Health Committee on Sept. 11th, 2017

[Jennifer Lutfallah]

As you know, CBSA is the organization charged with the responsibility of determining admissibility into our country. If that is still an offence, if that person was found criminally responsible for whatever action, yes, they would be inadmissible to our country, because in determining whether someone is admissible, we're looking at the criminal record that's being held by the United States and determining whether that is in fact a crime in Canada.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

If it weren't a crime in Canada, if Bill C-45 passes, after July 2018 or whenever it passes it's no longer a crime in Canada to possess 30 grams of cannabis. If you have an American who was convicted in the past of possessing under 30 grams of cannabis, that would no longer be a crime in Canada. Would that be a barrier to them entering Canada at that point, it no longer being a crime here? It would still show up on their criminal record, right?

[Jennifer Lutfallah]

It would still show up on their criminal record and they could be criminally inadmissible.

I'm going to have to come back to you on that one, if that's all right.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Of course. Thank you. I appreciate that.

Now I'm going to reverse it, because we heard some testimony this morning. Once we legalize cannabis possession in this country according to Bill C-45, it will no longer be a crime for adults in Canada to possess certain amounts of cannabis and to consume it. I'm concerned when those Canadian citizens go to the border with the United States and are asked by a U.S. border officer if they have ever taken drugs. That happens routinely, not convictions but they ask if you have used drugs. I've had Canadian citizens who have been denied entry to the U.S. for answering.

Has CBSA had any discussions with their counterparts on the U.S. side to work out an agreement so that Canadian citizens aren't placed in the awkward situation of either having to lie to U.S. border officials, which is wrong, or if they admit to doing what is perfectly legal in Canada, they run the risk of being denied entry into the U.S. Are you aware of any discussions in your department to resolve that issue with the American border authorities?

[Jennifer Lutfallah]

That was identified as an issue with respect to our assessment of Bill C-45. First and foremost, obviously any Canadian travelling to the United States has to answer truthfully to all questions. That said, there have been initial discussions with counterparts, but it has not been resolved.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Okay, thank you.

This is my last question. In the purpose of the bill, paragraph 7(e) says it is to “reduce the burden on the criminal justice system in relation to cannabis”. CBSA is responsible for administering the RCMP.... Is that correct?

[Jennifer Lutfallah]

We're only at the border.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

You're only at the border. Okay.

I'll ask that question to our VPD colleagues. Does the VPD expect to have its burden reduced in relation to cannabis offences upon the coming into force of this act?

[Insp Martin Bruce]

We are concerned about the number of calls for service, especially with regard to home production and other nuisance-type calls. We're anticipating what might happen. We can only base our predictions on what we think organized crime might do, what citizens might decide to do now that certain aspects are legal, especially around home grows and growing some marijuana themselves, perhaps for their own use or perhaps for sale. We just don't know what the call load is going to look like, but we're fearful of it, especially here in Vancouver and in B.C. We're already stretched with enforcement related to the opioid crisis and fentanyl and we're concentrating on those issues.

It's a great unknown, but we're wary of it just based on the current taxing of our own resources.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I come from Vancouver—I'm proud to represent Vancouver Kingsway—so I'm well aware of the dispensaries that are operating in Vancouver. I know there are legal licensed dispensaries and unlicensed dispensaries. I'm aware that generally the Vancouver Police Department has not closed down the unlicensed dispensaries, where I know they're selling edibles and all sorts of products that licensed facilities are not allowed to sell.

Deputy Chief LePard has said in a report that the VPD is not shutting down the dispensaries unless they pose a public safety risk. I would assume, because they're not shutting down these dispensaries, that they're not posing a public safety risk in the eyes of the VPD. Is that a correct assumption on my part?

[Insp Martin Bruce]

It would be proportional. If we receive information that a dispensary is selling to youth, or if there's a direct organized crime linkage, we would definitely intervene.

The regulation of the dispensaries here in Vancouver is through a City of Vancouver bylaw. Obviously, the number of dispensaries has increased exponentially since they first appeared here in Vancouver, so it becomes an enforcement issue of what takes priority. We are going to respond to our citizens if they complain, but can we dedicate resources to closing all of the dispensaries? The short answer is no, we can't.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Approximately how many dispensaries are operating right now in Vancouver, both licensed and unlicensed, selling cannabis?

[Insp Martin Bruce]

I am estimating around 100, or perhaps 120 or 130, that may be in the city's licensing process. A much smaller number have actually been granted licences to operate. A question would be what source their inventory is coming from. Is it from licensed producers, or is it from perhaps overflow from the medical system being sold illicitly? That we don't know.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Thank you.

Mr. Ayoub, you have seven minutes.

