House of Commons Hansard #185 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was project.
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
Mr. Speaker, my colleague is not supposed to address other people directly. I think the tension will rise pretty quickly if this keeps happening.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota
That is a very good point. If the hon. member could address the Chair, that would be great.
Yves Robillard Liberal Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
Mr. Speaker, they have to give us this one. I was in teaching for 16 years, so I did a lot of communications. If I went back to teaching, I would invite professors not just from Quebec but from all over Canada to get involved and put the information out there. We would see that young people are not that crazy after all.
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Mr. Speaker, the member talked about a public education campaign that he said was coming online. I think that is what he said.
The marijuana task force did not talk about a campaign that should come online sometime, somewhere, at some point in the future. Rather, what the marijuana task force recommended was an immediate and sustained education campaign on the very serious risks involved in the use of marijuana, particularly for youth, as well as on the misinformation that is out there, again particularly among youth, with respect to the use of marijuana. That is something the government has failed to do.
Celina Caesar-Chavannes LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development
Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to talk about Bill C-45. Before I begin, I would like to let you know I will be splitting my time with the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell.
I am thrilled to speak about this piece of legislation, because I had the opportunity in March to invite the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and member for Scarborough Southwest to my riding, to the wonderful town of Whitby. I would like to thank him for his dedication to this file, for coming to speak to community groups, and especially for coming to Whitby.
When he came to Whitby in March, he had the opportunity to have a round table with various individuals in our community. There were mayors and councillors from Whitby and the Durham region. There were police, fire, EMS, bylaw enforcement officers, health organizations and departments, mental health professionals, nurses, and individuals from Durham College and UOIT, which is the university in Durham region.
During that round table they had a number of questions, which I highlighted and which we indicated that with the tabling of the legislation should be answered. I want to answer seven of those questions today in my speech, but I also want to speak to the parents in Whitby. Whitby is a bedroom community and there are a lot of families within Whitby, and I would like to speak to the parents because I am a parent myself.
The first question they asked was about resources to the municipalities and how they would be compensated for security, safety, and building resilience. I want to let my colleagues within Whitby and the Durham region know that we will be investing additional resources to make sure there is capacity within Health Canada, the RCMP, the CBSA, and the Department of Public Health and Emergency Preparedness to license, inspect, and enforce all aspects of the proposed legislation. Some might be saying, “That's not municipalities, Celina.” I understand. I will get there.
The task force recommended that we work with provincial and territorial governments to determine a tax regime that includes equitable distribution of revenues. The bill provides legislation and authority via the various acts, but the government is committed to ensuring that law enforcement and our courts have the legislation, technology, training, and resources required to keep our roadways and communities safe. We have committed to invest the revenue into research, prevention, public education, treatment, and rehabilitation. I think that addresses some of the concerns we have in terms of our municipalities getting the resources.
The second question was around effectively enforcing the four-plant rule. The legislation would allow the municipalities to set conditions as to where and how cannabis can be grown within their jurisdiction. Whitby, as I mentioned, is a bedroom community. It is different from other communities, and not all communities are the same. It is a growing community. Therefore, giving the municipality the capacity to determine where and how cannabis can be grown is an important part of this piece of legislation.
The third question asks about the resources for public education for cannabis. We heard some of that debate here in the House. I would like to quote the Minister of Health.
She said yesterday and in her speech again today that our emphasis is on a public health approach to the introduction of the legalization of cannabis, and it is based on a strict regulatory regime. A public health approach means that we are sure to maximize education and minimize harm. Our government is committed to having a broad public education campaign for Canadians of all ages to the proposed legislation, including the penalties for providing cannabis to youth and the risks involved with consuming cannabis. We have committed $9.6 million in budget 2017 over five years, with $1 million per year in ongoing support of public education. The campaign will be focused on helping young Canadians to make the best choices for their future and to understand the risks and consequences of cannabis.
I would also like to quote the parliamentary secretary, who said, “Under decriminalization, cannabis remains unregulated and this means that users know little or nothing about the potency or the quality. ... As long as cannabis use is illegal, it is difficult [and often impossible] for health care or educational professionals to effectively address and prevent problematic use.”
