Evidence of meeting #64 for Health in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was medical.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Jacqueline Bogden  Assistant Deputy Minister, Cannabis Legalization and Regulation Branch, Department of Health
Carole Morency  Director General and Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Kathy Thompson  Assistant Deputy Minister, Community Safety and Countering Crime Branch, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Commissioner Joanne Crampton  Federal Policing Criminal Operations, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Diane Labelle  General Counsel, Health Canada Legal Services, Department of Justice
Eric Costen  Director General, Cannabis Legalization and Regulation Branch, Department of Health
Anne McLellan  Senior Advisor, Bennett Jones LLP, As an Individual
Mark Ware  Associate Professor, Department of Family Medicine, McGill University, As an Individual
Michael Spratt  Criminal Lawyer, Abergel Goldstein and Partners, As an Individual
David Johnston  President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Association for Pharmacy Distribution Management
Shelita Dattani  Director, Practice Development and Knowledge Translation, Canadian Pharmacists Association
Philippe Lucas  Executive Director, Canadian Medical Cannabis Council
Keith Jones  Chair, Government Relations, Canadian Hemp Trade Alliance
Dale Tesarowski  Executive Director, Corporate Initiatives, Performance and Planning, Saskatchewan Ministry of Justice
Sébastien St. Louis  Member of Board of Directors, Cannabis Canada Association
Colette Rivet  Executive Director, Cannabis Canada Association
Robert Rae  Director, Canadian Hemp Trade Alliance
Laurent Marcoux  President, Canadian Medical Association
Trevor Bhupsingh  Director General, Law Enforcement and Border Strategies Directorate, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Martin Bruce  Organized Crime Section, Vancouver Police Department
Jeff Blackmer  Vice-President, Medical Professionalism, Canadian Medical Association
Jennifer Lutfallah  Director General, Enforcement and Intelligence Programs, Canada Border Services Agency
Sergeant Bill Speam  Organized Crime Section, Vancouver Police Department

9 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bill Casey

For clarification, Ms. Gladu said that each adult has the right to have four plants. Is that each adult or each household?

9 a.m.

Assistant Deputy Minister, Cannabis Legalization and Regulation Branch, Department of Health

Jacqueline Bogden

That is a very good question. It is each household, and it is an important restriction or a conscious choice in the design of that provision of the legislation. I should have mentioned that.

9 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bill Casey

Thank you.

Mr. Davies.

9 a.m.

NDP

Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to all the witnesses for being here today.

Bill C-45 restricts legal cannabis products to dried cannabis, cannabis oil, cannabis plants, plant seeds, and one other part, which escapes me. However, what is clear is that the legislation will continue to keep cannabis products such as edibles, creams, tinctures, patches, and those kinds of things illegal. What percentage of the current cannabis market is taken up by the products that will still remain illegal under the bill?

9:05 a.m.

Assistant Deputy Minister, Cannabis Legalization and Regulation Branch, Department of Health

Jacqueline Bogden

Perhaps I could clarify that the legislation does contemplate the provision of both dried cannabis and cannabis oil, as well as plants and seedlings, but it also contemplates the sale of edibles, a broader range of products that would be competitive with the illegal market. Upon introduction of the legislation, the government indicated that sales at the outset of the coming into force of the legislation would be for dried cannabis, oil, and plants, and that it will take us a bit more time to develop the regulations we need to bring into force sales of edibles. If you would like more information—

9:05 a.m.

NDP

Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC

I understand that. My question is this. Upon the coming into force of the bill, edibles will not be legal. I understand the bill contemplates future legalization, but am I correct that the day after this comes into force I can't go buy edibles?

9:05 a.m.

Assistant Deputy Minister, Cannabis Legalization and Regulation Branch, Department of Health

Jacqueline Bogden

That's correct.

9:05 a.m.

NDP

Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC

Thank you.

What percentage of the market currently is taken up by things that will still be illegal upon the coming into force of the bill? Does the government not know?

