Evidence of meeting #68 for Health in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was edibles.
A video is available from Parliament.
2:45 p.m.
Liberal
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
I think we'll move to municipal issues for a while.
Mayor Karsten, you spoke in terms of needing an extensive implementation process, co-ordinating with all levels of government and so forth. Certainly, that's been under way ever since this process began. I know that Parliamentary Secretary Blair has consulted across the country, with both provincial partners as well as municipal, so I think that is under way.
Other things like prioritizing decision points, federal funding and so forth, are really out of the scope of what this committee is commissioned to do. Our job is to examine Bill C-45, which deals really with the treatment of marijuana in terms of whether it's legal or not. It doesn't deal with impairment issues. Impairment issues are dealt with in Bill C-46, the study of which is going to be under way soon. Bill C-46 does provide additional mechanisms, additional tools, for detecting and processing impairment situations.
I'd like to correct the record. Ms. Gladu said that in Colorado the impaired driving rate increased. We have a letter from the Governor of Colorado and the Attorney General for Colorado too, the Attorney General of the United States, saying that in the first six months of 2017 impairment actually decreased by 21%. I take note of Ms. Emery's reference to the national highway safety board, which indicates not a major increase at least in impairment offences, so I would suggest that impairment is probably not the issue to talk about in respect to legalization.
To be more specific, right now in British Columbia we have situations where illicit growers will rent a property and turn it into a grow op, which is not appropriate for the property, not appropriate for the landlord, so policing grow ops does become an issue and I think that with this new legislation, that sort of thing will cease. I would suggest to you that's a case where this legislation will reduce the load on municipalities so I would ask all three of you witnesses if you would like to testify to that.
Starting with Mayor Karsten, please.
2:50 p.m.
Second Vice-President, Federation of Canadian Municipalities
Thank you very much, Mr. McKinnon. I have to say right up front, thank you very much for the promotion. I'm a councillor in the City of Halifax, and Mike Savage, a former member of Parliament, would not be pleased with me suggesting that I'm the mayor of Halifax.
2:50 p.m.
Second Vice-President, Federation of Canadian Municipalities
Touché.
Sir, thank you for those comments. One thing about the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, it has great respect for the work the federal government is doing on all the files and I certainly wouldn't want to be combative in responding to your points. They're well taken.
The issue, I think, in terms of when you suggest that yes, we have talked and have had meetings with folks like Mr. Blair etc., we view those more as preliminary consultations as opposed to the ability to really sit down at the table and understand this as it evolves week by week. That's still a message we have in terms of needing to be at the table and involved all the time.
It's a very interesting point that you make in terms of the variance between the two companion pieces of legislation, Bill C-45 and Bill C-46. We will be providing additional information on FCM's position in a forthcoming submission to the House of Commons justice committee that will be specifically addressing Bill C-46.
2:50 p.m.
President, Alberta Urban Municipalities Association
I would concur with Councillor Karsten. I think there is a significant difference between sitting at the table as a partner versus being asked for information as a stakeholder, which is what I consider municipalities are doing.
In regard to our invitation here or the meetings we've had with Mr. Blair, we receive a lot of information at the meetings we have with different parliamentarians, but we don't get to have a conversation about what our ideas are and how we think things can move forward. Legislation is set; regulations are set. We offer our input through a survey or some sort of letter. We're really asking for a different model. We're asking for the opportunity to sit at the table and tell you about the concerns that we have. That's not just with the federal government; it's with the province as well. In Alberta they've created the cannabis secretariat, which is administration from the different ministries, but, again, we are just asked to come and present to them what our concerns are. There's no dialogue back and forth. That's where I think the issue was.
In regard to building code safety, we are definitely advocating to the Province of Alberta that they make significant changes. That will allow us, once they've done that, to change the bylaws that we have to be able to enforce those changes. It's just part of that.
2:50 p.m.
