :

I think you are looking at the line numbering in the centre of the document. It is the numbering on the right that applies to the French. Paragraph 14(2)

a) begins at line 24, as indicated in the amendment.

Mr. Rhéal Fortin :

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

Mr. Olivier Champagne :

That is not what I see.

Mr. Rhéal Fortin :

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

[ English ]

The Chair :

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

Mr. Don Davies :

Could we have a recorded vote, please, Mr. Chair? (Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings ])

The Chair :

Now we go to PV-15. (Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings ])

The Chair: Now we go to NDP-21. If this is adopted, NDP-22 cannot be moved. Mr. Davies, go ahead.

Mr. Don Davies :

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

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

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

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

If we really don't want kids under the age of 18 or 19 to use cannabis, then we should be pouring money into educating them about cannabis use and what its impacts and effects may be on the developing brain and otherwise. We've heard in the testimony that this government, so far, has committed to education what can only be described as a paltry $9 million over five years. We heard testimony from Chief Isadore Day, from Ontario, that, as far as he knows, there is no money given to indigenous communities in this country for education.

Compare that with Colorado or Washington state, where they are spending that amount every year on one-fifth or one-seventh the population of Canada. We did hear the Minister of Health say that this is just the beginning and that there will be more money, but we are about nine and a half months, maybe 10 months from legalization on July 1. I am waiting for my colleague Ms. Gladu to tell us how many days we have.

(1015) Ms. Marilyn Gladu :

It's 271 days.

Mr. Don Davies :

Thank you. Ms. Gladu can be trusted for her accurate estimate. That's not very much time to set out an educational regime in advance of cannabis being legalized in this country. I'll bet a dollar to a doughnut with anybody that telling a 19-year-old, “If you give illicit cannabis to a 17-year-old, you're going to go to jail for 14 years,” is not going to have much impact in this country. Educating young people about responsible cannabis use would be a much better way to go.

The Chair :

Ms. Gladu, go ahead.

Ms. Marilyn Gladu :

Further to my colleague's comments about public awareness and education, the Minister of Health did say that the Liberals were on their way with this rollout, but I received a copy of the RFP from Health Canada that's looking for a contractor to put together a public awareness and education program directed at young people and their influencers, which is what we heard in the testimony that we need to do. That RFP is not even due with bids until October 16. From then on, you'll have to start putting together the awareness program.

With 271 days to go, certainly that's not going to happen anywhere near the rush date of July 2018. Now, with respect to the age comment, this was exactly one of the reasons why the evidence we heard said we should raise the age, not lower it, because 18-year-olds hang out with 17-year-olds and 16-year-olds, and there was a concern that there would be transfer of marijuana to them. Witnesses from other jurisdictions had 21 as the age, and the Canadian Medical Association said that this was a compromise between the health harms that kids up to 25 would receive and understanding the prevention.

The idea was that 21-year-olds don't hang out with 16-year-olds, so some prevention would happen. I am disappointed not to see any age changes in this bill. We see that Alberta has come out with 21, and I think that would have been a better answer.

The Chair :

Mr. Van Kesteren.

Mr. Dave Van Kesteren :

Mr. Davies, you had me right up until about this point, because your argument implies that, when a person is 18, everything is okay. Yet we heard testimony from physicians, from doctors, who told us that at 25 the brain is still maturing and damage can still be done. I'm a little puzzled as to why or whether you in fact are saying the age restriction really shouldn't apply. As I said, if it's unhealthy for an 18-year-old, or for someone who's 19 or 20, according to the testimony, why would we be so adamant not to allow the 17-year-olds to get hold of this stuff? There's a little bit of a conflict there.

Do you want to take an opportunity to try to explain that to me? I'm having some trouble with that one.

(1020) The Chair :

Mr. Davies.

Mr. Don Davies :

I'm simply making a comment based on the structure of the bill, where this bill sets out the minimum age of 18 for legal possession and use of cannabis. I'm not commenting that there shouldn't be an age limit. I think there should be an age limit. It's a thorny question whether that should be 18, 19, or 25. We heard evidence all around that question. My own view is that it should be 19, for a couple of reasons. One is, of course, the developing brain. That's one more year of brain development.

Second, I think your average high school student in this country is 18 or younger, so making the age 19, in my opinion, would be more helpful in keeping cannabis out of high schools. The way it is now at 18, half of your grade 12 class will be able to legally possess cannabis, and then that brings cannabis right into the high schools. What I'm really talking about here, Mr. Van Kesteren, is what the proper penalty is. If the age is 18, what happens if you have a 19-year-old who gives some illicit cannabis to a 17-year-old? How do we properly deal with that?

I'm saying that subjecting that person to a 14-year prison sentence is not the proper way to go.

The Chair :

Mr. Oliver.

Mr. John Oliver :

Thank you. I want to address this age-limit issue again. We've certainly heard lots and lots of our health witnesses say that the age limit should be higher than 17. I think the CMA said it should be 21, and others have said that 25 is really the ideal age. What I heard is what we can do under federal acts and what can be done by the provinces and territories. If we move the age limit for possession up, then someone charged with possession of five grams over the age of 17 would face full adult criminal charges. They would have a lasting record and would have to go through a much more significant criminal consequence,

whereas if they're 17 or under, it would fall under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, the records are sealed, and there's a chance for those records to be erased a number of years after the term is finished. For me, it's really important that the provinces and territories understand that there is potentially a higher age that could be applied to restrict access to marijuana because of that developing brain and the impact on a developing brain. The provincial or territorial consequences aren't criminal. They can seize or they can fine and ticket, but it's not a criminal charge for people over the age of 17 at the provincial and territorial level.

The Chair :

Mr. Davies, you can have a quick intervention.

