Health Committee on Sept. 15th, 2017

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Is he allowed to finish?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Oh, I'm sorry.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Karsten.

[Bill Karsten]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I was just going to say maybe the mayor has a little too much time on her hands to be watching that show.

We don't really have a position on that either, Mr. Carrie. I appreciate the question. Because we're talking U.S. versus Canada I have to get this in, that every model in every state that's been researched by our policy folks has a specific carve-out or designated fund for municipalities. I had to slip that in.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

You did.

We're going to Ms. Sidhu now for five minutes.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Chair, I'm sharing my time with John.

This bill enables revenue sharing with the provinces and territories; however, the legislation is going to be a finance issue. My question is for the FCM.

How is smoking tobacco and drinking alcohol presently calculated for apartment buildings? What would the process be to add cannabis smoke to tobacco restrictions?

[Bill Karsten]

I'm pleased to jump in. This is not necessarily based on the policy work that FCM has done, but I can speak for my municipality. Having been a councillor, now into my fourth term, it would take a complete workup by staff on a bylaw, some of which could potentially involve the public hearing process and that sort of thing. Again, it's a matter of knowing what's allowed through the regulatory framework that would enable us to go forward with that.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

In your document, “Cannabis Legalization Primer”, how can municipalities get ready? You suggest a municipality consultation as a way to get ready. Do you know how many municipalities have taken that advice?

[Bill Karsten]

I don't have the number here today. We can certainly try to get it passed on to the chair and your committee for next week. We do know, and I know that's in the abstract, that there have been many members, many communities, and many municipalities.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Thank you.

I'll pass it over to John.

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Thank you very much for sharing your time.

Thank you for your comments and testimony today. I just wanted to say, in the last few minutes of our week-long session on this, thank you to the clerk and his staff. I was doing some research to see how many witnesses have come to speak to an act before. The Fair Elections Act had 74. Bill C-51, the Anti-terrorism Act, had 75. Bill C-2 , an act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act had 20. After that, it's lower numbers. I think we might have hit the benchmark with over 100 witnesses on this topic, which speaks to the importance of it to Canadians and the social change that's coming with it.

My comment, for the Emerys and for others who have been part of this very strong culture in trying to create change, is that the purpose of the act is to prevent young persons from accessing cannabis, to protect public health and public safety by establishing stricter product safety and product quality requirements, and to deter criminal activity by imposing serious criminal penalties.

If you read the bill, the goal is not about recreational marijuana users, by optimizing their experience and optimizing their choices. It's a very different lens. I think that's the social difference or maybe the philosophical difference. I understand and hear your frustration. I hear the background that you're coming from, but the act would address different social agendas than the one you've been speaking to.

[Marc Emery]

Well, then it's inadequate, simply put. However, here's the thing. What's also important is that there's no apology. The government has to admit that this policy's been wrong for 50 years and that demonizing, persecuting, arresting, and charging 2.4 million Canadians was wrong-headed. It was counterproductive and didn't do anything good for anybody, except the police, who benefit by all these things.

There's one thing I would like to point out. You're only a youth, at ages 15, 16, and 17, for three years and then for another 70 years, on average, you're an adult. From age 18 to 85, which is the average length of life in this country now, you're an adult, so you shouldn't be writing laws for the three years prior to becoming an adult for 70 years. You should be writing the law for the adults; the autonomous adults who can get themselves abortions and who can fill themselves with alcohol. I can buy all the alcohol I want and fill my house with it. I can do a lot of things that are very dangerous and this government and this free democratic society allows me to do them. That's great because most people handle responsibility well when it's given to them.

However, in this act, it's the opposite. It's like we're children. We're being condescended to constantly and told absurd, ridiculous things, like your plant can't be higher than this. Who can control nature like that? These are plants. They grow, right? They're going to be all sorts of sizes and stuff like that.

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Thank you. I hear your reaction. I just wanted to make sure we clearly understood the intent.

[Marc Emery]

You said you were going to legalize. You didn't say this was a halfway measure to get somewhere. This was promised as legalization by the Prime Minister during the last election.

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

I have a question for the municipalities.

I've heard a couple of areas of concern. A lot of the issues you raised are with the provincial legislation yet to come. We're really dealing with some fairly limited, blunt tools at the federal level. Are there any last words you would give to the committee as we're wrapping up this week that would facilitate your ability to prepare now, based on the federal act? You have drafts of the federal act in front of you. To the extent they impact municipalities, you've got a pretty good read of what's coming at the federal level.

