Health Committee on Oct. 3rd, 2017

[John Clare]

No. I can explain essentially the purpose of the provision.

As was mentioned in the introduction of the motion, this section of the bill deals with the transition of applications under the narcotic control regulations, which are regulations under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

It provides for when someone has made an application under those regulations, and an example would be what is called a licensed dealer. This is someone who is licensed to handle any controlled drug or substance such as a pharmacy.

What this provides is that if I made an application under the narcotic control regulations, my application is transferred over to the cannabis act, and is considered or deemed to be an application under the cannabis act.

The amendment seeks to clarify that it's only those applications related to cannabis that are transferred over to the cannabis act, not all applications under the narcotic control regulations.

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

Why then do we have to include the words “and to any narcotic” in the cannabis act alone? The cannabis act only concerns cannabis. Surely, those things are covered in other provisions in other bills?

[Diane Labelle]

This is to ensure the continuity of an application that has been made, so it would avoid an individual who is handling both other narcotics and cannabis to have to refile a new application under the cannabis act. Whatever the other narcotic is would continue under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, and the amendment makes it clear that what is deemed is only in relation to cannabis, so there's this continuity in the application.

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

Thank you.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 159 as amended agreed to)

(Clause 160 and 161 agreed to)

(On clause 162)

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

This is where Liberal-17.1 and Liberal-17.2 come in.

Ms. Sidhu.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

As I said, I'll speak to them together. This would amend the Non-smokers’ Health Act to include outdoor workspaces on federal properties. This would include a restriction on smoking outside federal buildings, in national parks, and on federal lands.

This amendment would help to achieve the public health intent in Bill C-45 by allowing the Minister of Labour and Minister of Transport to regulate cannabis smoke in all federal workplaces both indoor and outdoor.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Is that Liberal-17.1 and Liberal-17.2, or are you just on Liberal-17.1?

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

It's Liberal-17.1.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Mr. Davies.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I'm wondering if Ms. Sidhu can expand on this. You mentioned national parks. Is the intent of this to prohibit the possession or smoking of cannabis in national parks?

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

This amendment would provide flexibility to restrict smoking or vaping of tobacco and cannabis in designated outdoor spaces and in federally regulated workplaces.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to pursue that. I'm still not quite clear.

A national park would be a federally regulated workplace. There are federal employees who work there. Is it the intent of her amendment to prohibit possession or smoking of cannabis in public parks, national parks, as being public, federally regulated workplaces?

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

It's just federally regulated places. Regulated smoker outdoor spaces is something that has been previously dealt with at provincial and territorial levels, as well as the municipal level, but not yet in federal legislation. With this amendment it will be regulated federally.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I wonder, Mr. Chair, if I could have an opinion from the ministry staff whether or not this would be broad enough that it would preclude cannabis possession or cannabis smoking in national parks completely. I'm thinking the language says that “work space means any indoor or other enclosed space—or any outdoor space or class of outdoor space designated in regulations—in which employees perform the duties of their employment, and includes...any outdoor space or class of outdoor space designated in the regulations—that is frequented by employees during the course of their employment.”

I would guess park rangers, in the course of their employment, frequent national parks space. Would that be broad enough, in your view, to preclude possession or smoking of cannabis in the entire national park?

[John Clare]

I can answer this question, Mr. Chair. In fact, I was a park warden in Jasper National Park, so it was my workspace.

I can clarify how the amendment would work. There are two parts. One is, as you read, the change to the definition of workspace. Part two is the regulation-making power under the Non-smokers’ Health Act to designate spaces in outdoor areas that would be included in the definition of workspace. That's how it would work.

It applies to the consumption, the smoking or vaping of cannabis or tobacco, not its possession. Together the two motions allow the Minister of Labour to make a recommendation to the Governor in Council to make a regulation designating certain outdoor spaces as being a workspace. In those areas, the smoking or vaping of tobacco or cannabis would not be permitted.

It's not a blanket prohibition that in any federal outdoor space suddenly now you can't consume tobacco or cannabis. It simply provides the ability, as the committee heard during witness testimony, for the minister to designate these spaces, such as an area outside of these buildings, a parking lot of Athabasca Falls in Jasper National Park, and so on.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Ms. Gladu.

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

We just had a conversation on the second-hand smoke and pot smokers being outside Confederation Building. Knowing that smoke from marijuana is five times more toxic than smoke from tobacco, I think there is some merit to this, although I do hate the whole bill.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Were they members outside the building?

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

I don't know who might be loitering there. It's just a concern that the clouds might evolve.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Okay.

Mr. Davies.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

With great respect to the studies, I don't know where the evidence came from that marijuana smoke is five times more toxic than tobacco smoke, but I certainly have never heard that and I would find that highly surprising considering the carcinogens and constituents of tobacco.

My follow-up question to Mr. Clare is, what about campsites? Park rangers have to supervise campsites. That's their place of work. Would this give the power to the minister to designate campsites as being places where people could not consume or vape cannabis? Is that possible?

[John Clare]

I think there are other considerations at play there. I wouldn't want to speculate. However, I know a campsite is a person's temporary dwelling. That's where they are staying.

I think there are a number of considerations that would be at play there. Before any kind of regulation would be made in those areas, all of those things would be given due consideration.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Thank you very much.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We go now to Liberal amendment 17.2.

Ms. Sidhu.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

I spoke on both, Mr. Chair. This was also previously dealt with at the provincial and territorial level. Now it's coming under federal legislation. This amendment would provide flexibility to prohibit the smoking and vaping of tobacco and cannabis in specific outdoor areas or spaces by regulation in federal workplaces to protect people from exposure to tobacco or cannabis smoke.