[Ramez Ayoub, Liberal, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Education is one of the important matters in this file, as Dr. Marcoux pointed out. I am happy to see that education can play an important role in helping Canadians make informed choices about the consumption of products that are currently unlawful, but that will soon be legalized. That is cannabis, of course.

We can see that budgets are different. When we are talking about budgets, we have to talk about budgets as well because the two are always closely linked. I am certainly in favour of increasing education budgets to stop a surge in consumption among the young.

We are well aware that consuming marijuana has consequences for the young. You have talked about cognitive problems. Potentially, it can permanently affect the brain.

I draw a parallel with alcohol consumption, which also has health consequences, albeit somewhat different from those that cannabis has.

But how do we explain the very marked differences from one province or territory to another, Ontario and Quebec, for example, in terms of the legal age for consuming alcohol? If I am not mistaken, it is 21 in Ontario and 18 in Quebec, despite all the medical consequences that alcohol consumption can have.

The Canadian Confederation has a certain logic that makes it participatory. So each province may express its own views and pass its own legislation in the areas over which they have jurisdiction. How do you explain that, in Ontario, it will be legal to consume marijuana at 19, when the legal age for consuming alcohol is higher, at 21. How do you explain that logic?

Previous witnesses have mentioned that it is easier for young people to obtain marijuana than alcohol and cigarettes. How do you react to comments like that? I am a little concerned by it all.

Perhaps there is no easy answer, but I would like to hear what you have to say about it.

[Dr. Laurent Marcoux]

You have brought up a number of points. It’s a very good question that needs to be considered.

Education means that people must be well-informed. Up to now, there has not been much discussion about it. Since it was illegal, people were doing it in secret. Now, young people, as young as 12 years old, must be well-informed about the effects of the products they are going to be consuming. When they get older and are making decisions for themselves, they will have known for a long time that consuming those products has proven consequences on their concentration and that it could trigger serious psychosis. In the long term, there are some major consequences and some that are less so.

There is a lot to learn about cannabis. We know very little about the product, even though it is widely used. Scientific research has not been done.

Here is a fact for you. We may talk about medical cannabis, but we cannot prescribe a product when we do not know about its interactions, its side effects, and how its strength varies with people’s state of health, age and weight.

Every prescription medication has a Health Canada identification number, a DIN, as it is called. Now we are talking about prescribing a product that is not well-known. That is why physicians are resisting it.

[Ramez Ayoub, Liberal, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

It is being prescribed, though.

[Dr. Laurent Marcoux]

The product is recommended only when all other methods have been shown to be inadequate, especially with terminal patients or those with chronic problems that cannot be managed otherwise.

Actually, very few physicians prescribe it. We talk about it, but in our offices, we can't say that it is a prescription. A prescription is based on proven data, so that when we prescribe a product, we become responsible for the interactions, the side effects, and so on.

So, for physicians, this is not an acceptable prescription at the moment. That is why we want one single distribution method for cannabis.

[Dr. Jeff Blackmer]

Thank you very much for the question. I want to pick up on a couple of points.

The point about education is extremely important. The latest numbers I've seen for the money that would be budgeted towards education for marijuana use for youth was $9.6 million, whereas the budget for the federal tobacco strategy, for example, is $38 million. I think we've gotten to a point in Canada that there's no adult who smokes who thinks it's good for them. We've done a good job of helping people understand the health risks, and when they make the decision, they're making an informed adult choice to take on the risk.

We're not anywhere near that point with marijuana. There's still a fairly large cohort of people who think not only that it is not harmful to them but that it may actually be good for them. We need more money, not less, in terms of that education piece.

With respect to the age, I hear the argument a lot that we should set the age at 19 because that's what it is for alcohol. To me, that's very lazy thinking. It says we're just going to go along with the status quo and are not going to evaluate this based on its own merits. If you look at the United States, where they have an age of majority for alcohol of 21, who's to say that it's not better, for a substance such as alcohol? In fact, there are many groups, mental health groups and others, who are saying it may be time to re-evaluate the age at which alcohol can be purchased.

I would encourage people to look at this based on what the evidence shows for this particular product and not on the historical decisions that were made for alcohol. As you say, those are different, based on the provinces, in any case. We really hope that people will look at this on its own merits.

[Ramez Ayoub, Liberal, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Thank you.

My next question goes to the law enforcement people in Vancouver.

Sometimes you arrest people for impaired driving. Do you have statistics showing the number of arrests directly linked to cannabis compared to the number of arrests linked to alcohol?

[Insp Martin Bruce]

I don't have those statistics at hand.

As far as the possession aspect goes, typically by policy we don't charge for simple possession, but as far as use is related to impaired driving, I really don't have stats at hand.

[Ramez Ayoub, Liberal, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

If you could provide them, if you have them—maybe later on—that would be great.

[Insp Martin Bruce]

Certainly, we can do that.

[Ramez Ayoub, Liberal, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Thank you.