Health Committee on Sept. 14th, 2017

[Melodie Tilson]

We've worked for a number of years to control the size of tobacco packaging, starting in the early 1990s. We had kiddie packs banned—they were packs of five cigarettes—largely because they were affordable to youth, not because of the size per se.

I think that may be a consideration in the future. How large the package on the market ends up being will be largely determined by how much it costs, and if it's too expensive, consumers won't buy it. Packages of individual joints, for example, may be affordable and attractive to youth, so I think that needs to be monitored over time. There should be some regulatory flexibility to further restrict packaging sizes if it becomes necessary.

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

Mr. Hammoud.

[Mike Hammoud]

Yes, going back to your 30 grams and the recommendation, after being a part of many meetings with medical doctors and with everyone getting a sense of what 30.... I didn't realize that 30 grams could be like 60 joints, or as high as 90 joints depending on how it is cut, as they say, or whatever you need to do to make it work.

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

It's 300 bucks, so....

[Mike Hammoud]

That's a lot of money. That, to me, seems like a very large sum to have in somebody's possession, and you're allowed to share it, which amazes me as well. You could have four people, each with 30 grams, and they could be sharing it with four other people, and so on and so on. It doesn't make any sense to me from that perspective. I think that needs to change, really, because that's a lot.

From—

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

I'm out of time, I think.

[Mike Hammoud]

On the question of package designs and different things, I think it has to be a little different because there are so many different varieties of what you're going to be able to put together, and I do agree with them. One joint or two joints maybe isn't the way to go, but it's all going to come down to pricing as well on whether they can move them over.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Thanks very much.

Now we'll go to Mr. Ayoub, and possibly in French.

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

Possibly, for sure, I'm going to ask the question in French.

This is a very interesting discussion. Since I'm speaking last, I tried to be attentive all the time, but there is one thing I probably didn't hear.

Currently, there is talk of non-uniform distribution of private cannabis products. They are distributed by no one knows who yet. Is this right? Are we talking about distribution of private products with different packaging, depending on the brand and the producer? Are we talking about producing and distributing a product through a single distributor? Do we want the government to be behind this, to provide distribution, to have its dispensaries and specially licenced affiliated producers?

A little earlier, in this instance, the example of milk was given. If we all have the same carton of milk, the same package of cigarettes, the same package of joints, will that wipe out the differences in colour? We would forget the colours and brands; only the name, THC level and health problems, so that people know, would be indicated. As for the rest, there would be no marketing, no advertising, none of that.

At present, medical marijuana dispensaries and stores don't advertise. Are we going around in circles about solutions, when we should be asking the government to take responsibility for distribution and completely eliminate the advertising aspect?

My question is for you, Professor Hammond.

[Dr. David Hammond]

If I understand your question correctly, as I read the act, that is the objective, to eliminate any promotion that's going to encourage use or make it appealing to young people, but to recognize that for manufacturers and consumers, there is still product information that will be helpful in guiding their choice.

As I said in my opening remarks, how do you execute that in a framework? What I and others are suggesting here is that most of the restrictions in the act are perfectly well founded and consistent with that. On the specific issue of using branding elements on packages, that is very difficult to police. I don't see any public health benefit and it's the area that's most likely to promote use among kids. What you described is pretty much what's in the act, with the exception of understanding what the regulations might look like for packaging.

I apologize if I haven't answered your question properly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Ms. Tilson.

[Melodie Tilson]

I'm not sure I understood either.

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

I can repeat. I want to make sure that you understand the question, because it is important to me.

It's elimination and control by the government.

You don't have any more private companies. You don't have any promotion. There is nothing left. There is only one cartoon, one advertisement from the government, regulated by the government. It's regularized. It's standard. There's no difference.

[Melodie Tilson]

That isn't what we're looking at. There will always be producers and retailers. The government will establish the regulations for packaging and what information needs to be on the packages. Packages will be standardized in all provinces and territories.

However, there will always be many different producers. The sales systems will be different depending on the province.

