Health Committee on Sept. 11th, 2017

[Dr. Jeff Blackmer, Vice-President, Medical Professionalism, Canadian Medical Association]

Thank you.

It's a fair question. I would say that we're really focused primarily on the medical evidence and what it shows about the effect of marijuana on the developing brain. We understand the other considerations. That's why we said that ideally 25 would be the right age, because brain development occurs up until that point.

I would say that in many ways we're very surprised that the medical evidence hasn't been taken into more account. Maybe it's that we're medical professionals and this is our job. We recognize some of the competing priorities in balancing the risks. I would say, from our perspective based on what we've seen in clinic and what the evidence shows, that we still think the right balance is 21, recognizing, as you say, that the competing risk would be having youth go to other sources. We think it's a little easier to try to mitigate some of those things than it is to undo the harm that potentially occurs under the age of 21. We continue to think that would be a good common ground.

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

I understand. Again, from the purely medical, scientific perspective, I would be the first to agree; however, as you've said in your testimony, they're already using it in high amounts now, when it is illegal. It is already illegal and many of them are just not listening to the advice about it.

If you raised the age to 21, would you have any less youth usage of it? Would the people aged 18 to 21 be using it any less, if you put the legal age at 21, than they do right now, when it's already illegal and they're using it a lot?

[Dr. Jeff Blackmer]

We hope they would.

[Dr. Laurent Marcoux]

This recommendation doesn't come alone. It comes with a good education. When it is legalized, it will be permitted to push forward a good educational program for youth.

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

Sure.

[Dr. Laurent Marcoux]

If they are really well aware at the age of 12, 13, or 14, they may stay away from this more. If they decide at the age of 21 to take it, it will be their judgment and the damage will be less. But if they are already damaged in the brain at the age of 16, 17, 18, or 19, it will be for life. Our doctors in Canada are concerned about this damage.

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

Certainly.

[Dr. Laurent Marcoux]

We see these people every day in our offices. We see how they are suffering from this and they regret it, but because it is associated with addiction, they can't quit it. We have to support them when they want to leave this bad habit they've taken up.

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

This is a quick question for our public safety colleagues.

We all know the historical example of prohibition in the United States, and how much criminal activity there was due to illegal alcohol and what happened to the landscape after that. I've heard some criticisms of that analogy because it's been 100 years since this happened.

That being said, despite the passage of a century of time, do we have things to learn from that example in response to public safety and prohibition?

[Trevor Bhupsingh]

I think we do, but keeping in mind that it is a difference of 100 years and we're dealing with different players and groups.

Now we're creating a regime with a legalized supply of cannabis, so our sense is that we want to get that framework put into place. We want to have safe access to cannabis. We want to make sure that, in terms of law enforcement, we're actually going to have the ability to deter organized crime. For some of the other issues around our youth that have just been discussed, I think that's important as well.

For us, it's important that we make sure we have a lot of public awareness for youth around the system. That's probably a little different from 100 years ago in terms of communications. All that is to say that I think it's very important that public awareness around the regime is number one, and then that law enforcement, specifically, has the capability and the ability to deal with organized crime and the black market to ensure that profits don't land in the hands of organized crime, largely because profits usually go to other areas of concern.

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

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Your time is up.

Mr. Webber.

[Len Webber, Conservative, Calgary Confederation, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you all for being here today and presenting to us.

In particular, thank you to the Vancouver Police Department, Inspector Bruce and Staff Sergeant Speam. Your concerns and the concerns of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police are certainly concerns of the Conservative caucus. We thank you for presenting here today to express your concerns, in particular, about access to youth through personal cultivation at home. I feel that this is going to be an incredible problem. Of course, you oppose it, the four-plant maximum. You mentioned the enforcement of it being almost impossible and also the potential for it to.... Actually, it will flood the illicit market, and of course you mentioned the crimes involved with it, the home invasions and electricity theft. Everything you said makes absolute perfect sense, and we agree with you 100%.

Again, your training and the timelines are going to be difficult. In the months after July 1 of 2018, you are going to go into homes with four or five or six plants. What do you do? It's going to be interesting to deal with all the problems that are going to occur from this. You mentioned the pricing structure, and I mentioned this earlier today as well. To compete with the illicit market, I just don't see it happening although some presenters here today suggest that we can be comparable in price with the black market. I just don't see it with all the regulations that are in place....

I think we may have lost our friends down in Vancouver. I just lost my train of thought with them. I was going to ask them some questions. Are they still there?

