Health Committee on Sept. 11th, 2017

[Jennifer Lutfallah]

The CBSA will be undertaking a number of communications aspects to educate the public that the movement of marijuana across the border is still illegal. We will be putting signs at ports of entry. We'll be employing social media as well as updating a number of websites indicating what the obligations of travellers are coming into and out of the country.

Those are basically the types of methodologies we'll be using.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Do you think there is a need to implement the education now, before we implement Bill C-45?

[Jennifer Lutfallah]

I do believe an education campaign beforehand would be useful. We are undertaking some activities to that end.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Now we have Ms. Gladu.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I want to talk a little bit about the border because my community of Sarnia—Lambton is a border community. I'm distressed to hear that with 290-odd days left to go before we are supposedly legalizing marijuana, we have no deal with the U.S. When you get to the border, declaring that you have done something that is legal in Canada, and you will not be allowed into the U.S., that's disturbing.

The other thing that is disturbing is that there are three treaties we signed that we would have to give notice of if we were going to breach them. These are treaties signed with the UN that I assume Homeland Security would be concerned about. To my knowledge, we haven't given notice. If we notified now, it would be January of 2019 before we could actually legalize marijuana in Canada without breaking our treaty.

Have you heard any of these concerns from Homeland Security?

[Jennifer Lutfallah]

I'm sorry, which treaties are you referring to?

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

The treaties are the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances, and the 1988 United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances.

[Trevor Bhupsingh]

I do understand those treaties, and I understand that there are discussions going on with Global Affairs and Health Canada with those international organizations around those conventions and the way forward for Canada.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

All right.

One of my other questions has to do with the topic of mandatory testing once we legalize marijuana. Previously in my career I was director of engineering at Suncor, and we wanted to implement a zero tolerance policy for drugs. We didn't want people operating a refinery who were under the influence. The Supreme Court has declared that it is an invasion of a person's privacy to do mandatory testing. I'm concerned for, you know, Air Canada's pilots, and that I'll be flying on their planes, and for people operating nuclear facilities and chemical plants if there is no ability to do a mandatory test once it's perfectly legal for people to consume marijuana.

From a public safety point of view, could you comment, Mr. Bhupsingh?

[Trevor Bhupsingh]

I would just say that we're in discussions with various organizations. The provinces and the territories have the flexibility to engage in discussions with organizations that control such things as landlord and tenant acts, etc. With respect to the airlines that you mentioned, again, those discussions are ongoing in terms of understanding the implications for these various industries.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Yes, they're ongoing, but in 290 days they'll matter more.

I also wanted to mention to the clerk that with respect to the data we were talking about earlier in terms of the increase in impaired drugged driving that we've seen in Colorado and also Washington, I can provide you with the data my information came from. In fact I think tomorrow we're going to hear from Smart Approaches to Marijuana, who show a 145% increase in impaired drugged driving for marijuana in the 2013 to 2016 time period. I will send that to you, along with other information reported by sam.org that Washington saw a doubling once they legalized marijuana. It was a doubling from 8% to 17%. I'm happy to send that to the clerk as well.

I'd like to hear from the Canadian Medical Association a little more discussion about prevention. It seems to me that with all the effort spent to try to criminalize trafficking and all these various things, we're not focusing as much, or I don't see as much in Bill C-45, on trying to prevent people from getting on drugs in the first place. Could you comment?

[Dr. Jeff Blackmer]

Thank you very much for the question. It's very important.

Part of our submission is the importance of prevention, and part of that is education. It's helping young people to understand the risks of starting at a younger age and helping to disseminate the information they can use so that, again, they can make an informed decision in a way that currently they really don't have easy access to, with easy access to information in a way that they can digest. The way that young people consume information is very different from the way others might.

Part of our strategy would be to make sure that's available to them on different platforms and in different types of media so that they understand the risks before they undertake that. Definitely, part of the education needs to be a significant prevention strategy, as well as treatment, harm reduction, and all the other types of things.

I agree. I think we could probably see a little more of that, hopefully, as we get a better sense of what that education program will look like.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

That's good. My time is up.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

We're moving on to Mr. Oliver.

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Thank you very much.

This is for the Vancouver police. The committee did a study on the opioid crisis in Canada. We heard first-hand from first responders in Vancouver, so we're very aware of the situation you're dealing with and your ongoing struggle with the opioid crisis there, but I'll just come back to the question that I think was on the table at one time.