Mr. Don Davies :

One of the interesting parts of this is this concept of the relative harms of tobacco, cannabis, and alcohol. The task force itself, the McLellan task force, found, as has every other major study, that relatively speaking, cannabis has less health impact on anybody than does alcohol or tobacco. Interestingly, if we're going to talk about the developing brain, why aren't we talking about raising the age of consuming alcohol in this country, if that's the case?

If the brain's developing and a 19-year-old can drink a bottle of scotch every single night, I can tell you that after five straight years of doing that, they're going to have brain damage. They're going to have cirrhosis of the liver, potentially. They're going to have all sorts of problems. We don't criminalize that. We don't say, you face a 14-year penalty in jail because of the developing brain when it comes to alcohol. What is motivating my amendments here today is trying to situate cannabis.

If we're going to legalize it, then situate it based on the evidence, in an appropriate manner, comparing it with other substances that we want to restrict to adults, which we know have potential health consequences. It doesn't make any sense, though, to retain 14-year criminal penalties for cannabis and not to have those for alcohol or tobacco, and that's exactly the absurdity of this provision.

(1025) The Chair :

Seeing no further speakers, I'm going to call for a vote on NDP-21.

Mr. Don Davies :

As a recorded vote, Mr. Chair. (Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1)

The Chair :

Now we go to NDP-22. Go ahead, Mr. Davies.

Mr. Don Davies :

I'll be mercifully short. It would amend the criminal provision from 14 years down to nine years, again, not as the NDP's first choice. However, it has the virtue of allowing judges to give conditional sentences in cases where the crown proceeds by way of indictment.

The Chair :

Seeing no further speakers, I call for a vote on NDP-22.

Mr. Don Davies :

Could I have a recorded vote, please? (Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1) (Clause 14 agreed to)

The Chair :

We have no amendments for clauses 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, or 20. Can I lump those together and ask for one vote on those clauses? (Clauses 15 to 20 inclusive agreed to) (On clause 21)

The Chair :

Now, we go to Liberal-4. Go ahead, Mr. Ayoub.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Ramez Ayoub :

Mr. Chairman, amendment LIB-4 is also intended to harmonize the English and French versions of the bill. It would amend clause 21 by replacing it, from line 19 on page 19, with the following:

It is prohibited to display, refer to or otherwise use any of the following, directly or indirectly in a promotion that is used in the sponsorship of a person, entity, event, activity or facility:

This amendment serves to make the distinction between the word “promotion” in the English version and the words “matériel relatif à la promotion” in the French version, and secondly, between the words “sponsorship of a person”, which are translated as “promotion d'une personne”. This is really technical. Unless there is some linguistic or grammatical reason, I am proposing this amendment to clarify the bill.

[ English ]

The Chair :

Next, we have Ms. Gladu.

Ms. Marilyn Gladu :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. When we talk about trying to make sure we don't have young people attracted to using marijuana, I was disappointed that there was no consideration given to preventing incentives to kids. We don't want to see cannabis cards with “buy 8, get 1 free” or any kind of financial incentives. In the promotion or in the following clauses, I would have thought that there would be amendments brought to protect kids on that. I was disappointed to not see those.

The Chair :

Mr. Davies.

Mr. Don Davies :

I support the amendment. I wondered if any of the ministry officials could tell me if this type of regulatory prohibition on sponsorship is applied to alcohol. Do we know that?

Ms. Diane Labelle (General Counsel, Health Canada Legal Services, Department of Justice) :

When it comes to alcohol-related items, the federal government does not regulate at that level. Alcohol is regulated as a food under the Food and Drugs Act, but when it comes to promotion, advertising, and restrictions on advertising, that is not done by the Department of Health.

(1030) Mr. Don Davies :

If I could follow up, this

section says that it is prohibited to display:

directly or indirectly in a promotion that is used in the sponsorship of a person, entity, event, activity, or facility: (

a) a brand element of cannabis, of a cannabis accessory or of a service

I take it that would cover things like athletic events. In this country, can we do that for alcohol, to your knowledge?

Ms. Diane Labelle :

I don't know all the rules with respect to alcohol. I do believe that the CRTC has guidelines on the promotion of alcohol in terms of telecommunications. More than that, I do not know.

Mr. Don Davies :

Thank you.

The Chair :

Ms. Gladu.

Ms. Marilyn Gladu :

I have one further point on this one with respect to an initiative we discussed earlier with Mr. Davies in talking about exporting. Especially with the medical marijuana, there are companies that are expanding and shipping globally, and they have branding. Will this prohibit them from being able to brand their products in foreign countries?

Mr. John Clare (Director, Cannabis Legalization and Regulation Branch, Department of Health) :

The promotion restrictions set out in the legislation apply to promotion in Canada, so in whatever foreign jurisdiction that company is operating, they would need to comply with those rules in that jurisdiction.

The Chair :

Seeing no further speakers, I'm going to call for a vote on Liberal-4. (Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings ]) (Clause 21 as amended agreed to)

The Chair: We have no amendments for clauses 22 to 33.

Mr. Dave Van Kesteren :

Mr. Chair, can I suggest that we take a health break?

The Chair :

Yes. That's a good point. We'll just take five minutes. We're going to break for lunch from 12 to 12:30. We're going to stop this operation and have a little bite to eat. Then we are going to question period at 1:50 p.m. Ms. Gladu has an S.O. 31. Just so we all know, we'll be back at 3:30. Now I'll suspend for five minutes.

(1030) (1040) The Chair :

Let's reconvene.

Ms. Marilyn Gladu :

Chair, I think you're doing a fabulous job of leading us through in an expedient fashion. To the clerk and the legislative clerks, you're doing a very good job.

The Chair :

It's working well. Thank you. I appreciate that. Let's reconvene, and carry on so we're not here on Saturday and Sunday.

The Chair :

When we broke, we were considering clauses 22 to 33. There are no amendments; I was seeking approval for all those clauses 22 to 33. (Clauses 22 to 33 agreed to) (On clause 34)

The Chair: Now we go to Liberal-5. This was moved by Dr. Eyolfson.