[Insp Martin Bruce]

We have you by audio but we've lost the visual.

[Len Webber, Conservative, Calgary Confederation, AB]

Good. I can hear you, but I cannot see you.

In any event, I just want to say thank you, first of all, for bringing these concerns forward. They are definitely the concerns of our caucus, and I would like to know how our Liberal government is going to be dealing with these incredible issues that will occur from allowing personal cultivation at home.

Any further comments with regard to that?

[Insp Martin Bruce]

Not really.

[Len Webber, Conservative, Calgary Confederation, AB]

Okay. Best of luck to you. I know you're going to need it. All the police forces around Canada are certainly going to experience much difficulty when this comes into place.

I have a question to Canada Border Services and Jennifer Lutfallah.

Have you seen any increase in the smuggling of marijuana into Canada from the legalized states, in particular from Washington, being right along the border? Have you seen any significant difference at all in the smuggling of marijuana and marijuana products into our country?

[Jennifer Lutfallah, Director General, Enforcement and Intelligence Programs, Canada Border Services Agency]

In terms of the smuggling from Washington State into the Vancouver area, we have noticed a significant increase in the amount of seizures that have been undertaken by our officers. I don't have the specific percentage, but we did notice a significant uptake with respect to the seizure rates.

I don't believe smuggling has increased all that much over previous years, but a lot of individuals believe they can bring marijuana into Canada from Washington State, for example. Therefore, the seizure rates in those areas have grown.

[Len Webber, Conservative, Calgary Confederation, AB]

Interesting.

We had testimony this morning from the Honourable Anne McLellan indicating that her experience going down there and talking to stakeholders is that these legal states are now smuggling into other states, causing big problems in the areas where it's not legal. I can see that occurring through the border into Canada as well, and vice versa. Once we become a legal country when it comes to the cultivation of marijuana, I would imagine you would likely see significant smuggling efforts across the border into the United States. Would you not think so?

[Jennifer Lutfallah]

I think that at this point it's a bit premature to speculate on what's going to happen in terms of the flow going from north to south. That being said, we are going to be working with CBP as well as monitoring the trends of any seizures and smuggling attempts from our country, or the other way around. At this point, I think it's a bit premature to speculate.

[Len Webber, Conservative, Calgary Confederation, AB]

Sure.

I also think about the issues we've been having with respect to the opioid crisis and 98% of the opioids coming from China into our country. Of course, Canada Border Services has a key role there in preventing that from getting through our border, but with great difficulty.

With respect to the marijuana as well, I can just see events, issues occurring because of the legalization of this product, and I wish you well in your efforts and Canadian Border Services' efforts. It's going to be a concern and a huge challenge there.

I would also like to thank the CMA for being here today, and for your concerns as well, the health concerns with regard to the ingestion of smoke into one's system. We've worked so hard to try to decrease the use of tobacco in this country, yet we are encouraging, through legalization, harming one's system even more so by ingesting marijuana. I do appreciate your concerns. They are our concerns as well.

I don't know how much more time I have, Mr. Chair. I have just a little bit here.

Thank you for presenting and expressing your concerns. We finally have some people who have expressed serious concerns over the legislation and the legalization of this product, so thank you all for being here today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Mr. Davies.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses.

Mr. Marcoux, from a medical health perspective, would I be correct in assuming that smoking cannabis is more damaging to your health than ingesting cannabis in a non-smoking manner?

[Dr. Laurent Marcoux]

For the damage to the brain, I think it is the same, but smoking cannabis has a high incidence of pulmonary and cardiovascular incidents and it's worse on that side.

For addiction, I think it's also the same because it's an imprint on the brain. We are very concerned about the outcome of the imprint on the brain for the young, because this imprint is permanent and that is very worrying.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Yes. Thank you.

To our CBSA colleagues, it's funny. This summer I think a lot of us, as MPs, were in our ridings and I know that I always have an experience with people having trouble crossing the border, both ways, Canadians who get turned away from the U.S. border and Americans trying to come into Canada who are turned away by CBSA.

In fact, I had two young gentlemen from Los Angeles who were turned away by CBSA because they had prior convictions. I've had cases where someone has been turned away for having an impaired driving, a “DUI” as they call them in the United States. How will CBSA treat Americans with cannabis possession convictions after Bill C-45 becomes law? Will that still be a ground for denying entry to an American citizen who wants to come into Canada?