Liberal
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
The point I'm trying to make here is that we need to get this legislation done as correctly as we can so that we have a defined train from which to proceed for defining building code changes, for defining provincial regulations, and for working out the retail model, which will be a provincial responsibility as well. Until we get this right, or as right as we can get it, all this stuff kind of hangs in the balance, right?
2:50 p.m.
Cannabis Culture
I have a good solution.
Our Canadian farmers currently grow cannabis on thousands and thousands of acres in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Alberta. They use it for seeds, but it's the same plant. It's marijuana. They can grow this marijuana. They can grow marijuana that would sell in our stores, or any stores, for $20,000 a tonne. That's 2¢ a gram. It could be sold for $1 or $2 a gram, but at a tremendous profit to all our farmers across the Prairies who have enormous amounts of land that can be used to grow marijuana.
At that point no one would grow it in their homes. Growing it in your home is expensive. It requires electricity. It's an unnecessary use of urban space. Essentially, if you just legalize marijuana the way you're supposed to and let anybody grow it who's in a position to grow it on an economy of scale, the price will plummet. No one will grow it in their home anymore. I'm looking for the day when legalization takes all the money out of marijuana.
2:50 p.m.
Liberal
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
Thank you.
I would like to hear from Mayor Holmes, please.
2:55 p.m.
Liberal
September 15th, 2017 / 2:55 p.m.
President, Alberta Urban Municipalities Association
The concern that I have in regard to this is the information. Yes, it does need to be brought forward to this committee, and you need to make decisions, and then the province will make their decisions, and the municipalities will make their decisions. What we're saying is that things are done in a silo. The province is not here. They're not discussing these changes with you. Alberta, specifically, because that's why I'm here, will have to come at some point and take what you've done and interpret it in whatever is going to happen to them, and then there's going to be things specific to Alberta we're going to have to deal with at the municipal level.
The ask that we have is we have those conversations together to try to get everything in place before July. The way that it's working right now in the timing, we don't anticipate that will happen. The conversations will happen here, and the province will get around to getting it done when they can, and then come July, we won't have anything ready at the municipal level.
2:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bill Casey
You time is up, Mr. McKinnon. Thanks very much.
That completes our first round of seven-minutes. Now we're going to go to the second round of five-minutes starting with Dr. Carrie.
2:55 p.m.
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
Again, thanks to all our witnesses. This has been a great panel.
I guess I'm looking at 288 days. This started out as an election promise, and I think it was very poorly thought out. At the end of the day, I think everyone, all the witnesses, want to look after the health and safety of Canadians, particularly our kids. We've heard from other jurisdictions, and what I'm really seeing is a disconnect here. In the United States, with Colorado and Oregon, it seems it was the people up. There were referendums, and it moved up through the process. Here we have a government that wants to do it top down.
Mayor Holmes, we've heard that a lot. The jurisdictions that have done this are telling us quite clearly, “Before you do this, make sure you have public education in place, data collection, research and development, treatment prevention, workplace safety, and all of these things in place.” It seems that the government doesn't realize that a lot of that stuff they're downloading to the provinces, the territories, the municipalities, and indigenous people without giving them the back and forth, like you were saying, to be a partner at the table. The federal government doesn't even have its law in place, and now they're expecting the status quo on the ground to adapt and everybody to just to fall in line, and we're going to be happy on July 1, and we'll get this all figured out.
I was wondering if there are any programs where municipalities can go to the government. They made these announcements, and they're great at announcements, but are there any practical things that you can work with? I couldn't even imagine what it's going to be costing you guys. For these things, public education and data collection, are there any programs where you can get funds and help from the federal government to implement what you need to have implemented in just 288 days?
2:55 p.m.
President, Alberta Urban Municipalities Association
As far as I know, no, there aren't. The thing we are most concerned about is the enforcement side. There is not the ability for us to have funding, except for what was announced last week. There are concerns in regard to public education, absolutely, and also, as I said, capacity for staff, for the people who are making the decisions to understand what the impact will be. There is a general discussion of the fact that this is an interesting topic. It's not the number one priority of municipalities in Alberta, but it's the number one thing I talk about, because I think people have the most misinformation about this. They just don't understand what they are going to deal with. They are scared that this deadline is looming and they're not going to have their communities and their citizens protected in time.
