What’s the deal with Bill C-45?
You’re probably at least anecdotally aware of the drama surrounding the recent legalization of cannabis in Canada. This type of legislation is naturally controversial, just as the usage of cannabis products is controversial. However, the reasons why the Cannabis Act (a.k.a. Bill C-45) has caused such contention on Parliament Hill may not be what you think. What’s all the fuss about?
Let’s start at the beginning. What is Bill C-45, and what exactly does it do?
The changes this bill proposed to make to the Canadian Constitution are summarized in the official title of the bill: “An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code, and other Acts.”
This bill set out to legalize cannabis by removing it from the list of controlled substances in Canada and to amend the Criminal Code, so that the possession and use of controlled amounts of recreational cannabis, and the growing and cultivation of up to four plants, is legal. Seems straightforward, no?
Apart from the public discourse about cannabis legalization, the bill has caused plenty of contention in Parliament, especially in the Senate. The Senate presented several significant amendments to the bill, many of which were seen by many as controversial and almost antagonistic, according to the Globe and Mail. For example, one proposed amendment from the Senate would have allowed provinces a clear-cut path to ban the cultivation of cannabis at home.
Granted, two provinces (Quebec and Manitoba) have already banned growing cannabis at home, but the inclusion of this provision in the federal regulations would have made it much easier for other provinces to ban at-home cultivation. However, simplifying the legal path to banning home grown cannabis interferes with one of the main purposes of the Cannabis Act, which is to curtail the illegal weed market. Banning the cultivation of cannabis at home would create something of a double standard for the production of other controlled substances at home, as the production of beer, wine, and tobacco is permitted by federal law.
Other controversial Senate amendments included provisions to ban the sale of cannabis ‘swag,’ and called for the creation of a central registry of anyone involved in cannabis companies.
Although the House allowed 27 amendments from the Senate to be incorporated into the bill, they outright rejected 13 — including the three mentioned above.
Outside the context of the Bill C-45 debates, there has also been a significant amount of criticism regarding the government’s preparation of the public for legalization. Currently, the Liberals plan to spend $100 million over six years on public education and raising awareness about cannabis use, as well as to monitor its usage by the public. So far, the government claims to have distributed educational material to the public by mail, over the radio, online (via Facebook Messenger bots and surveys), and through partnerships with organizations like the Centre for Addictions and Mental Health (CAMH) and Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD).
The Opposition has called this preparation insufficient. Among other things, the Conservatives claim the Liberals failed to meaningfully prevent public confusion around the legalization of cannabis. A notable proponent of this viewpoint is Conservative MP Marilyn Gladu (Sarnia-Lambton, Ont.), who is also the Conservative health critic. She has been vocal about her opinion that the government has failed to conduct enough targeted outreach to young people to ensure they are aware of the health risks. NDP health critic Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, B.C.) had similar things to say about the government’s preparation for the big day. He alleged that the Liberals failed to take adequate measures to ensure that legalization actually diminishes the presence of illegal cannabis in the market.
As it happens, there is something to be said about this particular criticism of the legalization process. Canada clearly lacks adequate infrastructure for legal distribution methods for cannabis.
The current process for licensing establishments to sell cannabis is highly restrictive, and led to the shortage of legal cannabis that Canadians saw shortly after Oct. 17. As per Bill C-45, figuring out the distribution mechanisms for cannabis is not the federal government’s responsibility, but has instead been left up to the provinces to sort out. However, that doesn’t mean some sort of federal support for building an adequate distribution infrastructure should be out of the picture.
Overall, it is important to remember that the job of the Opposition Critics is to be, well, just that — critical of the government. As it stands, it seems the worst these designated critics can say is that the government didn’t prepare adequately for this monumental new change in legislation, which represents the reversal of a 95-year-long prohibition.
The Liberals claim that while things may seem rushed, this kind of confusion would have happened regardless of whether the law came into force one or 20 years from when Bill C-45 was given Royal Assent. However, it’s quite obvious why this law is coming into force right now. The legalization of cannabis in Canada was a big part of Trudeau’s campaign platform in 2015, so it makes a great deal of sense for Trudeau to want his legalization bill to come into force well ahead of the next election. It’s always good to be able to prove to the public that one can follow through on one’s promises when building a political platform.
Writer’s note and disclaimer: My name is Ella; I’m a U of G alumna, and I intern for Elizabeth May — MP for Saanich-Gulf Islands and the leader of the Green Party of Canada (GPC). As Ms. May’s intern, I attend parliamentary committees, correspond with constituents, attend legislative affairs, and work closely with her legislative assistants. The catch is, I have no prior experience with or knowledge of politics. This column details my experiences learning about the political culture and proceedings on Parliament Hill. My views are my own, and do not represent those of the GPC or of The Honourable Elizabeth May, MP.