I understand you have a lot of detail yet for the provinces that you need to distil and understand, but is there any last federal direction that you're looking for clarity on, or areas that you're concerned about other than the timing?

[Bill Karsten]

Is that for Lisa?

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Yes, it's for Lisa and for you, sir.

[Bill Karsten]

Lisa, do you want to go first? I can't see you.

[Lisa Holmes]

Sure. Thank you, Bill.

In regard to the ask, I guess, I would like it to include a municipal revenue source in order for us to be able to cover the costs that we're going to incur for this. That's a really strong point that's been made by FCM over and over again. I'd also like some assurances that we're going to be able to get the training in place, and that it's going to happen and be covered through all municipal police enforcement services.

I would also ask that you implore the province to sit down and have a conversation about what it should look like in a year, and in five years, so that we're able to sit and ask: what is the outcome of this and how can we all work together to get there?

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Thank you.

[Bill Karsten]

Thank you very much for that question. Just in response to Lisa's comments, I would piggyback on that and say sure, let's have a continuous conversation over the next five years, but we also need to start a dialogue and conversation immediately.

I don't want to repeat a lot that I've said, but certainly we have said all along that we want to engage as partners, and we can do the job if given the tools, information, and resources to act now.

Hopefully you folks are going to get your chance to hop on flights soon and get back to your respective hometowns, but I want to leave you with what I hope is a very valid and strong point, which is that there are many examples and data that we can draw on from our neighbours in the south.

Denver is a municipality with just under 700,000. The costs associated with public health, education, and enforcement totalled $7 million at the start-up. The projected numbers for 2016 for that one municipality alone were $9 million. That is the plea, for us to be engaged with you as a national organization on an ongoing basis immediately, and to please consider start-up costs and the ongoing model to provide municipalities with the funds they need.

Thank you.

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

We'll move along to Mr. Davies, for the last question of the week.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Ms. Emery, I want to direct this question to you as someone who has operated a dispensary.

Prime Minister Trudeau also said this: “The challenge of getting this important initiative right is one of ensuring that we are broadly listening to partners, to folks from the medical marijuana industry, to municipal partners, to provinces, and of course drawing on best practices from around the world.... We're going to get this right in a way that suits Canadians broadly....”

I want to ask you a question about edibles, concentrates, and other products that Bill C-45 will continue to make illegal. We've heard evidence before this committee that Colorado, Washington, and Alaska have all legalized edibles. Colorado appears to have a very mature and thoughtful regulatory regime for those products.

Here's what the task force said about edibles:

In weighing the arguments for and against limitations on edibles, the majority of the Task Force concluded that allowing these products offers an opportunity to better address other health risks. Edible cannabis products offer the possibility of shifting consumers away from smoked cannabis and any associated lung-related harms. This is of benefit not just to the user but to those around them....

They said:

...access to a broad range of cannabis products is possible via the illicit market, including through dispensaries and online retailers.

They recommend that the government:

[r]egulate the production of cannabis and its derivates (e.g., edibles, concentrates) at the federal level, drawing on the good production practices of the current cannabis for medical purposes system....

Do you see the omission of edibles and concentrates from this bill as a good or bad thing?

[Jodie Emery]

I think Canadians should have the free choice to consume cannabis however they would like. I know that the Supreme Court of Canada sided with edible producers who literally made cookies and sold them in a dispensary—that's R. v Smith—determining that cannabis patients do need access to oils, tinctures, extracts, hashish, whatever it may be.

Edibles are extremely valuable. We know that in Toronto, when the police cracked down last year, they really targeted edibles, and seniors are the ones who are hurt most, elderly people, grandparents, who come in. They're tired of these pills that they're on, and they're tired of not being able to sleep. All they know is that a couple of bites of a cookie at night after dinner helps them feel better. No law should prohibit someone from having access to that.

If you'd like to see what branding and advertising in edibles looks like, go to a cannabis event. Just follow my social media, if you like, or check online, and you'll find that there are these marijuana events everywhere. There's an event called The Karma Cup that just happened. You can see there are dozens and dozens of brands that are sophisticated. They have logos. They have products. They put a lot of time and effort into this because the producers of edibles in this country are not shady dealers on the street corner trying to get kids to use pot. They're conscientious Canadian citizens who are trying to provide a much-needed service.

Edibles have to be legal. I personally don't believe the federal government should be managing all these little details. I think cannabis should be removed from the CDSA, and let everybody figure it out as they may. But edibles must be legal. They must be allowed.