Mr. Doug Eyolfson :

This is technical. It provides clarity with respect to the prohibition of any mixture of substances. Much the way we've seen the trend with alcohol and caffeine; vodka and Red Bull are coming up. It's a clearer description so you can't sell cannabis in combination with nicotine, caffeine, or alcohol.

The Chair :

Thanks very much. Ms. Gladu.

Ms. Marilyn Gladu :

Dr. Eyolfson, the hemp producers asked to be exempted from all this regulation. I know people can sometimes cut their cannabis with hemp. What do we intend to do with that recommendation that came to committee?

Mr. Doug Eyolfson :

I would have to get back to you on that particular clarification. That's not in this one here.

The Chair :

I have a point of clarification. If Liberal-5 is adopted, Liberal-22 is also adopted at the same time. Mr. Davies, I have you on the list.

Mr. Don Davies :

Dr. Eyolfson, I just want to be clear. This is referring to substances infused with cannabis? Not the selling of cannabis alongside....

Mr. Doug Eyolfson :

This is a substance infused with cannabis. Something like a given product, which contains cannabis, nicotine, caffeine, or alcohol.

Mr. Don Davies :

Okay. Thank you.

The Chair :

Seeing no further speakers, I'm going to call for a vote on Liberal-5. (Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 34 as amended agreed to)

The Chair: We have no amendments from clause 35 to clause 43. (Clauses 35 to 43 agreed to) (On clause 44)

(1045) The Chair :

Now we come to NDP-23. If NDP-23 is moved, NDP-24 can't be moved. Does anybody have a comment? Mr. Davies.

Mr. Don Davies :

This is a miscellaneous penalty provision of the bill that basically talks about “every person that contravenes a provision of this Act for which no punishment is otherwise provided”. It specifies then that automatically these provisions will apply. The first

part is that a person could be “guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to a fine of not more than $5,000,000 or imprisonment for a term of not more than three years, or to both”. If they're proceeded with on

summary conviction on a first offence, they are subject “to a fine of not more than $250,000 or imprisonment for a term of not more than six months, or to both, and, for any subsequent offence, to a fine of not more than $500,000 or imprisonment for a term of not more than 18 months, or to both.” Interestingly, this is the catch-all provision that says that anybody who violates this act is automatically liable to potential imprisonment. I just want to go on record as saying that it is inconsistent, and in fact, I think it's incompatible with an approach that claims to be legalizing.

I think it clearly is an approach that maintains the criminalized approach to cannabis. My amendment would seek, in keeping with that, to change the regulation of cannabis, as we move to commercializing this product, to make them “guilty of an offence punishable on

summary conviction” only, and “liable, for a first offence, to a fine of not more than $3,000 and, for any subsequent offence, to a fine of not more than $50,000”. The interesting part about this clause is that I would assume that, for every offence under this act that the government thought was a significant offence, they specified a penalty. This clause obviously is for anything else in the act that the government didn't even, after studying the bill and drafting it, think that an offence was necessarily appropriate to maintain or even to specify a penalty for.

I find it instructive that the scheme of this legislation by the Liberal government is to say that any violation of this act in any way results in a criminalized approach with a jail sentence. If the purpose of this bill is to legalize cannabis and to, as we've heard time and time again, move away from a prohibitionist approach, which the Minister of Health and the Minister of Justice say doesn't work, and which evidence before this committee showed creates much harm....

That's why the purpose of my amendment is to punish people who don't follow the scheme of the act by monetary fines, much like the way we regulate tobacco and alcohol.

The Chair :

Thank you. Ms. Gladu.

Ms. Marilyn Gladu :

I want to provide some comfort to my colleague Mr. Davies. Although I don't support the changes that he's proposed here, in clause 45 you'll find that no

summary conviction “may be commenced after the expiry of one year after the day on which the subject-matter of the proceedings arose”. Right now the situation is that, because the Justice minister has not put in place adequate judges, we have court cases that are waiting 18 months to three years, and by Jordan's principle, murderers and sex offenders are going free. The likelihood of anybody getting to court in time to get any conviction is less. I just wanted to comfort him with that.

The Chair :

Mr. Davies, are you comforted?

Mr. Don Davies :

Thank you for pointing that out because it leads to another potential problem. We're dealing with clause 44 now, but Ms. Gladu is quite right to refer to clause 45, which reads that:

No

summary conviction proceedings in respect of an offence under

section 44 may be commenced after the expiry of one year after the day on which the subject-matter of the proceedings arose.

This leads to the potential situation where, after one year, if a prosecutor is prohibited from proceeding by way of

summary conviction, they will be forced to proceed by way of indictment or else have no offence whatsoever. I think it's important to point out that flaw in the bill. Thanks, Ms. Gladu.

(1050) The Chair :

Seeing no further speakers, I'm going to call for a vote on NDP-23.

Mr. Don Davies :

Could I have a recorded vote, Mr. Chair?

The Chair :

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

The Chair: Now we go to NDP-24. Mr. Davies.

Mr. Don Davies :

In short, this is a second attempt to try to amend the penalty provisions of the miscellaneous provisions of this act. This amendment would remove the indictable offence provision and leave the offence provisions that relate to

summary conviction.

The Chair :

I see no further speakers. I call for a vote on NDP-24.

Mr. Don Davies :

I'd like a recorded vote, Mr. Chair.

The Chair :

We're going to have a recorded vote this time. (Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings ]) (Clause 44 agreed to)

The Chair: There are no amendments proposed from clause 45 to clause 50. Shall clauses 45 to 50 inclusive carry? (Clauses 45 to 50 inclusive agreed to) (On clause 51)

The Chair: For clause 51, we have PV-16. Ms. Gladu.