Under the federal legislation, on the prohibition for youth aged 12 to 18 for under five grams, there are no criminal federal charges for that. It would come down to the same as the liquor licence, I guess. It would fall under provincial legislation. The provinces would have to put in place mechanisms to control those situations. If you wanted to take or seize the under five grams from someone of that age group, that would be provincial legislation.

I know you've been experimenting with ticketing around some of this already. How has that been working? I think you've been using bylaw officers to issue tickets for violations for some of the cannabis. Has that model of prevention been working well for you?

[S/Sgt Bill Speam]

Our City of Vancouver bylaw officers have been issuing tickets to marijuana stores that are not licensed under the city's bylaws. A very small percentage of those have been paid. A number of them remain unpaid.

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Thanks for that.

I have another question. I want to go back to the CMA. There's been a bit of discussion now about the age threshold and how to set that. Clearly, there are competing interests here. I think everybody is aware of the medical research that says, really, until the age of 25, you should not be using cannabis, but then there are other competing pressures. We know that 30% of people under the age of 30 are using cannabis, and we have one of the highest rates of cannabis use in the developed world. Also, there are black market concerns.

I've been a bit concerned about the tone from the CMA here today, which is sort of that the government is dismissive of or not paying attention to the medicine and science behind this. In the fall of last year, the CMA said in its position statement that 25 is the “ideal minimum age” for legal purchases, but that 25 was unrealistic. Just as you've said, it's not going to be realistic to hold or prevent youth from accessing marijuana at the age of 25, but then you've put another lens to it and said that maybe it's 21. The government has put the same lenses to it and has said that maybe it's 18. I think it's best that we work together on this rather than that tone of “you're not paying attention to the medical science”. That's just my observation.

At the end of the day, I come back to this. If it's illegal, short of using criminal charges, how are we going to stop kids from doing it? One thing is to close down the black market as best we can, and there's been a lot of discussion about how effective the legislation will be on that, but the other is obviously education, education, education. Do you want to comment on what parameters you consider to go from 25 to 21? You've already talked about the education piece, so I won't ask for that again. I just wanted to soften your message a bit here on that.

[Dr. Laurent Marcoux]

First, I would like to make it clear that brain maturation does not follow a linear curve. It develops more in the first years of life. At that point, the brain develops in size a great deal. Then the connections become established. That is more or less how things happen.

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

I understand.

[Dr. Laurent Marcoux]

In the final years of maturation, there is a plateau.

We know that the earlier in life dependence occurs, the stronger it will become, because of the fact that the brain is perhaps more malleable and that habits are acquired at a younger age. As a consequence, the later cannabis consumption begins, the less dependence will develop.

In addition, it may be that, at 21, people have become socially and individually mature. At that age, they are sometimes looking at setting the course for their lives. It may be that education and information programs have allowed them to recognize the dangers associated with consuming cannabis and that they have become somewhat afraid of it.

The information and education that we have to provide to young people must also be closely linked to the research being done in the area. We are in the process of legalizing a product that, as scientists, we know little about in a number of respects. There is still a lot we do not know about this product and its effects.

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

I understand that, but I just want to come back to the point I made. If the CMA were really staying true to the science, true to the research, you would be here saying that the age limit should be 25, not 21.

[Dr. Laurent Marcoux]

Yes, I will ask Jeff to complete this.

[Dr. Jeff Blackmer]

I understand what you're saying. It's certainly not our intent to appear adversarial, but expressing a certain degree of frustration around some of the conversations I think is.... I think we have been a bit frustrated by some of those conversations that have taken place.

You're right. To an extent, once you get between 18 and 25, it's going to be a bit arbitrary in terms of where you set that. We recognize that. That's exactly why we tried to take into account the different perspectives. One is to say, “To what point does the brain develop?” Also, then, what are some of the social considerations and the law enforcement considerations, and what does the data show? I agree completely. Whether you're saying 21, 22, or 23, I guess the principle is “the later the better”, taking into account these other considerations.

We absolutely would like to work with the government to try to find a solution. I think our concern has been that it appears to us that the conversation maybe ended prematurely, and that we haven't necessarily had an opportunity to have further dialogue around what that could potentially look like. I think that's an opportunity we would welcome. We certainly don't want to appear adversarial, but we'd like to have those concerns taken into account.

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Thank you very much.