9:05 a.m.

Assistant Deputy Minister, Cannabis Legalization and Regulation Branch, Department of Health

Jacqueline Bogden

I don't think I have that information but I can commit to getting back to you, if we have an estimate in that regard.

9:05 a.m.

NDP

Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC

Thank you.

My research indicates that about 65% of cannabis in this country is currently being smoked and about 35% of the market is being accessed by people who don't want to smoke cannabis for a variety of health-related and preference reasons. One of the purposes of the bill is to bring illicit, black-market products into the licit, regulated market. I'm having trouble understanding how it would achieve that if we still leave to the black market one-third of the products Canadians are currently accessing and, I'm advised, growing because people are seeking to move away from smoking and prefer to ingest cannabis in healthier ways.

Isn't it the case that by leaving those products illegal we're still going to have Canadians accessing those products in the black market way, and therefore, not really achieve one of the prime objectives of the bill?

9:05 a.m.

Assistant Deputy Minister, Cannabis Legalization and Regulation Branch, Department of Health

Jacqueline Bogden

I'll start and perhaps turn to my colleague, Mr. Costen.

You raise a very important point. You are absolutely correct that an increasing number of Canadians are choosing not to smoke cannabis, but rather are moving to consuming, for example, cannabis oil, which can be consumed in many forms. I should clarify that Canadians would be able to consume cannabis oil in the form of edibles. They could bake it into goods, as they do now. People create butters at home and things like that. There is a provision in the legislation that would prohibit people from using dangerous solvents to produce those edibles at home, so people would have the ability to consume it in healthier ways.

9:05 a.m.

NDP

Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC

Can I ask you a question about that? I'm curious about it. When you went through clause 7, you indicated that one of the purposes of the bill was to provide Canadians with “regulated, quality-controlled” cannabis. How is leaving Canadians to bake their own edibles in their own kitchens, with no quality control whatsoever—and I would imagine that some of those products are going to get out of those kitchens and be shared with neighbours, etc.—giving Canadians quality-controlled cannabis, as opposed to regulating edibles and other products, like the task force actually recommended that this government do?

9:05 a.m.

Assistant Deputy Minister, Cannabis Legalization and Regulation Branch, Department of Health

Jacqueline Bogden

I think it's important to recognize that it will take time to be able to have all of the regulations in place to implement this legislation. We have existing regulations that govern the production of cannabis for medical purposes that can be used and easily brought into force with respect to the production of cannabis—dried cannabis and cannabis oil—and the government is planning to have the regulations regarding edibles prepared as soon as possible so that those could be brought into force quickly.

9:10 a.m.

NDP

Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC

Thank you. I'm going to move to something else if I can.

The Government of Canada information relating to Bill C-45 explains that provinces or territories could “increase the minimum age” of sale of cannabis, but it also says that they may “lower the personal possession limit in their jurisdiction”. That's from the Government of Canada information, “Legalizing and strictly regulating cannabis: the facts”. Is that correct? Would this legislation permit provinces to lower the personal possession limit, which I believe is 30 grams?

9:10 a.m.

Assistant Deputy Minister, Cannabis Legalization and Regulation Branch, Department of Health

Jacqueline Bogden

Yes, that's correct.

9:10 a.m.

NDP

Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC

What if a province decided to reduce that to zero?

9:10 a.m.

Assistant Deputy Minister, Cannabis Legalization and Regulation Branch, Department of Health

Jacqueline Bogden

I'm going to ask my colleague from the Department of Justice to answer that question, if that's all right.

9:10 a.m.

General Counsel, Health Canada Legal Services, Department of Justice

Diane Labelle

As stated in the legislative backgrounder as well, we have used that example. The scheme set out in Bill C-45 provides for prohibitions, offences, and penalties, and it authorizes activities in relation to cannabis, while at the same time allowing provinces and territories to enact legislation of their own in this same area.