Ms. Marilyn Gladu :

I know Ms. May is not here to speak to her motion, but you can see she's looking to add something where a peace officer has to have regard to what would be in the best interests of justice, with particular attention given to whether the individual is a member of a disadvantaged community. While I am quite a supporter of ticketed offences to get rid of the criminalization that Mr. Davies has pointed out is so prevalent in this flawed bill, I really think this is very vague wording, so I won't be supporting it. I don't think there's enough definition.

The Chair :

Seeing no further comments, I'm going to call for a vote on PV-16. (Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings ])

The Chair: Now we have NDP-25. Mr. Davies.

Mr. Don Davies :

I think this is probably moot. Earlier, my colleagues will remember that I attempted to eliminate the 30-gram possession limit. Had that occurred, this would be the companion to that. It would have removed the 30-gram possession limit from the list of items that could be ticketable offences, but since we've kept the 30-gram limit, it's probably academic at this point. I think it could stay in as is.

The Chair :

We're not clear. Do you want to withdraw it?

Mr. Don Davies :

Yes, I think it should be withdrawn.

The Chair :

I don't think anybody will argue with that. (Amendment withdrawn)

The Chair: Now we'll go to LIB-6. This is consequential to LIB-3. I'm sorry. It's adopted already because of an earlier vote. NDP-26 cannot be moved because of the same thing. Now we go to LIB-7. Does anybody want to speak on LIB-7? Mr. Eyolfson, you moved this.

(1055) Mr. Doug Eyolfson :

This is technical in nature. It corrects some omissions made in the drafting with regard to information: any use of judicial records in a summons and information portions of a ticket. It would be consistent with other parts of the bill, so that the judicial record from a ticket would be kept separate from other judicial records and not be used for any purpose that would identify the accused. The purpose of this is that we do know that there may be some consequences to being legally identified for cannabis-related offences.

Even today, admitting to or having a record at the United States border can result in a lifetime ban. So, if you have received a ticket, this would not be in the judicial record and be available to customs officials and that sort of thing.

The Chair :

Thank you. Ms. Gladu.

Ms. Marilyn Gladu :

I agree that it will be very important. I live in a border community, so people are being asked at the border if they have ever smoked pot and not being allowed over if they admit that they have. It would be certainly important to make sure you can't identify them. That said, there is no detail provided as to how the government will keep these records separate and what kind of restrictions will be put in place to restrict access to this confidential information, with 271 days left to go. Dr. Eyolfson, could you provide some detail as to how the government intends to do that?

Mr. Doug Eyolfson :

I'm not privy to the technical nature of how these records are kept, so I don't know the answer to that.

The Chair :

Seeing no further speakers, I call for a vote on LIB-7. (Amendment agreed to [ See Minutes of Proceedings ])

The Chair: We are on NDP-27. Mr. Davies, do you want to explain that to us?

Mr. Don Davies :

I think this may be academic at this point. This is a corresponding amendment as a companion to remove the 30-gram and 100-centimetre limits from ticketable offences. I guess it would be moot with respect to the 30 grams, but still applicable with respect to the 100-centimetre limits because 30 grams has remained a prohibited level but the 100-centimetre limit has not. I don't know if the legislative counsel can give me any advice in that regard.

The Chair :

Did you have a question for our legislative assistant?

Mr. Don Davies :

Yes, what this does is it says for an offence referred to in any of the paragraphs, and then it's got “2(

a) to (h), $200 plus a victim surcharge”. This is the ticketable offence provisions. I guess my amendment was meant if the 30-gram limit had been removed, then you would have to remove one of the references to the sections there, but that's now academic. I guess it now is probably still appropriate insofar as it may relate to the 100-centimetre limit.

Mr. John Oliver :

Mr. Chair, can I help with this?

The Chair :

Yes, Mr. Oliver.

Mr. John Oliver :

I think we'd be supporting the motion. The amendment is technical, but it ensures the correct cross-reference in subclause 51(4) to the list of ticketable offences set out in subclause 51(2). Subclause 51(1) would specify the amount of the fine for a ticket would be set at $200 plus a victim surcharge. It basically properly cross-references the right clauses that wouldn't otherwise happen, so I'd be supportive of this motion if Mr. Davies is still putting it forward.

(1100) The Chair :

Okay, Mr. Davies, are you ready? All right, I'm going to call for a vote on NDP-27. (Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings ]) (Clause 51 as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings ]) (Clause 52 agreed to) (On clause 53)

The Chair: Now we go to LIB-8. Ms. Sidhu.

Ms. Sonia Sidhu :

Mr. Chair, I'm moving this amendment because I feel that it will protect individuals who face ticketable offences from fines that will impose a significant financial burden. This would ensure that courts could consider a range of factors in setting the fine, including the ability of the accused to pay the fine. By limiting the fine to no more than $200, we are limiting the financial burden imposed by a ticket for less severe offences under the cannabis act.

The Chair :

Seeing no debate or speakers, I'll call for a vote on LIB-8. (Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings ])

The Chair: On NDP-28. Was this adopted as a consequence of LIB-3? Mr. Davies.

Mr. Don Davies :

I believe this is similar. It simply corrects the cross-referencing in light of earlier amendments to the 100-centimetre limit, and the lack of an amendment to the 30-gram prohibition limit.

The Chair :

Mr. Oliver.

Mr. John Oliver :

Are we in clause 28?

The Chair :

We are on NDP-28

Mr. John Oliver :

For French equivalency, I would make a subamendment to add the word “ maximale ” in French after “ amende ” on line 32, page 30.

The Chair :

That's in order. (Subamendment agreed to) (Amendment as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings ])

The Chair: Now we go to LIB-9. Ms. Sidhu.

Ms. Sonia Sidhu :

Mr. Chair, this legislation as drafted would enable a court to apply an order for probation to an individual who is issued a ticket. The intention of a ticketing system was to ensure that penalties or less severe offences would not result in criminality, but would be regulated through fines. It is not the intent to enable probation to be included in the consequences of a ticketing system. The amendment clarifies this.

