Evidence of meeting #67 for Health in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was legal.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Lynda Balneaves  Registered Nurse and Medical and Non-Medical Cannabis Researcher, Canadian Nurses Association
Karey Shuhendler  Policy Advisor, Policy, Advocacy and Strategy, Canadian Nurses Association
Serge Melanson  Doctor, New Brunswick Medical Society
Robert Strang  Chief Medical Officer of Health, Nova Scotia Department of Health and Wellness
Michael DeVillaer  Assistant Professor, Policy Analyst, McMaster University, As an Individual
Mark Kleiman  Professor of Public Policy, Marron Institute of Urban Management, New York University, As an Individual
Trina Fraser  Partner, Brazeau Seller LLP
Brenda Baxter  Director General, Workplace Directorate, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development
Norm Keith  Partner, Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP
Clara Morin Dal Col  Minister of Health, Métis National Council
Isadore Day  Ontario Regional Chief, Chiefs of Ontario
Wenda Watteyne  Senior Policy Advisor, Métis National Council
David Hammond  Professor, University of Waterloo, School of Public Health and Health Systems, As an Individual
Mike Hammoud  President, Atlantic Convenience Stores Association
Melodie Tilson  Director of Policy, Non-Smokers' Rights Association
Pippa Beck  Senior Policy Analyst, Non-Smokers' Rights Association
Steven Hoffman  Professor, Faculty of Health, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University, As an Individual
Beau Kilmer  Co-Director, RAND Drug Policy Research Center
Kirk Tousaw  Lawyer, Tousaw Law Corporation
Stephen Rolles  Senior Policy Analyst, Transform Drug Policy Foundation

12:10 p.m.

Director General, Workplace Directorate, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development

Brenda Baxter

I agree that the intention of the Non-smokers' Health Act is to protect non-smokers from second-hand smoke, and the focus has been within the confines of the building or in various modes of—

12:10 p.m.

Liberal

John Oliver Liberal Oakville, ON

Is there a setback from doorways, like from the main public doorways?

12:10 p.m.

Director General, Workplace Directorate, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development

Brenda Baxter

There is not in the Non-smokers' Health Act. There are other pieces of regulation, municipal and provincial regulation, that would dictate what's required in public places.

12:10 p.m.

Liberal

John Oliver Liberal Oakville, ON

I'd strongly encourage a nine- to 10-metre setback so that we as non-smokers of either tobacco or marijuana products are not being exposed to them.

I understand that Ontario's rules or regulations will come out to ban the consumption of recreational marijuana in public spaces, but I don't believe that provincial rules are applicable to federally owned properties. That would suggest to me that if I were walking down Wellington Street on city property, I would not be able to smoke cannabis, but if I stepped onto the Confederation property, which is federally owned, I could light up. Is there not going to be a problem with clustering of people? I worry about the image of Ottawa when people come to the city and see cannabis being openly consumed on the lawns of our statutory buildings.

12:10 p.m.

Director General, Workplace Directorate, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development

Brenda Baxter

As I mentioned, the Non-smokers' Health Act does look at enclosed spaces, so what you're proposing is outside of that. I think that is something the committee could look at. The question would be—

12:10 p.m.

Liberal

John Oliver Liberal Oakville, ON

As an employee, I'm walking through that space, right?

12:10 p.m.

Director General, Workplace Directorate, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development

Brenda Baxter

I guess the question is what the appropriate piece of legislation is to deal with that. The Minister of Labour and the Non-smokers' Health Act are looking at occupational spaces, so where is the workplace and what are generally public spaces? The question would be what the appropriate piece of legislation is to address that.

12:10 p.m.

Liberal

John Oliver Liberal Oakville, ON

When I was the CEO of the hospital, we came to the conclusion that all hospital property was workspace and we banned smoking from it, and it was a much healthier environment because of that decision. If you could take that back to the committee, I'd appreciate it. I think it's something we should think about.

My second question is to Mr. Keith.

In terms of what is currently in place, it's all law. Under the Canadian Human Rights Commission policy on alcohol and drug testing, it does say that as long as employees are notified that alcohol testing is a condition of employment, random alcohol testing of employees in safety sensitive positions may be permissible.

Would that not be true as well for marijuana, as long as there's a notice in advance, that there is capacity for an employer to do what you are recommending in these five recommendations?

12:10 p.m.

Partner, Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP

Norm Keith

I'm not sure the federal Human Rights Commission is correct when you square it with the Supreme Court decision in Irving. Assuming, for the purpose of the question, that it is, then you're partway there, but I think the legislative framework still needs to be completed.

Legislation is not only to just hold people accountable, but it is to give guidelines about what society says is acceptable. I think that's why I'm really promoting this idea of not just one rule or one amendment but a framework that communicates clearly what in fact our expectations are.

12:10 p.m.

