Health Committee on Oct. 3rd, 2017

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This will be last amendment. I'll just speak to it, if I may.

As I pointed out, this amendment would add essentially edibles and concentrates to the legalized framework of cannabis with the passage of this bill on July 1, 2018, if in fact that's the date that it's proclaimed. It would allow the legalized selling and purchasing of solids containing cannabis, non-solids containing cannabis, cannabis solid concentrates, and cannabis non-solid concentrates. The reasoning has been covered, but I'll go over it one last time.

It will be impossible to displace the illicit market without legalizing edibles, concentrates, and non-smokable forms of cannabis, which represent about half the legal market in states that have legalized it, like Colorado. Now, I'm talking about not just edibles, but things like creams, tinctures, sublingual tablets, patches, nasal sprays. We heard about suppositories. There are many ways to ingest cannabis. I want to pause and say we heard a lot of evidence that people who are accessing cannabis do so not only for the THC, which is the psychoactive element, but also for the CBD, which increasing evidence is showing is very effective as an anti-inflammatory and as an anti-spasmodic. Particularly seniors who are non-smokers, who don't smoke cannabis, are much more comfortable going into a store and, under the guidance of people who understand the properties of the products they're selling, may want to brew tea or use a topical cream, which has no psychoactive effects at all. These are the kinds of products that Canadians and people in jurisdictions that have legalized it are increasingly seeking. In some cases there's more market share in those products than in smokable cannabis.

As I've said, from a health perspective, it makes no sense to me to legalize smokable cannabis, while continuing to prohibit edibles and other non-smokable forms. States that have legalized it, like Colorado, have developed solid regulatory frameworks that are mature, and have effectively mitigated the risks associated with edibles. Canada should use their regulatory frameworks as a model, otherwise the risks associated with edibles will go wholly unmitigated in the illicit market.

The task force on cannabis legalization and regulation's final report recommended provided regulatory oversight for cannabis edibles and concentrates for both public health and safety reasons. I think we would be wise to listen to their advice. I'm just going to quote the Honourable Anne McLellan. In answer to a question of whether we should include edibles in this legislation, she said:

If your question is more in line with whether edibles should be addressed in federal legislation, absolutely. Should edibles be provided to the market? Absolutely. The task force was very clear in relation to that.

She went on to say:

...it's a growth area in the cannabis marketplace. Obviously, if you're concerned about public health, you want to move people away from smoking product into enjoying their cannabis. If it's for medicinal purposes, there are therapies in non-smoking forms. As we've mentioned, and as mentioned in the task force report, the edible market is growing. It is varied. We also know there's a demand. If you want to move from the illicit market into a regulated legal market, then you have to offer the quality and choice that the illicit market can provide. It's fair to say that we heard that over and over again from a wide variety of people we talked to. There are public health reasons and public safety reasons why you would want to authorize or allow edibles in various forms. We have discovered that the forms in which they come are only limited by one's imagination.

I'm not going to belabour the point because I believe my Liberal colleagues have come to the same conclusions I have: if we really want to get out of the illicit market, if we really want to have safe, regulated products for Canadians to buy, then we will move to add edibles. The only point of departure right now is whether we do this with this legislation, which the NDP suggests, or if we wait some time, which, as the Liberal side has suggested, they believe is the better way to go. With respect, I'm going to suggest that we adopt this motion and put it in this bill.

This bill will only be passed on July 1, 2018. That's about 10 months from now. The regulations of edibles will be promulgated by regulation. There's a lot of time for the ministry to get those regulations in place in a proper way by July 1. Again, I don't think there's any compelling reason I've heard that would warrant waiting beyond that. I respect the Conservative position that they don't believe perhaps that the product should be legally available at all. I don't want to put words in their mouth. But if we're making the decision, as the Liberals and the New Democrats believe we should, to include edibles, then all the rationale and evidence points to doing that now and none of it points to waiting. There's only harm in waiting.

I want to conclude by making a couple of comments in respect to Mr. Van Kesteren's remarks.

The social impacts of cannabis use that he pointed out, which are real—impaired driving, perhaps the impact on employees under the influence of cannabis in the workplace—are legitimate. With great respect, however, we can't talk as if they are not happening now. They are happening now. The only issue is that what we've done up to now is criminalize that behaviour, and all the evidence I've heard is that criminalizing such behaviour doesn't do anything to address the problem. In fact, all it does is add the extra stigma and harms that come from criminalizing behaviour that is ultimately probably a health matter.

It's my view that legalizing cannabis is long overdue. I congratulate the government for coming forward with this legislation. It may not be perfect, but it's an important step. I want to thank my colleague Mr. Oliver for his kind words.