The Chair :

Ms. Gladu.

Ms. Marilyn Gladu :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I seek clarification. It references

section 731 of the Criminal Code. Which

section is that, or what does that

section talk about?

Ms. Sonia Sidhu :

The amendment states:

That Bill C-45, in Clause 53, be amended by adding after line 37 on page 30 the following: “

(1.1) If the accused is convicted of the offence, no order is to be made under

section 731 of the Criminal Code in respect of that conviction.”

Ms. Marilyn Gladu :

What is

section 731?

Ms. Sonia Sidhu :

Under

section 731 of the Criminal Code in respect of that conviction.

Ms. Marilyn Gladu :

Is that the whole code?

The Chair :

Mr. Saint-Denis.

Mr. Paul Saint-Denis :

Mr. Chair,

section 731 deals with the issuance of probation orders upon a conviction. The court may choose to impose certain conditions. If those conditions are breached, there is the risk of a charge being laid, and the possibility of imprisonment for breaching....that charge.

(1105) The Chair :

Seeing no further speakers on LIB-9, I call for a vote on LIB-9. (Amendment agreed to)

The Chair: Shall Clause 53 carry as amended? (Clause 53 as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings ]) (On clause 54)

The Chair: We go to PV-17. Is there any debate or discussion on PV-17? Seeing no debate or speakers, all in favour of PV-17? (Amendment negatived)

The Chair: Shall clause 54 carry? (Clause 54 agreed to)

The Chair: We go to a new clause, NDP-29. Mr. Davies.

Mr. Don Davies :

Doesn't NDP-29 amend clause 54?

The Chair :

It's a new clause that we've been given; it's new clause 54.1.

Mr. Don Davies :

Okay. Mr. Chair, I really hope that my colleagues support this amendment, because I believe there is an unintended flaw in this bill, such that, once I explain the policy behind the amendment and what it does, I think all members should be behind this. What clause 54 says is:

If an accused fails to pay the amount set out in the ticket within the period set out in the ticket, the accused is liable for that amount and (

a) a conviction is to be entered in the judicial record of the accused; (

b) the conviction is deemed to be pronounced by a court;

Further down, it adds that:

(

d) the accused has 30 days after the day of the conviction to pay the amount set out in the ticket

and any court fees. Subclause 54(2) then says what the effect of payment or imprisonment is. It says:

If, after being convicted, the accused pays the amount set out in the ticket or, if the accused is an individual, the accused has served, in full, any period of imprisonment imposed as a result of a default in payment of the amount of the fine imposed by the court, the judicial record of the accused in relation to the offence must be kept separate and apart from other judicial records and it must not be used for any purpose that would identify the accused as a person dealt with under this Act.

Then finally, clause 55 says:

Only an individual who is unwilling though able to pay a fine or the amount of a victim surcharge imposed in respect of a conviction [...] may be imprisoned in default of its payment.

This is meant to avoid the stigma of a criminal conviction. Who doesn't get a criminal conviction? It's someone who pays the fine; someone who doesn't pay the fine but serves the imprisonment; someone who could pay the fine but chooses not to, is not eligible for imprisonment. The person who's left out of this is the poor indigent person who simply can't pay the fine. If they just can't pay the fine because they're poor, then they end up getting a criminal record, and that criminal record can be referred to. We heard a couple of pieces of testimony by Michael Spratt, who pointed this out. Michael Spratt said:

To its credit, Bill C-45 does attempt to reduce the prejudicial impacts of this ticketing option and there are provisions designed to prevent the public disclosure of judicial records, but this is dependent on the offender's ability to pay a fine. If the ticket remains unpaid 30 days after a conviction is registered, there is no corresponding right to privacy in a judicial record.

If you are poor and cannot pay the fine, you get the record and you don't get the protection of this provision. He goes on to say:

I think the problem is obvious.... if you are poor and can't pay a fine, you are further stigmatized through a public record. If you are well off and can pay the fine, your record is sealed. That judicial record is non-disclosable. Given the research on the impacts of the disclosure of judicial records, the inability of the poor to purchase privacy rights, and the disproportionate enforcement of marijuana offences experienced by marginalized groups, it's quite likely that this ticketing provision...will be found to violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Now, Ms. Sidhu clarified this with him. She asked Mr. Spratt:

For clarification, Mr. Spratt, you said that people who are unable to pay tickets are criminalized. In fact, clause 55 states that the ability to pay is a clear consideration in ticketable offences. If you cannot pay, you won't be further punished. I just wanted clarification on this.

Mr. Spratt responded:

It's not that you'll be jailed. The act is clear that the judicial record won't have the same privacy protection as it does for someone who can pay. The punishment I speak of isn't incarceration. Rather, it's the devastating impacts, which are well documented, of the disclosure of judicial records. That's how they're punished.

I think this was an unintended gap in the bill that my amendment clears up. My amendment would add a new clause 54.1 that says:

54(1) If an accused establishes to the satisfaction of a court that payment of the amount set out in the ticket or of a fine imposed under this Act would cause undue hardship to the accused, the court may, on application of the accused, make an order exempting the accused from the payment of the amount set out in the ticket or that of the fine, or both. (2)For the purposes of subsection (1), undue hardship means the accused is unable to pay the amount set out in the ticket or the amount of a fine imposed under this Act because of the accused's precarious financial circumstances, including because of their unemployment, homelessness, lack of assets or significant financial obligations towards their dependants.

(1110) Then finally:

If the accused is convicted of the offence and a Court makes an order under subsection (1), the judicial record of the accused in relation to the offence must be kept separate and apart from other judicial records and it must not be used for any purpose that would identify the accused as a person dealt with under this Act.

