Health Committee on Sept. 11th, 2017

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Is there a risk that we could divert medicinal cannabis such that medicinal cannabis users are not getting access?

[Philippe Lucas]

I think that's ultimately up to the individual companies that are moving towards medical and recreational. The company that I work for, Tilray, will remain a medical brand. We're not going to have a recreational brand at all under Tilray's heading.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thanks.

Mr. Tesarowski, I have a couple of things. The task force final report recommended that the federal government “Work with provincial and territorial governments to determine a tax regime that includes equitable distribution of revenues”.

As far as you know, have any discussions or agreements been reached with Saskatchewan?

[Dale Tesarowski]

Those discussions are ongoing. As I understand, they've been ongoing for some time and will continue until they come to a conclusion.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Okay.

I have a question about the Constitution. The way I understand it, Bill C-45 will require all producers to apply to the federal government for a licence.

I come from British Columbia and I know that with beer there are a lot of small craft producers, and I believe they're regulated provincially. Are there any constitutional considerations? Let's say a local Saskatchewan producer just wants to grow and sell in Saskatchewan. Do you see any constitutional challenge there in terms of a usurpation of provincial jurisdiction over property and civil rights? Has that been discussed or thought of?

[Dale Tesarowski]

Gosh, that's a good question. It's one that we have toyed with but aren't looking at, given the time frame we have.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Okay.

I have one quick, final question.

Again, the task force recommended that the federal government “Conduct the necessary economic analysis to establish an approach to tax and price that balances health protection with the goal of reducing the illicit market”.

Has the federal government shared that economic analysis with the Province of Saskatchewan?

[Dale Tesarowski]

I'm not in a position to answer that. That's something they're having discussions with our finance people about—

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

—and they don't always share.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you, sir.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

That's it.

Thank you very much to the panel. We appreciate your input and your contribution to our study. We continue to learn as we go, but you've been very helpful.

With that, we are going to suspend for 20 minutes. We'll be back at four o'clock for our next panel.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

It being four o'clock, I call meeting number 64 of the Standing Committee on Health to order. I welcome our new panel.

On this panel we have from Canada Border Services, Jennifer Lutfallah, director general, enforcement and intelligence. From the Canadian Medical Association we have Dr. Laurent Marcoux, president, and Dr. Jeff Blackmer, vice-president, medical professionalism. From the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, we have Trevor Bhupsingh, director general, law enforcement and border strategies.

By video conference, on behalf of the Vancouver Police Department, we have Martin Bruce, inspector, organized crime section, and Bill Speam, staff sergeant, organized crime section.

I understand that Canada Border Services is not making an opening statement, so we will go right to the Canadian Medical Association for 10 minutes.

Dr. Marcoux, the floor is yours.

[Dr. Laurent Marcoux, President, Canadian Medical Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My name is Dr. Laurent Marcoux. I am pleased to be here today in my role as president of the Canadian Medical Association, the CMA. I am joined by Dr. Jeff Blackmer, vice-president of Medical Professionalism at the CMA.

As the national organization representing over 85,000 physicians and physicians-in-training, the CMA has long been concerned about the health risks of cannabis, especially when smoked. These include cardiovascular, pulmonary and mental illnesses, motor vehicle accidents, and addiction.

In legalizing cannabis for recreational purposes, the federal government needs to exercise caution. It must establish public health objectives and be accountable for them. It must focus on protecting Canadians and reducing harm.

The CMA is therefore recommending a broad public health approach, which would focus on preventing problematic drug use, ensuring access to treatment services for those who wish to stop using, and increasing the safety for those who are using through harm reduction.

The goal of this approach is to decrease the negative health, social and economic consequences of drug use for the individual, the community and society as a whole.

Children and youth are especially at risk of harm, given their brain's development. And they are among the highest users of cannabis in Canada.

To better protect this part of the population, we are recommending that the age of legalization be set at 21 years. The quantities and the potency of cannabis should also be more restricted to those under age 25.

Despite these increased risks, however, evidence shows that youth today do not believe cannabis has serious health effects. A comprehensive public health strategy for cannabis must therefore include education, similar to what has been done with tobacco.