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

I may be simplifying, because I have a few seconds, but I'll make an analogy using apples. There's the Granny Smith, the McIntosh, and there are others. That's all. There's no other labelling. These products come from Vancouver Island or Quebec, and they're distributed by the government. Apart from the name and the information, you don't need to advertise, have different packaging or identify the producers. You only need to indicate where the product originates from and what it contains.

I may be wrong, but I have the impression that if the government takes over, the whole aspect of advertising and packaging, which is the problem we see with cigarettes, will be eliminated.

[Melodie Tilson]

That is a possible model, but I don't think the federal government wants to get involved in selling marijuana.

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

I'm asking you a question, that's all.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

You're over time now.

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

I know, but it's not a decision; it's a question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Thank you very much.

We'll go to Mr. Davies for the final question.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you.

Dr. Hammond, again, I want to state from the beginning that I think there is broad agreement by everybody on this committee that we don't want any marketing towards children. We want safe, proper labelling. We want accurate, evidence-based warnings. We understand that it's a product with known health consequences. We want to make sure that we don't encourage use.

Given that context, though, is there a danger in reaching overboard the other way? What I'm thinking of is the old “this is your brain on drugs” commercials, with eggs frying in a pan, or the Reefer Madness approach. If we go overboard and try to communicate information that the broad public doesn't believe, do we risk a lack of credibility?

We're not operating in a vacuum here. There is an illicit market. If you go online, you can find Kif Kat kush. You can see products online that you can order, with Yosemite Sam and cannabis coming out of the guns. Those aren't going to stop. We want to be very cautious and conservative on labelling, but is there a concern that if we don't get that balance right, we will not be effective in pulling people away from the illicit market and will risk a lack of credibility?

[Dr. David Hammond]

That's a great question, and I don't envy any provincial or federal regulator on this issue because you have people from both sides saying you need to loosen and you need to tighten. I can tell you this, we've done work with young people looking at health warnings for cannabis, and it's a surprise to most people to know that even smokers, who are very marginalized in our society, support the picture warnings. I can tell you that most Canadians, especially young Canadians, are curious. They would like to know what the information is about the health warnings.

I always say that where a health warning goes overboard is where it is no longer credible, where it's not providing truthful, forthright information. I think that speaks to the importance of designing these properly. On the issue of whether consumers will turn away form the licit market because there is information about the health risks, I don't believe that to be the case. I think the difference between illegal and legal sales is going to be on price, availability, and accessibility. I think a lot of the things that we're talking about today are in terms of information and promotion, which are less of an issue with respect to legal and illegal, if that helps.

It's about finding a balance, but I think most scientists, and I think consumers, would say that balance includes providing reasonable health warnings for these products. We haven't talked a lot about concentrated extracts, but most of what we know about cannabis in our scientific literature is about smoking and eating. We have a brand new category of products, of highly potent, concentrated products, that are being consumed in different ways. That is something the government should be communicating as part of this process, and warnings is one possible way of doing that.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I'm just going to ask this because I'm curious. As a matter of logic, we've already heard that alcohol is more dangerous than cannabis. Why don't we take away colours, images, and branding from alcohol in this country? There's been a suggestion that we can't do that, the cat's out of the bag, but we've done it for tobacco. Shouldn't we be doing this for alcohol? If not, why not?

From a public health point of view, why are we letting this one product continue to be branded with colours and imagery and things that are prohibited by the cannabis legislation if it's a more dangerous product and we know we can do it?

[Dr. David Hammond]

I think it's a reasonable question. Why don't we have nutrition labels on alcohol products? We have them on bottled water. We have them on every other beverage that's sold in this country except alcohol. There are other countries that have sought to prohibit marketing of what they call “alcopops”, coolers that are very much oriented at young women. I don't propose to give the government guidance on those issues because I'm not an expert. But if you're pointing out that there are differences that don't seem logical in terms of how different product domains are regulated, I would agree with you.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Okay.

Thank you. Those are my questions.