This speaks to the task force recommendation for a comprehensive public education campaign. We have learned lessons from Colorado and from Washington, where their education campaigns used the revenues from cannabis to support that education campaign, and it happened too late. We are following the recommendations, and while I agree that we could have a more robust campaign, we are committed to public education.
The fourth question related to the additional revenues from cannabis going to treatment facilities. The Prime Minister has said that cash that flows to the public coffers from cannabis taxation should go to treatment of addiction, mental health support, and education programs, and not to general revenues. As a very strong advocate for mental health, I am particularly pleased with this approach, because we know that there is a slippery slope between mental health and addiction, and it is important to ensure that we are looking at treatment.
The fifth question was around setting the age at 18. I am a mom of an 18-year-old, as well as a 13-year-old and a nine-year-old, for that matter. Earlier this week, I had the opportunity to go back to Whitby and help my daughter get ready for her prom. It was a great moment, and I want to say congratulations to all the students across the country who are graduating, but in particular to the ones from All Saints in Whitby who attended prom with my daughter. Also, this weekend is the Brooklin Spring Fair, and while, like many others, I would be at the fair with my family during the day, many of our young people tend to go to the fair at night. The message that I have to my daughter and to all young people is not to use drugs.
I say so because currently it is untested, unregulated, and potentially unsafe. We would be naive to think that if we said, “Don't use drugs”, our kids would not use them, because we know that in Canada a high percentage of 18- to 24-year-olds use cannabis. In fact, it is 30% of the population. We want to make sure that when we are talking about 18-year-olds or above using cannabis, we understand that these individuals have reached the age of majority. They can vote. They can join the military. My daughter, in a couple of months, is going to be flying to England to go to school, and she will be living on her own. They have the capacity to make choices.
We are not encouraging the use of cannabis; we are saying that well-informed adults have the ability to make a decision on their own.
The sixth question was about data collection and surveillance. We have learned from Colorado's experience to establish good baseline data. The bill would permit the establishment of a cannabis tracking system. The minister spoke about surveys that would be going out, so there is that investment in research.
Last, what did we learn from other jurisdictions? Number one, we learned that we should take a public health approach and not a commercialization approach to cannabis. We have looked at making sure that we limit our young people's access to promotion of cannabis. We saw a couple of days ago that a young girl in Fredericton drank vaping fluid that was in a package that had rainbows on it. That would not be allowed with this legislation. Our public health approach is directed entirely at reducing both the social harms and the health harms.
As a parent, I firmly support this piece of legislation and I am thankful to the parliamentary secretary, the Minister of Health, and the Minister of Justice for putting forward this piece of legislation.
Christine Moore NDP Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned being a parent.
As a parent, then, if one of her children had a criminal record because of marijuana use, because of simple possession of marijuana, does she think she would have appreciated the government including pardons for offences that will cease to be?
Celina Caesar-Chavannes Liberal Whitby, ON
Mr. Speaker, what I do teach my children is to follow the law.
Right now, cannabis remains illegal. It is illegal to buy, to sell, to produce, to import, to export. The current laws remain in force. As a parent, I tell my daughter, who as I have mentioned is 18, not to use drugs. There will be a responsibility on her, if she were to break that rule.
I am not naive with my children. I am not going to give them a free pass to break the rules or break the law. The law is the law, and they should follow it. As a parent, I expect that from my children.
Christine Moore NDP Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Mr. Speaker, I will rephrase my question.
Of course, as parents, we all teach our children to obey the law. However, many young people have a criminal record because of an offence that will soon no longer be an offence.
I think it would have been better if the bill had solved this issue immediately. What is to be done with the criminal records of people arrested for simple possession of marijuana? The bill could have included provisions to wipe out these criminal records immediately. Unfortunately, that is not the case.
Does my colleague think that this issue should have been resolved instead of leaving it hanging? Ultimately, thousands of people will have to apply for a pardon, since this offence will soon no longer be an offence.