Educational strategies should be implemented before, and no later than the enactment of any legislation in order to increase awareness of the harms and to conduct further research on its impact. The CMA urges the government to support the widespread dissemination of lower-risk cannabis use guidelines incorporating its messages into educational strategies.

Once legislation is in effect, cannabis will be available for those who wish to use it for health issues, either with or without medical authorization. We are therefore recommending only one regime for both medical and non-medical use. However, this regime will need to ensure access for those unable to acquire cannabis legally, for example, those below the minimum age.

If the government does decide to maintain two separate systems, we recommend that the legislation be reviewed within five years to assess, for example, the number of users in the medical system and the number of physicians authorizing medical cannabis use.

Cannabis use has significant health risks, and we continue to call for more research into its effects. Legalizing won't change the risk. The government's focus should therefore be first and foremost on protecting Canadians, especially the young, and reducing harms to health.

Thank you. I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Thank you very much.

Now we'll go to the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.

Mr. Bhupsingh.

[Trevor Bhupsingh, Director General, Law Enforcement and Border Strategies Directorate, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Good afternoon, Chair, committee members. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you from a law enforcement and public safety perspective regarding Bill C-45.

My name is Trevor Bhupsingh. I'm the director general of law enforcement and border strategies at Public Safety Canada. I'd like to briefly introduce my colleague, Jennifer Lutfallah, who is the director general for enforcement and intelligence programs at the Canada Border Services Agency.

My colleague and I are here today to answer your questions about our respective organizations' roles in relation to C-45.

The government has taken a balanced approach to the cannabis legalization and regulation. We are confident that the necessary law enforcement and public safety considerations are incorporated into the bill, and are informing the development of the regime that will be put in place to regulate cannabis.

Bill C-45 reflects the collaborative work that has been accomplished by Health Canada, the Department of Justice, Public Safety, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and the Canada Border Services Agency, along with provincial and territorial governments and law enforcement stakeholders.

Public Safety Canada has taken a leadership role in working with law enforcement from across the country and with our international partners to ensure that the legalization and regulation of cannabis is accomplished through a public safety lens. In preparation for the cannabis task force work, Public Safety held a round table discussion on the legalization of cannabis with law enforcement and provincial and territorial government representatives. The discussions provided clear direction on elements and perspectives that required consideration and needed to be reflected in the proposed cannabis act and the legalization regime. This information was provided to the task force and helped guide their consultations with law enforcement, other stakeholders, and Canadians.

Law and border enforcement recognize that a legalized cannabis regime needs to protect public health and safety, particularly among youth. In this regard, Public Safety Canada and its partners, such as the RCMP and the CBSA, have focused on several key objectives in the development of the bill. First, the need to keep criminals and organized crime networks from infiltrating the legal cannabis market, strengthening laws to reduce the cannabis black market, and protecting youth.

Legalizing cannabis is a significant change in social norms, but what we know is that cannabis has been a very lucrative commodity for criminals. This too needs to change. The RCMP and law enforcement across the country can attest to the fact that organized crime has been heavily involved in the illicit cannabis market, making significant profits that are used to fund illegal activities. It has been estimated that there are up to 650 criminal organizations in Canada, and up to 50% of those have been identified as being involved in the illicit cannabis black market.

It's difficult to fully anticipate how organized crime and the illicit market will react once the cannabis regime comes into effect. Organized crime involvement and any commodity or activity can change as the supply and the demand shift and the opportunity for their profits are affected. However, much work is under way to keep cannabis profits out of the hands of organized crime. Public Safety Canada is supporting other federal departments that are leading discussions on cannabis taxation and pricing. These are important aspects that will help ensure that projected revenues from the production, distribution, and sale do not flow to organized crime.

As the new regime is built, requirements under the act, such as the criminal record checks for those who want to produce cannabis, will keep criminals presently operating in the illicit cannabis market from moving into the legal regime. RCMP, federal policing, and other Canadian law enforcement will continue to work nationally and with international partners to target organized crime and criminal networks. Public Safety Canada will support these efforts by monitoring change in the illegal drug market.