2:55 p.m.
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
Even if you look at some of the science out there.... I think it was Ms. Emery who brought up the per se limits or something, and whether they'll even hold up in court. You say you have nine RCMP officers, and my understanding is they have officers called DREs. I forget what it stands for.
2:55 p.m.
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
They have recognition experts who have been seen by the Supreme Court. These are trained officers who deal with impairment. Whether you are impaired on alcohol, cannabis, prescription drugs, glue, or gasoline, that seems to be the issue, but there's no money put forward—they've announced it—to have these officers on the ground, because we don't even know what these blood levels mean or if they're ever going to do anything.
What do you foresee to be the costing for your officers and the training that needs to be done on the ground? Do you see a time limit to actually get in place the things that we need to do before this rolls out, to protect the health and safety of Canadians?
2:55 p.m.
President, Alberta Urban Municipalities Association
The concern I have is that I'm not sure the technology exists. I haven't been told whether it is there. If it is, that's fine. Then we need to have the technology purchased and rolled out into each municipality, along with the training. We were assured, at a meeting with Mr. Blair, that the training is being brought forward from the United States and adapted to Canadian needs, and then it will be presented to the RCMP. What I have been advocating for here, though, is that we need to make sure that this extends to all levels of enforcement in a municipality, and that every single person who will be having a conversation with someone they believe is impaired will be trained to do it respectfully, so we won't be in a circumstance where someone is pulled off the street by someone who doesn't understand what the changes are.
3 p.m.
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
Thank you very much for that.
I want to ask Mr. Emery, the way they're rolling this out.... I've heard from some people who say that this is actually going to make things worse. We've been hearing from a lot of people that, if we are going to go down this route, we should slow down and make sure that we are not going to make this worse, and that this is doable for the provinces, territories, and people on the ground who are distributing marijuana, the medical marijuana market and things like that. Do you think there is any room for decriminalization if we started right away and just said, “Okay, look, let's breathe for a moment. Let's decriminalize it, for a certain amount, maybe make it a ticketable offence for now, or whatever the comfort is”? Is there any room for anything like that?
3 p.m.
Cannabis Culture
Our objective is that there be no punishment of any kind for the use of cannabis, any more than there is for responsible use of alcohol or a home brew in your own home. I can own a vineyard. With my criminal record, I can't seemingly get a licence to produce marijuana, but I can still go out and start my own brewery. I could still start my own vineyard. I can do a lot of things with alcohol, tobacco, and a number of harmful substances, but I am not going to be permitted, under this law, to participate in the marijuana industry.
One thing you mentioned was public education. I sure hope a public education campaign is not going to be done by the same government that lied to the Canadian public for 50 years and demonized us to make people fear us, when there was nothing to fear about cannabis users or cannabis growers. If we were legal, we wouldn't be growing it in homes or in facilities we've rented from other people. It would be grown out on our Canadian farms and we'd let our Canadian farmers grow it and supply us.
Soon, CBD is going to be in everything you buy. It's going to be in your yogourt and in your milk because it's non-psychoactive and it's a cannabinoid product that's immeasurably valuable to everybody. It's anti-anxiety, and everybody is stressed out and anxious. It calms you and soothes the body, and it's not psychoactive. It's an aspect of marijuana that, if you took it every day, your life would be greatly improved. You're going to see it industrialized in our foods. Anything you consume daily eventually is going to have CBD.
We're going to see an enormous amount of innovation, but we need to free the market properly in order for all this to happen. Let our farmers grow it. Let them extract it. Let us put it in our foods, the CBD. You won't be growing in homes anymore. Very few people will be smoking it after 10 or 20 years, because much more sophisticated techniques are going to come along so people can benefit.