In short, Mr. Chair and colleagues, this says if a person can satisfy a court that they're poor and cannot pay the ticket, their record will also be treated in the same way as someone who has paid the fine or the ticket. You don't leave the poor with the stigmatization of a conviction that's not separated as it is for those who can pay.

The Chair :

Thanks very much. Ms. Gladu.

Ms. Marilyn Gladu :

Thank you, Chair. I want to thank my colleague for bringing this one forward. Certainly I agree with the principles that he's talking about. If you're poor, you shouldn't be punished for not being able to pay your ticket by receiving more criminality, or less privacy, or anything else. In principle, I agree, but I am concerned because the response to my question about what kind of database they're going to use to keep these things in, what detail level they are going to use to administer that, has not even been thought of. And 271 days from now, it will matter. I won't be supporting this.

The Chair :

Mr. McKinnon.

Mr. Ron McKinnon :

Thank you, Chair. I'd like to respond to my colleague. The intent is well-meaning; I think it's a good intent. However, the Criminal Code provisions already grant the court discretion, such that if it is satisfied that the accused cannot pay a fine, it has other options available to it. The court also has the ability to grant an absolute discharge or a conditional discharge to an accused who they believe cannot pay the fine, or to allow them to discharge a fine by earning credits for work performed.

This was further clarified with our previous LIB-8, which clarified the court's ability to impose a fine of up to $200. I believe this amendment is unnecessary and is covered by the existing bill.

The Chair :

Mr. Davies.

Mr. Don Davies :

If that were the case, I would agree with my colleague. But I believe he's not reading

section 54(2) properly. It describes the “Effect of payment or imprisonment”. It says, “If, after being convicted, the accused pays the amount set out in the ticket....” Then it goes on to say that “the judicial record of the accused in relation to the offence must be kept separate and apart from other judicial records....” I'm talking about after conviction. Let's say you have a wealthy person who is convicted and you have an indigent person who is convicted.

The wealthy person goes and pays the fine, and their judicial record is now kept separate and apart from other judicial records and can't be used for any purpose that would identify the accused as a person dealt with under this act. But at that point, the indigent can't pay the fine. This is after conviction, so there's no possibility of a discharge at this point. They've already been convicted. That's why this amendment is so important, to deal with that situation. Ironically,

section 55...would leave that person with only one option: serving the jail sentence. So they serve the jail sentence and then they can be treated the same way. Really what we have here are two different standards of justice: your criminal record and your privacy expectations are dependent upon your ability to pay. Surely that can't be the intention and desire of the Liberal government.

(1115) The Chair :

Mr. McKinnon.

Mr. Ron McKinnon :

Thank you, Chair. I wonder if our officials could clarify this question, the matter of having once been convicted, and whether being able to have a conditional discharge is part of that. It seems to me that a discharge is a part of the sentencing. They could also clarify other aspects of concern to Mr. Davies.

Mr. Don Davies :

If I may, there's another consideration that I want to add to that question. I was trying to understand this at the time I read it, and I think I understand it now. Here's the other confusing rub. Clause 55 says:

Only an individual who is unwilling though able to pay a fine or the amount of a victim surcharge imposed in respect of a conviction referred to subsection 53(1) or a fine imposed in respect of a conviction referred to in

section 54 may be imprisoned in default of its payment.

Here's the irony now, and I think I'm reading this properly. A person who can't pay the fine because they're impoverished can't even serve the sentence, because this

section says the only people who can be in prison for default of payment are those who are able to pay but won't. So, an indigent person can't pay the fine, so they can't get the benefit of record-sealing—for lack of a better word—and they can't serve the jail sentence, because only people who are able to pay are able to be imprisoned. So an indigent person would have no way of having their criminal record treated the same way as someone who can afford to pay, or ironically, someone who can afford to pay but won't. That can't be the intention of the legislation or part of it.

Mr. Paul Saint-Denis :

The courts have wide discretion in terms of sentencing options. With respect to fines, it was pointed out that the court can impose a fine of up to $200. That's a result of a motion that was adopted by this committee. The courts already have discretion in terms of alternatives to imposing a fine. In the case of an indigent person, there's an obligation under the code currently for the court to not impose a fine if the court is of the view that the person cannot pay the fine.

Alternatively, in those cases, the court could impose a fine option or sentence the individual to serve a period of time in a fine option program whereby he would do work in the community. The indigent person is not going to be compelled to pay a fine that the court knows cannot be paid.

The Chair :

Okay. Mr. Davies.

Mr. Don Davies :

Mr. Saint-Denis, you're saying that in Canada today it's never the case that an indigent person receives a fine in a Canadian court? Can you speak with that kind certainty?

Mr. Paul Saint-Denis :

No, I can't. I'm just pointing out what the Criminal Code provisions set out. I'm not aware of indigent persons being jailed for not being able to pay a fine. Perhaps my colleague can add to that.

Ms. Carole Morency (Director General and Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice) :

To the point of Bill C-45 reflecting what the Supreme Court has said, if a person is unable to pay a fine, they cannot be imprisoned for their inability to pay through no fault of their own. As my colleague has said, the starting point is that the court has to first determine whether there is an ability to pay a fine, before it can impose a fine. It must then determine the amount of the fine. Bill C-45 provides a maximum limit on that.

Alternatively, once a fine is imposed, whatever the amount is, if there is a fine option program in the province, it is possible for an individual to work towards discharging that fine through the work credit. One thing that is perhaps causing a bit of confusion is that between the first part of the ticket process—an individual issued a ticket chooses to pay or to challenge the ticket—and the second part of the process, which I think Mr.

Davies was dealing with—if the individual challenges the ticket and goes through a court process, the court makes determinations as to whether an offence has been committed, and if so, the penalty to be imposed in that situation. If the individual is acquitted, there's no need to protect the record. If there is a conviction entered, then once it's paid or however it's dealt with in accordance with whatever the court imposes for the fine, that

part is protected as well under the provision at clause 54 in terms of the judicial record of conviction.