Regarding border security, the CBSA currently investigates and interdicts the unauthorized cross-border movement of cannabis at Canada's ports of entry while maintaining the free flow of legitimate travel and trade.

The new legislation will maintain the existing cross-border framework with respect to the illegal movement of cannabis. As such, the Canada Border Services Agency will continue to examine persons and shipments for cannabis at our ports of entry, pursuant to the Customs Act. The agency will also continue to work closely with law enforcement partners, such as the RCMP and local policing agencies, who are responsible for investigations pursuant to the new cannabis act.

It is important to note that the proposed cannabis act does not impede law enforcement's ability to target and dismantle cannabis operations. The bill sends a strong message about the seriousness of crimes that involve cannabis. For example, the maximum penalties for criminal offences under the proposed act for producing, distributing, selling, and importing and exporting cannabis can result in 14 years' imprisonment.

Another very important objective of the government is that Public Safety Canada and our law enforcement community will work to support protecting youth. The act clearly reflects the view that we want to keep cannabis out of the hands of youth by restricting access to cannabis and deterring unlawful activities with cannabis through appropriate sanctions and enforcement measures. This is why adults who use youth to commit a cannabis crime would face the same 14-year maximum penalties as those who illegally sell or traffic cannabis. Further, provinces and territories have the ability to establish their own provisions to prohibit persons possessing any amount of cannabis under the minimum age. This will also give police the authority to seize cannabis from youth, while not subjecting them to criminal prosecution for possessing or sharing very small amounts of cannabis.

The government has been clear that strictly regulating cannabis within the legalized framework is of the utmost importance. As such, a ticketing scheme is put forward under the proposed legislation. This would allow law enforcement to issue a criminal ticket to an individual 18 years or older for relatively minor violations of the rules set out in the act, including possession of cannabis beyond the legal limit of 30 grams but up to 50 grams, or five or six plants for home cultivation, and/or outside the prescribed restrictions. The penalty for these acts is a monetary fine of $200.

Public Safety Canada recognizes the degree of effort required to ensure the necessary public safeguards are in place as we move forward with the proposed cannabis legislation. We will continue to work with Health Canada and the Department of Justice on all aspects of the new regime, including licensing and compliance, and a robust public awareness campaign specifically targeting youth. We will be communicating the new law and enforcement regime to police and all Canadians through online training modules and by leveraging media and social media opportunities. Furthermore, we'll be undertaking continuous research, data collection, evaluation, and open dialogue across Canada with law enforcement stakeholders. We'll work to support law enforcement to implement and operationalize the new legislation.

The proposed new cannabis act will be an important piece of legislation from a law enforcement and public safety perspective.

Thank you. My colleague and I are happy to take questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Thank you very much.

Now we go to the Vancouver Police Department by video conference. I offer Inspector Bruce the opportunity to make an opening statement.

[Inspector Martin Bruce, Organized Crime Section, Vancouver Police Department]

Good afternoon. I am Inspector Martin Bruce of the Vancouver Police organized crime section. With me is Staff Sergeant Bill Speam. Bill is the subject matter expert in investigations related to organized crime.

On behalf of Chief Adam Palmer, I would like to thank the honourable members of the committee for the opportunity to make a submission on Bill C-45. Being mindful of the committee's time, I will be brief.

The concerns of the Vancouver Police Department are very likely to be those echoed by the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and other public safety partners. However, in the local context, our concerns fall into four main areas: access by youth, personal cultivation, the role of organized crime, and the implementation timeline.

With regard to access by youth, our view is that allowing 12 to 17-year-olds to possess or socially share up to five grams of marijuana will create issues when police need to interact in a number of settings where youth are present, but particularly in our schools. For example, what powers will our officers have to intervene and seize marijuana that's being offered to a vulnerable student by another youth, or to deal with any other nuisance calls involving youth effectively? We note that the proposed ticketing scheme will apply to those aged 18 years and over.

This possession ability combined with personal cultivation in the home appears to conflict with the government's stated objective to create a highly regulated environment that minimizes youth access to the drug.

