Health Committee on Sept. 11th, 2017

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

With this legislation, the way it is written, does it favour...? For example, there are large companies out there now in the medicinal marijuana field. Does it favour those big organizations versus maybe new entrants, or as you said, “new skin in the game”?

[Michael Spratt]

It very well might. One of the things I've talked about are people who have been affected by criminal records for what will now be a legal activity. That's one of the considerations that can be given to rejecting applications by those individuals. Of course, your question also touches on some provincial jurisdictions and on some business considerations that are well out of my expertise.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

I'm interested in your opinion on independence and basically who benefits from this new legislation. There are obvious challenges out there with the legislation.

[Michael Spratt]

What I can say is that for the young, marginalized, racialized individuals I have represented and have seen in court, who have been criminalized because of past or current legislation with respect to marijuana, there is not much benefit for them in this legislation in terms of either redressing or improving their situation. I think that is something the committee should look at very closely.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Dr. Ware, I have a question for you. I'm going to challenge one of your comments in saying that it lacks high-quality research. I can see that in some ways, but we've been getting briefs from the Canadian Medical Association, for example, saying the research is very clear. For people under the age of 25, there are clear associations with psychological problems and damage due to cannabis use. The Canadian Paediatric Society also says the association is very clear.

Could you clarify what you mean by a lack of “high-quality research”? I know the science isn't there for a lot of this, but as far as damage, would you agree that for people under the age of 25, there is clear evidence that it can cause psychological problems and sometimes permanent impairment?

[Dr. Mark Ware]

I think this raises the challenge of trying to interpret any evidence of risk. I think you need to be careful when you make assumptions that the evidence is clear that there are risks. It's not just whether or not there's a risk. It's the magnitude of the risk and it is the factors that contribute to that risk.

In the case of mental health, what became clear to us from a number of positions, the CMA, the Canadian Paediatric Society, as well as the psychiatric associations and other perspectives that were taken into account, was that the association between cannabis use and mental health issues on a wide range of scales is attenuated by a number of other things, not just the cannabis itself.

I have already talked about potency issues, which are not factored into many of these discussions, but the age of onset, the frequency of use, the modality of consumption, and the socio-economic factors surrounding the individual who is using cannabis at an early age all contribute to elements of the risk equation. Different studies factor these confounding elements in different ways. Even when you speak to the experts, the medical associations and the pediatric associations are looking at a broad evidence base, and the danger is summarizing into one line a very complex body of evidence. They are summarizing things and making position statements based on a review of evidence. When you speak to the people who actually do those studies, you very quickly realize they are limited by the interpretation of some of those findings because of the differences in methodology, the differences in reporting, who uses, who reports use, and how they report the amount of use.

With all of that said, that's what I mean by the lack of high-quality evidence and why it's so important that we get a better handle on what people are using, how much they use, and when they use, and that we build our education programs to minimize those risks, not just of the drug itself but of the social economics and the social determinants of the people. Why are they choosing to use cannabis when they're 13 years old? That is something that we need to be looking at.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

But is it safe to—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Your time is up.

Mr. Davies.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you to the witnesses for being here.

Ms. McLellan, the task force recommended that edibles and concentrates be legalized and regulated. Can you please tell the committee why the task force made that recommendation?

[Anne McLellan]

They were products that were readily available when we discussed legalization in states like Colorado and Washington. As someone earlier mentioned, it's a growth area in the cannabis marketplace. Obviously, if you're concerned about public health, you want to move people away from smoking product into enjoying their cannabis. If it's for medicinal purposes, there are therapies in non-smoking forms. As we've mentioned, and as mentioned in the task force report, the edible market is growing. It is varied.

We also know there's a demand. If you want to move from the illicit market into a regulated legal market, then you have to offer the quality and choice that the illicit market can provide. It's fair to say that we heard that over and over again from a wide variety of people we talked to. There are public health reasons and public safety reasons why you would want to authorize or allow edibles in various forms. We have discovered that the forms in which they come are only limited by one's imagination.

It's fair to say that we heard a note of caution coming out of Colorado and Washington. What was their single biggest surprise out of the box? It was how much demand there was for edibles. One of the things they told us was that we have to be ready for that. We need edibles in our regulated market, but to make sure we're ready. Make sure that we don't make the same mistakes they did, which was to have somebody eat a whole chocolate bar. When you're eating an edible, it takes longer if you're looking for the high. Thirty minutes in, some guy who has consumed two squares of chocolate says he doesn't feel anything and eats the whole bar. Colorado had to go back in and fix all that, and the private sector wasn't very happy about the additional cost.

You want to be cautious. You want to make sure that you get the edibles piece right, because it is possible to make those kinds of bad judgments or mistakes in terms of consumption. You need to make sure your labelling is accurate, that your warning labels are there, and all of that. You need to be cautious around edibles out of the box. Learn from what we've seen in other jurisdictions, but absolutely, they have to be part of the consumer choice going forward in a regulated market.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

As you pointed out, it has been mentioned time and time again that one of the prime focuses of the bill is to take the production of cannabis away from the illicit market, the black market, the organized, criminally controlled market, and move it into the regulated world.

