Health Committee on May 1st, 2014

[The Chair, Conservative, Ben Lobb]

We just had a point of order from Mr. Young.

Ms. Sitsabaiesan, you have a point of order now?

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

It's on that same point.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ben Lobb]

On Mr. Young's point of order...?

Well, his point of order wasn't a point of order, but do you have a point of order?

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Why was it not a point of order?

The order of this meeting is to conduct a study on a certain subject, which is outlined in the motion.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

We are conducting a study, so let's just move on.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ben Lobb]

Fair enough.

Mr. Young had his point of order.

Now you have something you wanted to say on this too?

Go ahead.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm looking at the actual scope of this study, and it reads that the committee “undertake a study of no more than...on the scientific evidence related to the health risks and harms associated with the use of marijuana”.

That's it. It doesn't say on the use of marijuana for recreational purposes, use of marijuana on youth, use of marijuana for medical purposes. It doesn't say that. The use of marijuana for any purpose is what this study is about, Mr. Chair.

I'm reading the scope that I was provided by members of this committee. I know that I'm a visiting member of this committee today as well, and I understand what I read in ink in front of me. If the members opposite would like to skew what the scope of this study is for their own purposes, their own benefits, for what they'd like to have on the record, my understanding, Mr. Chair, it's that it's your job to make sure we're following the actual scope that is written. It's not what members extrapolate from the scope on to what their scope might be.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ben Lobb]

Fair enough.

Again, I just hope that everyone recognizes that this is first hour of the first meeting, and there's a lot of education for everyone to have here.

The only thing I will say, as the chair—and it's not my role to educate anyone on anything—is that the methods and formats in which cannabis is ingested, the levels of THC and ICB that are in marijuana, for both medical and recreational marijuana, are different. Although they're still in the same family, there are completely different levels of THC, and they are ingested in completely different ways.

Now, I'm not here to provide testimony, and this obviously isn't going to be in the report. All I'm saying is that we have a minute and a half to go on Ms. Ashton's time.

I appreciate your comments, and they're well taken. Thank you for that.

Ms. Fry, you have a point of order.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Yes.

My colleague read the scope of this thing, and I think what is happening here, and I want to protest it, is that every time someone asks a question or poses any question at all to the witnesses...given that it's about marijuana, there's nothing about levels of THC; there's absolutely nothing about it. Marijuana, generically speaking, is actually a class that encompasses medical use as well as recreational use. We should be free to ask questions on any of that.

I also let everyone know earlier on that I thought we couldn't discuss harms and risks without discussing benefits, if anything. I think that if every time someone asks a question, there is someone shouting a point of order and not allowing them to ask the question, I think this is a waste of everyone's time.

It is not the fulsome way—and I've been here for 20 years—that any parliamentary committee that I have ever worked under.... The narrowing of the scope, according to what the chair and the members of the government believe we should be doing here, is a useless thing. It's a farce.

I would like to make sure that we can deal with this as written and not continue to have this kind of manipulation of the issue.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ben Lobb]

Fair enough, Ms. Fry, and that's why I've allowed some latitude in the questioning, in recognizing that everybody wants to learn as much as they can from this study and to find out what they can. I appreciate your point of order and—

Mr. Young, do you have something else?

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

My point was....

By the way, Ms. Fry, no one interrupted you when you questioned. You said that everyone was interrupting. No one interrupted you.

I raised the point of order because the study is on the health risks and the harms of marijuana. We have five meetings to do it, and I'm sorry Ms. Ashton and Ms. Fry were not at the meeting where we had the discussion that set the parameters of the meeting. That's health risks and harm, and Ms. Ashton's question was on the benefits. That's a whole other subject. That's a subject that could take us into 10, 15, 20, or 30 meetings. We don't have time to do that. The media is full of all kinds of articles about the benefits of marijuana. The purpose of this study was to study the risks—

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Chair, on a point of order—

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

—and harms.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

—he's discussing the in camera in a public forum. It is not allowed to discuss what went on in camera in a public forum. I'm sorry. It's just not done.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

It's in the motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ben Lobb]

Okay—

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

But for what happened, who was here and who wasn't here, these are not allowed to be discussed in a public forum when we're talking about an in camera meeting. If you want to start discussing in camera, I can suggest that I did put forward an amendment to this. We all know here that five against four will never get any amendment passed if it doesn't want to be passed. But I have never as a physician ever heard of discussing the harms and risks of something without discussing the benefits.

Sorry.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ben Lobb]

Okay, fair enough. If we go back to a couple of meetings ago, I thought we had a committee that was functioning pretty well. I'd ask all members, regardless of their points of view on this study, to try to remember the spirit in which this health committee works.

Ms. Ashton, believe it or not, you still have a minute and a half left. If you could continue, that would be great. Thank you.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Sure. I think that was a pretty clear display of how uncomfortable the government feels, sadly, when we actually ask scientific and related questions, despite the fact that the public actually values the work of scientists, researchers, and medical professionals.

Maybe on a related topic, I'm wondering if you could answer why we do have the medical marijuana program.

[Hilary Geller]

The medical marijuana program is a result of various court decisions over the years, the first one over a decade ago. The program evolved in response to subsequent court decisions and has been overhauled and replaced with the new regime, which came into effect last June under a new set of marijuana for medical purposes regulations.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

So has Health Canada...? I think we're all familiar with the court decision, but does Health Canada agree with...? I mean, obviously you have to live up to the court decision, but is there no research you work with that shows medical marijuana helps people?

[Hilary Geller]

What we've done to support health care practitioners who play a role in the system.... Without an authorization from a health care practitioner, an individual is not able to access marijuana for medical purposes. We've had an expert advisory committee, first in 2003, then in 2010, and updated in 2013, that has gone through all the evidence that's available and has come up with a document that's several inches thick and is similar to a product monograph, as much as possible, to help guide physicians and bring together all in one place an overview of the benefits, the harms, the risks, and the dosing, to the extent that the information is available to them.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ben Lobb]

You're up on the clock here, so I'll give the time to Mr. Wilks.

I should point out that when I made my interjection, I misspoke. I think I called it “ICB”, but it's CBD. I want to correct that for the record.

Mr. Wilks, you have until 9:45, sir.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and all of the drugs that are listed under the CDSA, is there any other drug aside from marijuana that can be legally prescribed by a doctor without a prescription?