(1120) The Chair :

Thank you very much. We appreciate that. Mr. Davies.

Mr. Don Davies :

It's a confusing

section of the code, but if a police officer gives someone a ticket, gives an indigent person a ticket, the person.... We're making a lot of assumptions here. I'm assuming that the person doesn't pay the ticket because they are poor. They may not even show up in court. Clause 54 says if an accused fails to pay the amount set in the ticket within the period set out in the ticket, the accused is liable for that amount and a conviction is to be entered in the judicial record of the accused.

So an indigent person who doesn't show up in court for their ticket—and this happens every day; Canadians don't go to court when they get tickets—a conviction is entered. Once that conviction is entered, paragraph 54(1)(

d) says the accused has 30 days after the day of the conviction to pay the amount set out on the ticket. If they don't do that, then subclause 54(2) says if after being convicted the accused pays the amount, then it goes into the fact that their record is kept separate and apart. I still say this

section leaves open the very real possibility that indigent Canadians, unless they go to court—and in many cases they will not hire a lawyer, they may not even be able to represent themselves properly; they may not even know to say they can't afford the fine. It leaves open the possibility there's a structural flaw here in the bill where the way that your record is treated is all dependent on your ability to pay the fine. I'm not saying people go to jail for not paying fines. I'm saying that every day in this country indigent people get ticketed and they get a fine of some type, and they don't pay it.

I don't think it's fair or right that we treat the way their criminal record is protected by whether or not they pay a fine. The effect of my amendment, I think, would only bolster that. I don't think it changes anything. It just clearly directs a judge in terms of an offence under this act, that if there is undue hardship and the person can't pay... Again, there's this anomaly, I think, of saying a person can't even serve the time if they can't pay.

It at least says that an indigent person, if they satisfy the court of that, their inability to pay the fine is not a reason to have their record treated separately, which is exactly what it says now.

The Chair :

Thank you very much, Mr. Davies. We understand what you're driving at. I see no further speakers, so I'll call for a vote on NDP-29.

Mr. Don Davies :

A recorded vote, Mr. Chair.

The Chair :

Certainly. A recorded vote. (Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [ See Minutes of Proceedings ]) (Clauses 55 to 57 inclusive agreed to) (On clause 58)

The Chair: Now we go to LIB-10. Dr. Eyolfson.

(1125) Mr. Doug Eyolfson :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is basically another clause that is technical in nature. It corrects an omission that was made in the drafting and also ensures that information respecting judicial records be included as part of the proceedings, and it's consistent with other parts of the bill.

The Chair :

Mr. Davies.

Mr. Don Davies :

I'm sorry. I don't understand the nature of the amendment. Dr. Eyolfson, can you tell me specifically what this amendment does? I don't know if anybody from the department can help with that. I'm not sure what the amendment is.

Mr. Doug Eyolfson :

Mr. Saint-Denis, could you take a look at the nature of this amendment, the technical nature of this.

Mr. Paul Saint-Denis :

The amendment is meant to ensure that the reference to an individual not being able to be identified as someone who has been dealt with under this legislation is incorporated into this provision as it is in other similar provisions. It is simply to ensure consistency in the text; that's the technical aspect of this.

The Chair :

Ms. Gladu.

Ms. Marilyn Gladu :

Thank you. In what database will it be stored? Does the database exist or it something that has to be created?

Mr. Paul Saint-Denis :

I can't speak to what databases are going to contain that information. We're talking, though, about judicial records, so at the very least court records would have that information.

Ms. Marilyn Gladu :

Yes. It seems that nobody knows that level of detail with 271 days until somebody gets charged, and we need to know.

The Chair :

Seeing no further speakers, I'm going to call for a vote on LIB-10. (Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings ]) (Clause 58 as amended agreed to) (On clause 60)

The Chair: Ms. Gladu.

Ms. Marilyn Gladu :

Clause 60 is the clause that talks about the sharing of the revenue, essentially, from this deal with provinces and municipalities. I'm disappointed that we didn't see something more concrete in here, because we did hear testimony from all of the municipalities and provinces that showed up that not enough funding was given for them to put all of the mechanisms in place and do all of the work to react to this legislation. I would have liked to have seen something more concrete there. Thank you.

The Chair :

Thank you very much. Mr. Davies.

Mr. Don Davies :

I pass.

The Chair :

Shall clauses 59, 60, and 61 carry? (Clauses 59 to 61 inclusive agreed to) (On clause 62)

The Chair: We now go to Liberal amendment 11. Mr. Davies.

Mr. Don Davies :

I'm sorry. With my Liberal colleague's indulgence, I'd like to make a motion to amend subclause 62(2), which comes before the LIB-11 amendment. I'm going to move it from the floor, if I might. It has to do with a conversation we had yesterday about the prohibition in this bill banning the importation or exportation of cannabis except as provided for by this bill. I didn't move my amendment there. I'm going to move my amendment now to subclause 62(2). This is the part of the bill that does authorize the importation and exportation of cannabis. It says currently:

Licences and permits authorizing the importation or exportation of cannabis may be issued only in respect of cannabis for medical or scientific purposes or in respect of industrial hemp.

That's the status quo we have now. My amendment would be to permit the import and export of recreational cannabis. I'll speak to it in a moment and give you the wording that I worked out with the legislative counsel yesterday. The amendment reads: “Licences and permits authorizing the importation or exportation of cannabis may be issued.” Basically, everything after the word “issued” in line 31 would be struck. I'll speak briefly to that, if I may. As I said, in my opinion, there are many countries in the world that are looking at legalizing recreational cannabis.

I've talked to many people in the industry who tell me that this is a multi-billion dollar industry in which Canada currently stands at the forefront. I talked to a leading manufacturer of medicinal cannabis who said that he is contacted every week by businesses outside of Canada who want to learn about their business and to partner. I think it's only a matter of time before other jurisdictions—besides Uruguay—legalize recreational cannabis. France could legalize cannabis next year.