This comes back to how the legislative power is divided amongst the federal level and the provincial levels. Health is one of these areas that's been described as “amorphous” by the Supreme Court of Canada. Depending on the purpose of the legislation, it can fall either to Parliament under the use of the criminal law power or to the provinces in this very area under a power of their own—for example, local matters or civil rights.

9:10 a.m.

NDP

Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC

Ms. Labelle, can it go to zero? If they could, what's the floor that provinces could reduce it to? Could it not defeat the purpose of the legislation?

9:10 a.m.

General Counsel, Health Canada Legal Services, Department of Justice

Diane Labelle

The idea here is each exercising their own authorities, right? Parliament has set an upper limit, for example, for 30 grams in public. A province, for its own purposes, could then set it down to 15 grams.

Where we have limits to this kind of range has to do with the double aspect doctrine. Where compliance with one act requires non-compliance with the other—a province brings it down to zero—or where the purpose of a federal act would be frustrated by the provision of a provincial one—again, a province bringing it down to zero—this could give rise to paramountcy. In other words, a court would examine whether there is a conflict, or whether the purposes of the federal act are frustrated, and could find the provincial law inoperable to the extent of that frustration.

When we're looking at a situation where Parliament is wanting to allow access to a lawful supply by adults and a province enacts legislation that interferes with that ability to the point where it is zero, then a court, if challenged, could look at the situation and see to what extent Parliament's law has been frustrated.

9:10 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bill Casey

Your time is up. Thank you very much.

Dr. Eyolfson.

September 11th, 2017 / 9:10 a.m.

Liberal

Doug Eyolfson Liberal Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB

Thank you all for coming.

This legislation, I've always believed, long before I was in politics, is a long time in coming.

I practised emergency medicine for 20 years in Winnipeg. One of the things I found, in my experience, was that in one respect, cannabis was a very dangerous drug, and it does kill. How I found it kills is through the criminal activities of those who market it. I saw an unconscionable number of gunshot wounds, stab wounds, and fatal beatings. The vast majority of them were due to the drug trade. I was once evacuated from an apartment building that was firebombed over a bad drug deal, back in the late eighties. It was not my apartment but the building I lived in. I know the extent of the violence of the current regime and how thriving the black market is, so it's important that we make a change to this.

In regard to some of the concerns I've heard brought up.... The provinces may set their own ages. We know that the Canadian Medical Association suggested 21. Our legislation says a minimum of 18. There was an experience in the United States a number years ago. They increased their drinking age to 21 across the board, but before that, there was a variation in ages. They had the experience that if there was a drinking age of 19 in one state, and a neighbouring state had 21, they had a lot of people travelling over to drink and a lot of accidents. They used the term “blood borders”.

If there were too much of a disparate age restriction between provinces, would you see that kind of public safety issue?

9:15 a.m.

Assistant Deputy Minister, Cannabis Legalization and Regulation Branch, Department of Health

Jacqueline Bogden

The situation we have in this country now recognizes that provinces can make those decisions. We have different ages for alcohol. I would also offer that the provinces are very alive to the issue you're raising and are having discussions among themselves about the areas where they might wish to achieve consistency. What are the areas where they might wish to have consistency, and what are the areas where they could live with inconsistency but put in place mitigation measures of some kind?

9:15 a.m.

Liberal

Doug Eyolfson Liberal Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB

All right, thank you.

In regard to the policing costs, there has been a lot of speculation by the provinces about how much this is going to cost and whether they should be getting money for policing. Is there an estimate as to how much the current regime is costing police departments? We know that police resources are right now being used for arresting people for simple possession, these people going through the courts, and court costs and these sort of things. There are also the societal costs of these people having criminal records. They can't get jobs now because of this. Is there an estimate of how the costs of our current legal regime might compare with what they would be after this legislation is passed?

9:15 a.m.

Assistant Deputy Minister, Cannabis Legalization and Regulation Branch, Department of Health

Jacqueline Bogden

Perhaps my colleague from Justice, Madame Morency, could respond to that question.