Health Committee on Sept. 12th, 2017

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

As I understand it, the alternative to criminal charges, then, would be the discretion of the police officer to ticket. The two areas where I think that applies would be possession between 30 to 50 grams or having three to six plants, I think. Sorry—that's four to six plants.

Are there any other areas where you think ticketing discretion might be applied? Also, do you have any advice on how the act could give better direction and better consistency to police officers? We've heard from others the concern about vulnerable populations who would perhaps be at greater risk of having the criminal charges versus ticketing.

Do you have any advice on how the act could be amended to be more responsive to that concern?

[Anne London-Weinstein]

I think the ticketing idea is a good one, as long as there are no criminal or quasi-criminal consequences. That's really what I would be concerned about: people incurring criminal consequences from a product that, in my view, should be subject to regulatory legislation governing how we deal with it.

If we are going to be dealing with a ticketing regime where an officer is going to have to decide something on a discretionary basis, I would like to see some guidelines in the act, or to the officers directly, as to how they're supposed to come to that decision, so that there's an emphasis on the purposes of the act, which is not necessarily to criminalize all contact with cannabis.

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Would that be in the act or the regs?

[Anne London-Weinstein]

Possibly in the regulations, and what I would like to see are some guidelines as to how officers are to exercise their discretion, particularly in the early days of the act until they become comfortable with moving into this new regime. Obviously I don't speak for the police, but they're coming from a background of law and order where many cannabis investigations have resulted in criminal charges. It's going to be an entire sea change in the way they look at things.

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

There's another issue. A couple of you mentioned this issue of youth up to the age of 18 being allowed to possess only up to five grams. There could be criminal charges if they were to possess more than five. We heard from a previous witness that there shouldn't be differing rules for youth and adults, and that adults can hold 30 grams, but then the youth would be charged under the Youth Criminal Justice Act. Can you help me understand that, given that there is a different justice act to deal with them?

[Anne London-Weinstein]

Mr. Levesque, did you want to speak to that?

[Pascal Levesque]

Yes, I can answer. Please correct me if I'm wrong, Anne.

If you're charged under the Criminal Code, the normal regime would apply. If you're charged under the YCJA, the maximum punishment is still the same, but for the principles in terms of sentencing objectives it's a different paradigm for the judge. You have also some diversion measures within the YCJA, but then we have to make sure that the criteria in applying those diversion measures are at least as generous as the ones in the ticketing offences. As a matter of practice, we don't want to expose a young person to more serious consequences than any adult.

[Anne London-Weinstein]

It's really the quantum. Five grams for a young person will expose them to criminal liability, and for an adult it's 30 grams. An adult who is arguably more morally culpable is entitled to possess more; it sort of takes them further from the reach of the law. Admittedly, a young person would be prosecuted under the YCJA, but those are still real consequences for a young person, and it's important to remember that.

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

I think one or two of you mentioned edibles. If we really are looking at reducing the opportunity for organized crime to be in this space, then edibles should be a part of the legally permissible products, but we've heard from I think the people who drafted the legislation that it is very complex to bring in the edibles. There are other health and safety concerns around the production of that and how to properly set up guidelines, so that more time will be needed to get that regime in place. Then we've heard from other witnesses in other jurisdictions, such as Colorado and others, that have already done that. The guidelines are already there. There are prototypes that could be drawn on to use for this.

Do you have any thoughts on that, on other jurisdictions and the applicability of guidelines for edibles from Colorado to Canada? Does that make sense?

[Prof. Neil Boyd]

I think the experience in Colorado has effectively demonstrated that the dose can be titrated. Certainly when people think of edibles in the Canadian or North American context more broadly, they think of people eating cannabis and being subjected to highly unpredictable and sometimes very unpleasant experiences. That's not the case with edibles.

My experience in canvassing the owners of the medically oriented dispensaries in the city of Vancouver suggests that for their patients, for their clients, edibles and bombs are a large part of what they want. They don't want to consume by smoking or vaporizing. They're generally, as in Colorado, working towards a much more effective titration of dose.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

The time is up.

Thank you very much.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order that I want to do now so I don't interrupt Dr. Carrie. If I understood correctly, and I apologize if I had it wrong, I heard Mr. Oliver mention that there were only two ticketable items in this bill.

