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

7:45 p.m.

Lawyer, Tousaw Law Corporation

Kirk Tousaw

I think it is an incorrect perception and I think the empirical evidence, particularly what I think Professor Boyd shared with the committee, demonstrates that about 95% of people involved in the cannabis trade are not involved in organized crime as that term is commonly understood by Canadians. Undoubtedly, there's too much gang violence. There's too much fighting over the street corners, but by and large, that's not about cannabis. It's about other substances.

The problem, of course, is that we continue to take a prohibition-based paradigm to the use of substances or certain substances by Canadians. The real solution to gang violence is to end drug prohibition entirely and to take a more focused public health approach to drugs generally. I do want to say a little about public health though.

Public health isn't just about the health consequences or benefits of using a particular substance. Public health also includes considerations of undue and unnecessary criminalization of people, use of the courts, use of the legal regime, misuse of police resources, distrust between the police and the police, and all of those things are amplified by taking some sort of restrictive approach to people accessing relatively safe products like cannabis. I know we can say over and over again there's not a lot of research. It's the most heavily researched illicit substance in the history of humanity. People have been using it for millennia. There are not a lot of significant negative health outcomes associated with the use of cannabis. People have been smoking hash for thousands of years, which is high-potency cannabis.

I think we need to be a little cautious about making claims about perceived, possible future harms. The history of humanity demonstrates otherwise.

7:45 p.m.

Liberal

Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC

Okay. Thank you.

7:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bill Casey

Mr. McKinnon, thank you very much. The time's up.

Mr. Davies.

7:45 p.m.

NDP

Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC

Thank you.

I only have about five minutes, so I'm just going to make a brief response to Mr. Rolles and Mr. Kilmer on your comments on edibles, because I find it quite astonishing. You each seem to argue that it's not essential or even desirable to legalize edibles or other products because of—here's what interchangeably you said—the difficulty, the complexity, of titrating and dosing, and in other cases because we don't understand the public health impacts.

You're content to leave that to the black market where there's absolutely no regulation whatsoever. That strikes me, with the greatest of respect, as absurd. We're going to leave these products to the titration and dosing of people operating in the black market, because we know we've heard evidence that 30% to 70% of the consumers consuming cannabis are using these products.

It strikes me if you're really concerned about public health, you would absolutely want to bring those products within the legal regulated market. You're quite right, Colorado legalized edibles and other products and they had an initial script outlay and then they learned the lessons and came back with regulations on single servings, childproof containers, stamped products, no products marketed to children, known dosages, even concentrations. That's what Colorado does now. You seem to be arguing, “No, let's not do that. Let's leave that to the black market where none of those things can happen.”

The other point I would make is about leaving it to baking at home. With baking at home, you have absolutely no ability to control dosage or concentration. I just want to make that statement.

Mr. Tousaw, I want to turn to you. Do you have any experience with Canadians being denied entry to the U.S. simply by admitting that they used cannabis?

7:50 p.m.

Lawyer, Tousaw Law Corporation

Kirk Tousaw

I don't have any direct experience. I have some anecdotal experience with that. Generally speaking, it's hit or miss. I have clients who have convictions for trafficking offences of cannabis who have no problem going to the United States. I have people who have merely been charged but not convicted with cannabis offences who are denied at the border. It's really left up to the whim of the individual border guard.

Unfortunately, it's a thorny problem. There's not necessarily a legal solution to it. It involves political change in the United States and it involves Canada perhaps taking a stand on behalf of its citizens to say to the United States, “Look, we're your biggest trading partner. We're your most important ally. We share a long border. Stop banning our citizens from entering your country for negligible reasons.”

7:50 p.m.

NDP

Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC

Mr. Hoffman, I have a quick question to you. I don't really understand the government's motivation on these treaties, because, clearly, we're going to be in contravention of our treaties. We missed the deadline for withdrawing from the treaties, so we haven't withdrawn in recognition of our new reality nor do we have an explanation for why we're staying in.

Do you think this is because the government may think that this will jeopardize their attempt to get a seat on the UN Security Council?

7:50 p.m.

Professor, Faculty of Health, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University, As an Individual

Dr. Steven Hoffman

That could definitely be the case. I don't know what the government is thinking on this matter, but I think it could equally.... Violating a treaty could also jeopardize a seat on the UN Security Council.

In that respect, I don't think we'd go with that—

7:50 p.m.

NDP

Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC

Either way we have a problem.

7:50 p.m.

Professor, Faculty of Health, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University, As an Individual

Dr. Steven Hoffman

I think at least in one way we can say that we're not violating international law—which is, I definitely want to emphasize, a serious thing. Yes, these laws are not perfect. In fact, as I stated, they're rather mean. Yes, we should ideally seek to renegotiate them to make them better.

Just being in non-compliance with them is not a good way forward. You're never going to hear a lawyer tell you that you can just break the law—

7:50 p.m.

NDP

Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC

With impunity.

7:50 p.m.

Professor, Faculty of Health, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University, As an Individual

Dr. Steven Hoffman

That's right.

7:50 p.m.

NDP

Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC

Mr. Tousaw, just quickly, what about the fact that the federal government is still prosecuting people today? Do you have any advice to the government on what you'd like them to do?

7:50 p.m.

Lawyer, Tousaw Law Corporation

Kirk Tousaw

It's a travesty. There were 26,000 Canadians saddled with criminal records from simple possession of marijuana last year while we were moving toward legalizing this product. Their lives are irrevocably harmed by this law.

I want to underscore what I said earlier, that Canada has been in technical non-compliance with the drug treaties since at least 2005, when it allowed private companies to begin selling medical cannabis to Canadians without the government collecting and redistributing all of that cannabis. We've been violating these treaties for the better part of a decade. There have been no negative repercussions whatsoever.

7:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bill Casey

Thank you very much.

That's it, unless anybody wants to have another panel. Is there a desire to have another panel? I don't think there is.

I want to thank our presenters very much for their contribution to our study here. I'd like to thank especially Mr. Rolles, who was up all night. You were all of great help to us. You helped us understand a lot of different perspectives. Thank you very much for participating.

With that, I will end meeting 67. We are adjourned.