Celina Caesar-Chavannes Liberal Whitby, ON
Mr. Speaker, the simple answer to that is no. It would be premature for us to have introduced decriminalization along with the legislation.
The legislation is in place to strictly regulate the use of cannabis, to get the profits out of the hands of criminals, and to reduce the impacts to our children and our communities. We introduced a couple of pieces of legislation, one that will legalize and one that will make enforcement of our laws, especially with driving, a lot more comprehensive.
I do not think we should have decriminalized at the same time as we introduced the legislation.
Bill Blair LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member not only for her speech but for one of the best experiences, quite frankly, I had while involved in the development of legislation and travelling across the country, which was the opportunity I was given when I received an invitation from the member to attend a round table she had organized.
At that round table, there were senior elected officials from the municipality, representatives of the police service, fire service, and public health, people who were involved in problematic substance use, and people who were involved in working with children and delivering services in their community.
For me, it was an extraordinarily good learning opportunity. It was also a great reminder about the important role that local officials will have in making sure that this works. I want to share with the House that at that meeting, what we encountered, as I had right across the country, was an overwhelming consensus that the current system is failing our kids and we must do a better job of protecting them, that it was completely unacceptable to leave this business in the hands of organized crime, which causes so much violence and victimization in our communities, and, finally, that we had a responsibility to protect the health of our citizens.
Upon reflection of that experience and her involvement in her community, does the member have any other advice for the government on how we might strengthen that relationship in working with local officials?
Celina Caesar-Chavannes Liberal Whitby, ON
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague again for his work on this file, and in particular for coming to Whitby and talking to our municipal leaders.
We have taken a comprehensive approach to the legalization of marijuana with Bill C-45 and also with Bill C-46 to ensure that our communities are safe, to ensure that drugs stay out of the hands of children, to ensure that the packaging is done in a way that does not promote the use of marijuana, and to ensure that it becomes illegal to sell or use children to sell or promote the use of cannabis.
Having the community involved in this discussion and present questions is critically important. I thank the parliamentary secretary for his duty in doing so.
Francis Drouin Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise and speak today in support of Bill C-45, the cannabis act. I want to explain that the objectives of this act are to put in place a national system that better protects our young Canadians, keeps profits out of the hands of criminals and organized crime, and where responsible adults will have controlled access to a strictly regulated source of cannabis.
Before I go on, I want to explain some of the options that we previously had. They were the status quo, which we know does not work; the Peter MacKay approach, where he wanted to ticket people until former prime minister Stephen Harper ticketed him for even saying so in public; or the advertising economic action plan approach, which does a lot of advertising with very little benefit to society.
We chose a different approach and a key feature of Bill C-45 is to protect youth and public health by restricting the advertising and promotion of cannabis.
Our government knows that there are very real health risks associated with cannabis consumption. Scientific data do not lie. Those risks increase considerably when cannabis consumption begins in early adolescence. For instance, research shows that the brain does not fully develop until the age of about 25. Young people are particularly vulnerable to the effects of cannabis on brain development and brain function. THC affects the biological mechanisms of the brain that allow it to develop.
Canadian youth have one of the highest rates of cannabis use in the world. In 2015, 21% of youth aged 15 to 19 reported using cannabis in the past year. Given the high rates of cannabis use among young Canadians today, protecting youth and minimizing harm are paramount objectives for government, along with keeping profits out of the hands of criminals and organized crime. This is a key reason why our government has committed to legalizing, strictly regulating, and restricting access to cannabis in partnership with the provinces and territories with the goal of keeping it out of the hands of Canadian youth.
I would like to point out that young people often find it easier to buy cannabis than cigarettes. I remember this well, for it was not all that long ago that I was young. We believe that creating a strong regulatory framework based on the lessons we have learned from regulating tobacco and alcohol will lead to better results, particularly regarding our children.
In particular, the way the federal government regulates tobacco advertising provides a sound basis for dealing with cannabis. The Tobacco Act sets out a comprehensive framework for limiting advertising and promotion in a reasonable and promotional manner to ensure that young people are protected from strong inducements to consume tobacco.