If they do, I think this legislation should at least permit the exportation and importation of cannabis products between those two countries. If the product is legal in both countries, why would we not want to give our business community and those who are producing cannabis the ability to trade in that commodity? Interestingly, we're going to allow licensed producers to produce and sell cannabis within Canada. We're going to make that decision. Why would we want to hamstring our business community and say that they can't do that with another country that comes to the same decision?

Finally, of course, it is the case that currently this bill would allow the importation and exportation of cannabis for medical or scientific purposes or for industrial hemp. To me, it makes sense that we maintain Canada's competitive advantage. I think Canada can be a global leader as we develop the intellectual property and more cannabis strains under a very wisely regulated environment, which this bill purports to set out, where we have quality cannabis that's quality controlled and where the dosages are controlled, properly labelled, and not marketed to children.

If we can ship wine to France, we should be able to ship cannabis there if, as an example, France decides as a country to take the same approach to legalization that we do.

(1130) The Chair :

Mr. Oliver.

Mr. John Oliver :

I'll just come back to the three purposes of the act. One is to remove this from the hands of youth. The second is to deter criminal activity with significant criminal consequences. The third is safe and healthy production so that customer or consumer safety is to the fore. It isn't about retailing, exporting, and creating those business opportunities. Having said that, I think Mr. Davies does raise some interesting points. I'm wondering if we could have a five-minute sidebar on our side just to talk. We didn't have this before us. It's coming from the floor. We'd like a chance to have a little sidebar.

The Chair :

There will be a sidebar for five minutes.

(1130) (1135) The Chair :

We'll reconvene. Now on the speakers list we have Ms. Gladu.

Ms. Marilyn Gladu :

I don't support expanding this. The RCMP has already expressed concerns about the medical marijuana system that we have today, where people who don't have a criminal record are applying for licences and are vetted, but are related to those who are members of organized crime. That's how organized crime may be penetrating the medical marijuana market today. I certainly wouldn't want to see us expand the opportunity and have Canada turn into the organized crime capital for exporting to other countries. For that reason, I wouldn't be supporting this.

The Chair :

All right. Thanks very much. Ms. Sidhu.

Ms. Sonia Sidhu :

I just want to make one point, Mr. Chair. This bill is about public health, not economic development. We have been clear that the intent of this legislation is to keep it as a domestic issue. Medical cannabis producers will continue to be able to import and export for medical purposes. So this is not about economic development right now. That's my point of view.

The Chair :

Thank you very much. Mr. Oliver.

Mr. John Oliver :

I would echo Ms. Sidhu's comments. I would also add that the advice we had from everybody else was to go slow on this. I think you'll see a motion coming later for a review of the bill—in fairly short order, in terms of parliamentary time—that may then allow this kind of consideration. At this juncture, as Ms. Sidhu said, the purpose of the bill is not about retail and business opportunities. It is about deterring crime, getting this stuff out of the hands of our youth, and having a safe production capacity, a licenced capacity. I'll be voting against the motion.

The Chair :

Mr. Van Kesteren.

Mr. Dave Van Kesteren :

Thank you, Chair. I find it fascinating that the conversation is moving in this direction. It seems that within the Liberal Party, as well as the NDP, there's this opinion that there's amazing capacity for the government and the economy to have this incredible opportunity of wealth. The problem is that we don't read our history books. China is probably the greatest civilization that's ever existed on this planet, if one looks at their accomplishments. However, if you read what took place, it began in the 1700s with opium. Opium was introduced for the same reason. Governments became involved.

The British saw a lucrative trade there. There was one prime minister who condemned the British government for becoming part of this whole act. In essence, it destroyed a whole society. If you read your history books, you'll find that people began to lose their livelihoods. The family unit was completely destroyed. Crime and lawlessness increased. This isn't some exercise in trying to scare people. The reality of the situation is that we have learned lessons in the past, and it's not for no reason that governments have put together laws that have restricted drugs. I thought it would be interesting.

I looked on the Internet. I wanted to see what the drug culture, those who.... I have to confess that maybe I'm the wrong person to talk about this, because I've never smoked the stuff. I wanted to find out what people who indulged in smoking marijuana said about marijuana, as opposed to opium. Opium is an interesting drug. Almost without exception, the responses were that opium is a whole lot better. I'm paraphrasing. They pontificate. They go into reasons why and such. The point is that this is a stepping-stone drug. The people who smoke marijuana aren't going to be content just to....

I'm not painting everybody with the same brush, but I can assure you that we will see the same thing happening in our society. Why, for the life of me, would we...? You know, even without proper dialogue, even without thinking this through, this is a dangerous precedent. I can't reinforce this enough. It took the brutality of Mao Zedong to stamp out drug usage in China. There were probably 10 million people who were addicted to opium. Now people will say we're dated, that we're talking about marijuana. There's a difference. Mr. Davies, you referred to alcohol. It's not the same thing.

Yes, it's a drug, to a degree I suppose, one would argue. You drink alcohol. You might like beer; you might be hooked on vodka. It's alcohol.

Whereas with drugs, you open up a whole world of possibilities. If we think we're going to become a prosperous nation, that there's opportunity economically with the pursuit of marijuana in our society, we are so sadly mistaken. We need to talk about this. I am convinced that there are people—and not just old fuddy-duddies like me—and there are people in the Liberal Party too, who have some reservations. I implore you to start talking to your leadership, to stop this crazy notion that this is a good idea. I was going to leave this for closing remarks, but you opened it up.

The fact that we somehow imagine this whole marijuana business is going to be advantageous and we're going to protect youth—we're going to keep a lid on this thing—is foolhardy at best.

(1140) I appreciate your time, and I ask my Liberal colleagues to look at this, really look at this, because this is a disaster waiting to happen.

The Ch