Bill C-45 · 42th Parliament · Justin Trudeau
Cannabis Act
An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other Acts
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedApril 13, 2017
- Debated in principleJune 8, 2017
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberNov. 27, 2017
- Passed the second chamberJune 6, 2018
- Became lawJune 20, 2018
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Justin TrudeauPrime Minister
Who carries this bill
Arrows run from the person responsible to those who answer to them on this bill. The critic leads the Senate’s scrutiny and answers to no one on it.
What it set out to do
The pre-release version of this Legislative Summary is now available. Parliamentarians and their staff can obtain a copy by submitting a request or contacting the Library of Parliament. Members of the public can obtain a copy by the contacting the Information Service at the Library of Parliament. On 13 April 2017, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada introduced Bill C-45, An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other Acts (Cannabis Act), in the House of Commons and it was given first reading. Bill C-45 enacts the Cannabis Act to provide legal access to cannabis and to control and regulate its production, distribution and sale. The objectives of the Act are to prevent young persons from accessing cannabis, to protect public health and public safety by establishing strict product safety and product quality requirements and to deter criminal activity by imposing serious criminal penalties for those operating outside the legal framework. The Act is also intended to reduce the burden on the criminal justice system in relation to cannabis. The Act (a) establishes criminal prohibitions such as the unlawful sa…
Summary by the Library of Parliament.
Where members stand
Votes and debate for this bill have not been read yet.
How it changed on the way
14% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (39,838 words introduced, 42,617 passed). A committee amended it.
moderate changeintent mostly kept
The bill added a medical-emergency exemption from possession offences and a statutory review clause while updating years and section numbers. It also removed certain cultivation-height limits and sponsorship prohibitions that appeared in the introduced version.
- New medical-emergency exemption was inserted after section 8.
After: “Definition of medical emergency 8.1 (1) For the purposes of this section, medical emergency means a physiological event induced by the introduction of a psychoactive substance into the body of a person that results in a life-threatening situation and in respect of which there are reasonable grounds to believe that the person requires emergency medical or law enforcement assistance.”
- New review provision was added after section 151.
After: “Review and Report 151.1 Review of Act”
- Specific height limit on home cultivation was removed.
Before: “(a) to cultivate, propagate or harvest, in their dwelling-house, any cannabis plant that is more than 100 cm in height, not including any part of the plant that is not normally exposed to the air;”
- Sponsorship display prohibition was removed.
Before: “Sponsorship 21 It is prohibited to display, in a promotion that is used, directly or indirectly, 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 related to cannabis;”
How precisely it is written
mostly preciseChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Moderate
The Act relies on dozens of defined terms and exact numerical thresholds for ages, fines and prison terms, which reduces argument over coverage. A few key phrases still use subjective standards that invite debate over application.
Open to argument
“that is reasonably associated with, or that evokes”
Uses a reasonableness standard rather than an objective list or test.“that is likely to influence and shape attitudes, beliefs and behaviours”
Relies on a predictive judgment about effects rather than a concrete description of the act.
Clear-cut
“an individual who is 18 years of age or older”
Fixes a bright-line age with no discretion.“to a fine of not more than $5,000 or imprisonment for a term of not more than six months”
States maximum penalties in exact dollar and time amounts.“imprisonment for a term of not more than five years less a day”
Uses a precise duration that avoids ambiguity about sentencing ranges.
Discretion. The Minister may designate inspectors and analysts, issue notices of violation, enter compliance agreements, and make regulations on many operational details including packaging, promotion and record-keeping.
Challenging the law itself. The promotion and brand-element definitions could be attacked for vagueness or overbreadth under section 2(b) Charter freedom of expression.
Disputing a charge under it. Detailed definitions and numerical limits make most factual disputes straightforward, but the 'likely to influence' test in promotion offences leaves room for argument.
Read by a language model from the royal assent text; every quoted phrase appears in the bill. A reading of the drafting, not legal advice.
Did it work?
partly effective
The statutory legislative review and departmental evaluation indicate significant progress toward legal access, regulated supply, youth protection goals, and displacing illicit markets, including a 95% drop in possession charges. However, both reports highlight ongoing challenges with public health impacts, Indigenous communities, illicit market persistence, and the need for further refinements via 54+ recommendations.
- Legislative Review of the Cannabis Act: Final Report of the Expert PanelreviewSignificant progress on key objectives including establishment of a legal industry providing quality-controlled cannabis to adults and a 95% reduction in possession charges from 2017-2022, while noting gaps requiring 54 recommendations for improvement.
- Horizontal Evaluation of the Legalization and Strict Regulation of Cannabis 2017-18 to 2021-22evaluationImplementation of the Cannabis framework was a success given short timelines and complexity, achieving core goals of legal access and regulation.
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.