The proposed advertising and promotion restrictions proposed in Bill C-45 are similar to these existing restrictions dealing with tobacco where promotional activities are prohibited except in certain circumstances. Let us face it. The advertising and promotion of consumer products is a valuable tool for industry so they can generate demand for their products and increase their revenue. We have a responsibility to establish reasonable checks and balances on these activities to ensure that important public policy objectives such as protecting the health and well-being of our young persons are achieved.
I strongly believe the promotion restrictions proposed in Bill C-45 represent a balanced approach. These measures will help protect youth from being encouraged or tempted to use cannabis while also providing responsible adult users with factual information so that they can make informed decisions about the cannabis they choose to purchase and consume.
The approach our government is taking to limit promotional activities was developed in response to the influence and the impact of advertising on the general population. We know that advertising influences consumers' decisions and behaviours. Public health research confirmed that advertising can have a significant impact on the appeal, social acceptance, and normalization of a particular product and, at the same time, on the frequency of use, especially among youth.
It has also been proven that promotion can foster use by youth exposed to advertising that primarily targets adults.
In addition, there is evidence that some interventions, such as partial restrictions on promotional activities and public information campaigns, may not be effective, especially when they are competing with industry marketing and advertising campaigns. In light of this evidence, our government is proposing a comprehensive set of restrictions in Bill C-45 for the promotion of cannabis, which will protect youth and adults from being persuaded or attracted to using cannabis.
However, businesses will still be able to provide factual information to adult consumers about the products they have available so that adults will be able to make informed choices. As well, businesses will be able to provide information that allows them to distinguish themselves and their products from others in the legal cannabis market.
The prevention and reduction of inducements to cannabis consumption by youth and others is an important public health objective for our government. This objective is clearly articulated in the section dealing with the purpose of Bill C-45 and is confirmed by tough, new penalties for those who break the law, including those who target youth in their promotion of cannabis.
The following are some key measures proposed in Bill C-45 to support our government in meeting the objectives of keeping cannabis out of the hands of youth and protecting them from being encouraged to consume it. Bill C-45 proposes to prohibit the promotion of cannabis in any manner that is appealing to youth. This would include promotions featuring cartoon characters, animals, or celebrities. The use of testimonials or endorsements that are popular these days in social media or sponsorships would also be banned. The bill would also prohibit the branding of merchandise that could be considered appealing to youth, such as skateboards and lunch boxes.
Lifestyle promotions would also be banned. This would include any promotion that creates an association with cannabis that, for example, evokes a way of life that is trendy, active, or exciting. For example, cannabis advertisements would not be able to associate cannabis with success in sports or daring stunts. I do not believe we will be seeing any Crashed Ice events anytime soon.
Bill C-45 would also prohibit any promotion that includes false, misleading, or deceptive information. This measure is important because such promotion could result in a false impression about important matters, such as potency of the product or potential health effects.
The proposed measures are consistent with the advice of the expert task force our government established last year. They told us that an overwhelming majority of stakeholders strongly recommended that the government take a public health approach and impose reasonable restrictions on efforts to promote cannabis. By adopting a public health approach, our government is acknowledging this recommendation.
These measures are necessary to protect youth and others from any inducement or temptation to consume cannabis. They will be even more important given the health risks associated with cannabis consumption which, as we know, are even greater for Canadian youth.
I am pleased to say that the legislative measures proposed in Bill C-45 will be supported by investments and efforts to increase cannabis-specific public health awareness and education that will target young Canadians and other groups. Our government is committed to early and sustained public awareness and education activities. As we know, in budget 2017, our government committed $9.6 million over five years to a public education and awareness campaign and surveillance activities. I believe this is vital to increase awareness and understanding the risks associated with cannabis use and to promote responsible consumption.