With regard to personal cultivation, we oppose it and believe it will be a catalyst for overproduction that will flood the illicit market and effectively undermine the pricing structure and supply offered by the regulated regime. It will also bring with it the potential for home invasions, break and enters, robbery, theft of electricity, nuisances, and other calls for service that make communities less safe and further stretch police and other first responder resources that are already grappling with the opioid overdose crisis in this province and elsewhere.

The four-plant maximum will be impossible to effectively enforce and as the new act will be layered over existing medical marijuana regulations, it will be difficult for front-line officers to determine what authorities they have in the myriad of potential circumstances that will exist. Seizures later determined to be unlawful may leave police agencies liable for degraded marijuana stored over time that has to be returned to owners. Officers will also have the potential to be the subject of British Columbia Police Act complaints for misinterpretation of the various provisions.

As to the role of organized crime, if the pricing structure and availability of regulated marijuana isn't set at realistic levels, organized crime will take advantage in the same way they have done with illicit tobacco products. To meet any increase in demand, criminal elements will also have the potential to increase output especially in urban settings under the cloak of personal production and through a proliferation of residential marijuana grow operations.

With regard to the implementation timeline, the implementation of Bill C-45 leaves us with many unanswered questions, especially around where responsibilities will ultimately lay and around how and when that information will be conveyed. In the absence of that detail, we have concerns that the remaining timeline poses significant challenges with regard to the appropriate training and equipping of our members, amending our procedures, and potentially adapting our facilities.

Finally, we would seek assurances that funding will be in place for a comprehensive public education strategy, that it will be implemented well in advance of legalization, and that such a campaign will focus on the developmental harms associated with youth, other known harms linked to marijuana use, and the dangers associated with the impaired operation of motor vehicles.

Thank you again for providing us with this forum. We would be pleased to answer any questions the committee might have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Thank you very much.

Now we'll proceed to our seven-minute round of questions and answers, starting with Dr. Eyolfson.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to take this opportunity very quickly to correct some information that was given to the committee at a previous session regarding the increase in impaired driving in Colorado. I have two letters here from the states of Colorado and Washington to the Attorney General of the United States that specifically say the increased detection was due to different methods that were in place, which were not in place before legalization. In Colorado, in a six-month period in 2016 compared with the same six-month period in 2017, impaired driving due to marijuana actually decreased by 21%. I will offer copies of both these correspondences to the clerk for distribution to all interested members.

Thank you. I will go on with my questioning. I just want to clarify something. I wasn't sure if I understood. This is directed to the Vancouver Police Department. Thank you so much for testifying.

Were you stating that with the scheme for 12 to 17-year-olds, the ticketing scheme did not apply to that population, that this ticketing only applied to people over the age of 18? Did I misunderstand?

[Insp Martin Bruce]

Our understanding is that it is for youth aged 12 to 17. That's our understanding of the current situation.

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

Is it your understanding that they can't be ticketed?

[Insp Martin Bruce]

That is correct.

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

No, they can be ticketed. In fact, the legislation quite clearly says that if they're 12 to 17, they will have the substance confiscated, they will be ticketed, but they will not have a criminal record if it's under five grams. That's what the legislation says. I just wanted to correct that.

This is for the Canadian Medical Association. I have an understanding that, as you say, the medical science is that they're still developing brain tissue until 25, and you're recommending 21. Our concern is that, as you're probably aware, the highest proportion of use is for populations aged 18 to 24. We've had much discussion about this.

Would you agree that there would be risk of significant harm to the 18 to 21 group if they were not able to buy it legally, and that they would in fact go to the illegal market and be faced with criminal sanctions as well as with having to deal with the dangerous elements in the black market?

[Dr. Laurent Marcoux]

I would say that most of them begin before the age of 18, but at the age of 18 to 24 they are already addicted to it. That's why we have a great proportion at these ages. We still want to set the age at 21, and maybe 25, because the damage done to the brain will be permanent, and it's more than we think. We think it's a recreational drug, but this recreational drug may damage the brain for the rest of their lives. We thus have to protect them. It's why we are so focused on this issue.

Maybe Jeff had some other...?