Clearly, the government hasn't taken that advice at this point. I want to point to what the task force said about Alaska:

The Government may want to consider the approach taken by the Alaskan government, which prohibits the manufacture and sale of any cannabis product that “closely resembles a familiar food or drink item including candy,” or is “adulterated” with additives or sweeteners. We are confident that with clear guidance to industry by the regulator and vigilant and predictable enforcement this is not an insurmountable barrier.

It has taken two years for the legislation to come before Parliament. We have the example of the Alaskan government. There are other jurisdictions that have proceeded with edibles.

Are you concerned that by passing Bill C-45 without having a regulated environment for edibles that we will continue to leave a large, and as you say, growing segment of cannabis to the black market, unregulated from a health point of view or a legal point of view?

[Anne McLellan]

I think you've answered your own question.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you.

[Anne McLellan]

Perhaps one of my colleagues wants to add something.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I'll move to Mr. Spratt.

I take it that your answer was in agreement with me.

[Anne McLellan]

Yes.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Spratt, picking up again from the task force, another recommendation was that offences with respect to exceeding the possession limit should be dealt with through graduated administrative penalties such as tickets, seizures, and fines, except where there was evidence of intent to traffic.

I want to focus on the graduated administrative penalties. There's a 14-year maximum that's conceivably applied to a 19-year-old selling marijuana to a 17-year-old. I understand the courts will use discretion, but it's theoretically possible. That's far in excess of what would happen to a 19-year-old giving a cigarette to a 17-year old, or a 19-year-old bootlegging alcohol to a 17-year-old. In fact, the 14-year maximum is equivalent to leaving Canada for the purposes of committing terrorism or producing child pornography.

Is that an example of a proportional offence? Do you think that's justified under this legislation?

[Michael Spratt]

No, it's not, and you're quite right that in the circumstances you've outlined, I would be shocked if a court ever imposed a 14-year sentence.

What we know from history and what we know from studies of the impacts of criminal records is that it's the imposition of a criminal record and not the imposition of custody that presents the biggest obstacle for young individuals to advance and become productive and prosocial members of society.

By leaving the option to impose a record at all in those situations, considerable harm will be done. We also know that it's not an 18-year-old white kid from a tony neighbourhood who is going to get in trouble for passing a joint to a 17-year-old friend. It will be individuals who are already marginalized, disadvantaged, and discriminated against. That is who will end up in court facing charges like that.

There is nothing in the legislation, apart from faith in discretion for ticketable offences, that mitigates that problem.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

The government has clearly said that it does not want to decriminalize now. The NDP has been pushing the government to do so.

Do you see a mechanism for doing that? What would be the appropriate policy in terms of applying the criminal law right now, given that we're moving towards legalization?

[Michael Spratt]

It would be appropriate now, and it would have been fair and just long ago, to craft a federal policy to urge prosecutors to use discretion in diverting these sorts of charges from the criminal justice system. It is now an offence to possess marijuana, but we know that will likely soon change.

It is a frequent and common misconception that right now people aren't arrested for marijuana offences. That's not true. People are. They're brought to jail, and mostly and largely, those people already suffer disadvantages or are from racialized minorities. They end up in our courts, and people do indeed get criminal records and receive criminal sanctions for simple possession of marijuana. Two weeks ago in an Ottawa court, court time was spent dealing with a young man who possessed half a gram of marijuana.

In the age of judicious use of court resources and the Jordan ruling principles, with charges being thrown out of court, that is something that should not be tolerated and it's something that can be easily fixed through a directive to public prosecutors.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Thanks very much.

We go to Mr. Oliver.

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

I just want to follow up on that last comment you made on it being “easily fixed”. We'll obviously be reviewing the bill and going through clause-by-clause.

What would your fix be for that? That's not part of the legislative direction. That's more of a—

[Michael Spratt]

It would be a policy directive to prosecutors.

What the bill could do is ameliorate some of those consequences that have arisen historically and have continued to arise while this bill has been before Parliament, to allow people who have been convicted for simple possession of marijuana to easily apply for pardons on an expedited basis. Perhaps the fee of over $600 that, again, disproportionately and sometimes unfairly limits the availability of pardons to only wealthier members of society could be dealt with directly in this bill. It would be a prime chance to fix some of the unconstitutionality in the record suspension process that currently exists.

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Thank you.

As I came into the questioning later, a lot of my questions had been asked already. I am going to focus on the pharmacy presentation for a bit here.

I was a little bit confused. We're dealing here with recreational marijuana in Bill C-45, but you were making a strong case for pharmacists to continue to sell cannabis under medical prescriptions.

Pharmacies stopped selling cigarettes a long time ago because of the negative health consequences of them. Are you feeling a conflict at all with your association trying to sell medical marijuana, which is primarily going to be smoked?

[Shelita Dattani]

Thank you for your question.

First of all, pharmacists are not currently involved in dispensing or selling medical marijuana at all to patients, just to clarify.