Part 2 sets out the ticketable offences. There are 17 separate provisions of this bill.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

I don't think that's a point of order, but you can debate it when you have time.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Okay.

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

I actually hadn't. I knew there were two. I didn't say there were only two.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Okay, you were using them as examples.

Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Okay.

Mr. Webber.

[Len Webber, Conservative, Calgary Confederation, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you all for being here today. I appreciate it.

I'll start off with Mr. Boyd.

I enjoyed your comments. Some were interesting, or most were. I tend to agree with a few items, but of course, you applaud the legislation and I certainly do not. Our Conservative caucus does not as well.

You mentioned that there is much that we don't know but we need to know. Do you feel that in 290 days when this legislation will become legal and implemented we will have had enough time to address many of the issues that are being presented to our committee here and will be addressed in the next few days?

[Prof. Neil Boyd]

You have a system in place of licensed producers for medical use. As you know, the number of users in the medical system has grown dramatically, from about 7,000 to more than 130,000. That same system could be put in place for recreational users. The products that recreational users seek are in many instances not dramatically different, not at all different, from the products that medicinal users are seeking.

That could be put in place. We might see differences across provinces. Some are alarmed, for example, at what has gone on with Ontario. I take a slightly different view. I think different provinces are going to take different approaches and that will allow consideration of best practices.

The province in which I live, British Columbia, will probably take a different approach from that undertaken in Ontario, and we might see different provinces come online at different times. One of the safeguards in terms of protecting the expansion of black market activity is that you'll have this mail-order system in place through the licensed producers. That's all going to change somewhat when provinces come online.

I see it as something that might come into place at different times in different provinces, but the mail order, with 58 licensed producers currently, should be able to be in place by July of next year.

[Len Webber, Conservative, Calgary Confederation, AB]

Do you see a severe impact on organized crime with the legalization?

[Prof. Neil Boyd]

Regarding a lot of the organized crime groups that people are most concerned about, I think of organized crime as the type of crime that has acts of force or violence, threats, or corruption attached. Most of the people involved in cannabis production don't fall into that category. With the people in the Kootenays and most of the people in the city of Vancouver, it's a very different kind of organized crime, if you want to expand it to anybody involved in that industry.

Yes, I think they're already getting out of the industry. There's some indication of that. Again, it's a question of access. If access is there for the products that consumers want and in a sufficient range in terms of geography, I don't think we're going to see organized crime. On the other hand, let's not pretend that it's going to disappear overnight. It's going to take a bit of time.

[Len Webber, Conservative, Calgary Confederation, AB]

I personally believe it will take a heck of a long time. One reason for that is because the regulations in place right now for licensed producers are very extensive, and I agree with all of them. Licensed producers have a lot of overhead to develop their product, whereas organized crime does not. In my opinion, they can't compete with the pricing.

Do you have any thoughts on that, on the pricing between organized crime and licensed producers being equal?

[Prof. Neil Boyd]

The prices that are charged by Vancouver dispensaries are not dramatically different from the prices that are charged by the licensed producers. One could say that much of what comes out of the dispensaries is a product of organized crime, because by definition the licensed producers would lose their licences if it were known that they were supplying the dispensaries.

The price per unit of intoxication for cannabis is remarkably inexpensive. It hasn't gone up in 30 years, unlike alcohol prices. Most people don't really want the experience. People experience cannabis as youths and they tend to move away from it. Something like five dollars' worth of cannabis on the illicit market will get three people high. Good luck with alcohol, given that equation. Alcohol is simply a more desirable substance for most consumers.

[Len Webber, Conservative, Calgary Confederation, AB]

A question, though, and I'm focusing on you, Mr. Boyd. You mentioned that 18 years old and 19 years old seems reasonable ages for allowing consumption and such.

Personal cultivation at home, the access that can be readily available to youth is a huge concern. You feel that maybe zoning restrictions in certain areas wouldn't allow the cultivation at home due to...?

[Prof. Neil Boyd]

I think of the quiet enjoyment of premises. I'm thinking of risk of fire if people want to install metal halide lights. That's an issue that would have to be closely regulated. Most people wouldn't want to live in multi-family dwellings that have a lot of cannabis smell going back and forth. There may be technological solutions to that problem. I've heard from some people that it's possible to grow cannabis without those sorts of intrusions and without the sorts of risks with respect to fire.