I want to point out that there is an upcoming referendum called the federal election 2019. If the Conservatives believe that criminalizing cannabis is the way to go, then I hope they campaign on recriminalizing cannabis, and we'll see whether the majority of Canadians agree with them.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Gladu.

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

I want to bring to the attention of the member who talked about the products that are made with cannabis that have medical benefit—topical creams, things that people are using that are anti-inflammatories—that these things could be added to the medicinal marijuana roster we have today, which is extremely well controlled and very safe for public consumption because of the quality control and testing that's in place.

I just wanted to put that into the record.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Mr. Ayoub.

[Ramez Ayoub, Liberal, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am going to echo the comments and suggestions made by Mr. Davies concerning edible marijuana products. He indeed guessed that our government intends to do things in order, step by step. We want to discuss edible products during the 12 months following the adoption of these provisions. That was the time frame we gave ourselves in order to be able to proceed gradually.

I have a great deal of respect for my colleague's will and determination. Since we are almost done, I want to take this opportunity to thank my Conservative colleagues. Even if our points of view differ, I appreciated our discussions. Obviously, our objective will continue to be to improve things for Canadians.

In closing, I cannot prevent myself from asking Mr. Van Kesteren how long China has been a model for Conservatives. That is one point I did not understand. That is the only question of that type I wanted to raise.

As for the rest, I really think that we have done excellent, rigorous work. The committee is exemplary in that way. We will maintain that orientation. It will always be a pleasure for me to discuss things with you and to move this issue forward, whatever direction it takes.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Seeing no more speakers, I'm going to call for a vote on amendment NDP-37.

I think we should have a recorded vote on this.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I want to have one more comment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

I'm sure you do.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I want to comment that it wouldn't be fair to the totality of the evidence we heard and I think to the views of millions of Canadians, if we left without expressing that cannabis is not a substance that is dangerous and harmful to your health, although it has potential impacts in that way. Millions of Canadians view cannabis and use it as a substance that, when used properly and responsibly, as Dr. Neil Boyd said, provides pleasure and helps control pain.

Millions of Canadians view cannabis in that regard. They do not view it as a substance that is going to lead to the crashing of civilization in Canada as we know it. They view it as a substance that, just like alcohol, is used by adults to enhance their experience of life. We may not all share that view, but millions of Canadians do.

I think it wouldn't do justice to this subject to end without some comment that millions of Canadians do not view this as a substance that is damaging to their lives or their health when used properly and responsibly. I wanted to go on the record to say that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Ms. Gladu.

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

I just want to say that it's exactly these kinds of statements that puts into the minds of our young people the idea that cannabis is not harmful, when, clearly, the evidence says it is harmful. It is harmful to them. We also heard testimony from doctors who treat addiction in those who are older. There are harmful effects of the drug itself. There are also the unintended consequences, such as the increase in drug-impaired driving and those who get a hold of it who were not intended to get a hold of it.

I wouldn't want to let the record show that. That said, I also want to say that this has been a most cordial conversation. Although we are not in favour of legalization, we do support ticketed offences for possession and that sort of thing. I did try to participate, engage, and provide many recommendations as we went along. I think there was no surprise about the things that I found flawed in the bill, so thank you for the conversation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Thank you very much.

Now we go to the vote on NDP-37, and we're going to have a recorded vote.

(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Shall schedule 4 carry?

(Schedule 4 agreed to)

That takes us Liberal-22.

Okay, we don't have to do Liberal-22 because it's already adopted.

Shall schedule 5 carry as amended?

(Schedule 5 as amended agreed to)

Shall schedule 6 carry?

(Schedule 6 agreed to)

Shall clause 1, the short title, carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Shall the title carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Shall the bill carry as amended?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Shall I report the bill to the House as amended?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Shall the committee order a reprint of the bill?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Go ahead, Ms. Gladu.

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

I want to say that I had a doctor in my riding from the Ontario Medical Association come to visit me on the weekend, and he gave me quite an earful about the tax changes that are coming. He said, in fact, that many of the doctors in my riding are close to retirement, and they're looking now at shutting down their practices. We've had a shortage in my riding for some time. He was planning to open up a medical facility, but with the current things going on, he's very concerned. As a spokesperson for the Ontario Medical Association, he said he was concerned about doctors.

I'd like to move that pursuant to Standing Order 108(2)—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Is there a connection to Bill C-45 in this discussion?

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

I believe I can move a motion at any time in this committee.

I move that the committee immediately undertake a study of no less than four meetings on how the proposed changes to the tax system outlined in the government's consultation titled, “Tax Planning Using Private Corporations”, as publicly released on July 18, 2017, will impact the equality of access to medical services, including doctors covered under the Canada Health Act, across Canada and that the findings be reported to the House.