Liberal

John Oliver Liberal Oakville, ON

Okay.

12:10 p.m.

Partner, Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP

Norm Keith

By the way, a good test of whether it's under the Canada Labour Code would be whether, if somebody trips and falls, they can file a workers' compensation claim against the federal government. Everywhere you have a claim or everywhere the federal government can enforce safety laws for other purposes, they clearly have jurisdiction over second-hand smoke.

12:10 p.m.

Liberal

John Oliver Liberal Oakville, ON

Those are my questions. Thank you.

12:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bill Casey

Mr. Davies, you have the last questions.

12:10 p.m.

NDP

Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC

Ms. Fraser, I want to explore a little bit of this issue of timing, this concept that we don't have time to bring edibles under the purview of this bill. My understanding is that all we would need to do is.... Schedule 4 sets out the classes of cannabis that an authorized person may sell, and that's where you see the dried cannabis, cannabis oil, fresh cannabis, cannabis plants, and cannabis plant seeds. My understanding is that we just need to add edibles and concentrates to that schedule and then provide the minister with the authority to pass appropriate regulations to govern all aspects of it, which is the general scheme of this bill.

From a structural point of view, I don't believe there is anything particularly difficult about amending the legislation.

Do you have any comment on that aspect? Then I'm going to ask you a follow-up question.

12:15 p.m.

Partner, Brazeau Seller LLP

Trina Fraser

I agree. The amendments to the bill itself would be minimal to provide for that. Again, I'm not privy to where things stand with the drafting of the regulations, but what I had understood from various government representatives who have spoken to this issue is that they were just running short on time to prepare the regulations that would be required to address the packaging and labelling issues for those types of products.

12:15 p.m.

NDP

Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC

Let's look at that. I have here the task force's final report, the McLellan report, that was issued almost a year ago, November 30, 2016. The government struck it in order to inform the legislation. Of course, in this task force they squarely canvassed the issues around edibles and concentrates and recommended, for all the reasons I mentioned earlier, that they be included in the legislation.

Again, recognizing that Washington, Alaska, and Colorado have already done it.... In fact, the testimony we heard was that Colorado initially legalized edibles, had some problems with it—they ran into some issues—and came back at it a second time and corrected them. Don't we already have a set of regulatory provisions concerning all of the aspects of edibles ready-made in Colorado that we could just simply adopt?

12:15 p.m.

Partner, Brazeau Seller LLP

Trina Fraser

I would think so. We can learn from their experiences and their mistakes and take advantage of that learning curve they've already been on. I agree with you.

12:15 p.m.

NDP

Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC

Thank you.

Mr. Keith, from a stepping-back point of view, once this bill becomes law, it will be a completely legal activity for Canadians to ingest cannabis. How do you see your proposal for random testing in the workplace squaring with that? Are you saying there can be a regimen constructed where Canadians who are engaging in a legal activity on the weekend will not have their job, employment, or livelihood affected negatively, even in safety sensitive positions, by a testing regimen? Do you see that it could be constructed so that even a crane operator doesn't lose his or her job because they smoked a joint on a Saturday night?

12:15 p.m.

Partner, Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP

Norm Keith

Of course, and there are two answers to that. There is building that into the legislative framework, but there is also the counterbalancing human rights aspect from a person who is disabled or an addict.

We may not know, and this answers the question in a different way. As soon as somebody tests positive for alcohol or drugs after they've caused an accident, the advice that unions generally give in this country is to claim you have a problem. You rush out and find an addiction counsellor who agrees that you have a problem, and that will give you an automatic preservation of your job—maybe honestly, maybe not—because you have a disability and you have protection under human rights legislation. That protection is already there, whether it's cannabis, cocaine, or alcohol.

12:15 p.m.

NDP

Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC

Leaving aside what unions or addicts may or may not say, I'm talking about a regular, garden-variety Canadian who smokes a joint on the weekend, which this legislation will make perfectly legal.

12:15 p.m.

Partner, Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP

12:15 p.m.

NDP

Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC

I'm asking whether you are suggesting to this committee that we somehow construct some rule or regulation whereby a person who engages in that legal activity on their own time somehow has their employment jeopardized, even in the safety sensitive position.

12:15 p.m.

Partner, Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP

Norm Keith

That, of course, is not any of my five suggestions. What I'm suggesting is that if they're in a safety sensitive position, and the random cannabis and other drug testing takes place, once there's a positive test, there be an inquiry into whether or not there's a medical authorization or a medical condition for which you need to have one. In the meantime, you're taken out of the safety sensitive position so that you don't hurt yourself or others, and it's dealt with appropriately.

If they are under the influence such that they are impaired, even though they were ingesting a legal substance.... Do you want to get on the plane if the pilot is impaired?

12:15 p.m.

NDP

Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC

No, absolutely.

12:15 p.m.

Partner, Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP

Norm Keith

That's the question for you and every Canadian—