As I previously mentioned, Bill C-45 does strike the right balance by allowing industry to promote its products and brands in an appropriate and controlled manner. For example, Bill C-45 would allow information-type promotion directed at adults. This type of information would include factual and accurate information about cannabis products, such as price, THC levels, ingredients, and the use of pesticides. It would also allow the promotion of information for the purpose of distinguishing brands. This would include information about the characteristics of a cannabis brand.
This type of promotion would be permitted in places where it cannot be seen by anyone under the age of 18. This would include places young people cannot access by law or a website where there is an appropriate tool to verify age. For the packaging and labelling of cannabis, the cannabis act would also work to protect youth and Canadians. The restrictions would include measures to ban any packaging appealing to children and the use of false or misleading information on a package.
I am confident that the proposed approach for the advertising and promotion of cannabis provides the best balance of protecting youth and public health while enabling adults to make educated and informed decisions.
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully as my colleague read his notes, which were likely prepared by cabinet or the health minister, since they contained a lot of details about advertising. However, he did not say what he thinks about whether the bill trivializes the use of marijuana in Canada. Does he really believe that young people who do not have access to nicely packaged cannabis will just not buy or use it?
I want to remind my colleague that, when I talk to my constituents, most high school students say that they are opposed to using marijuana because they have seen the effects that it has had on their friends.
Does my colleague encourage the use of marijuana among young people between the ages of 18 and 25?
Francis Drouin Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.
He just drew attention to the fact that young people are currently using marijuana, so now we need to figure out what to do about it. We can take the same old approach that is not working, as demonstrated by the fact that Canada has one of the highest rates of cannabis use in the world, or we can come up with a new approach.
I remember that it was much easier for me to buy marijuana in the school yard than it was for me to buy alcohol. To do that, I had to cross the border into Quebec, even though it was not very far since I am from Hawkesbury. Marijuana dealers do not ask to see ID. Unfortunately, that is not what happens. With a regulated system, young people would not have such easy access to cannabis.
Anne Minh-Thu Quach NDP Salaberry—Suroît, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am a little baffled to hear the member opposite saying that the Liberals want to protect our young people and public health by focusing on prevention, and that they are doing so by imposing sanctions. That is not what prevention means to me.
The Minister of Health and my colleague said several times that awareness campaigns were a priority in Bill C-45. I am happy to hear that, but there is no new funding associated with this bill for prevention programs in our schools or in community groups that work directly on the ground with young people in the areas of addictions, crime and mental health.
Why is the government not allocating the necessary funding? Colorado allocates $45 million a year, whereas this government plans to allocate less than $2 million. In five years, it will be only $1 million a year. That is not nearly enough to run a decent and much-needed prevention campaign. The provinces, teachers, and community groups are asking for funding for prevention, as are all of the experts who work with young marijuana users.
Francis Drouin Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Mr. Speaker, the NDP seems to be saying that there is currently no prevention campaign in Canada and that the rate of cannabis use is suddenly going to skyrocket all across the country because of Bill C-45. That is not what is happening and that is not what the evidence shows.
I attended two sessions in schools designed to prevent the use of cannabis and other drugs. There are already measures in place. What we are proposing is a partnership between the federal government, the provinces and the municipalities.
The NDP likes to say that it wants us to spend more money, but it wanted to balance the budget. If it had balanced the budget, it would not have had any money left for health transfers, which also play a big role.
Cathay Wagantall Conservative Yorkton—Melville, SK
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government recently introduced Bill C-45, which aims to provide legal access to recreational cannabis and to control and regulate its production, distribution, and sale.
The Liberals are on record as saying they hope it receives royal assent before July 2018. Numerous studies cite marijuana as one of the most abused drugs across the world. The Liberal call for its legalization has a significant impact on governments, businesses, and individuals.
In an August 1, 2016, opinion piece, Richard Berman of The Washington Times wrote:
Proponents like the Drug Policy Alliance claim that legalization should occur partially for “health” reasons. The Marijuana Policy Project has called pot “harmless.” Others say it is “safe” and even “healthy.” Nearly all proponents seem to deny or minimize its risks. Popular culture reinforces this view portraying use generally as a risk-free endeavor. And big business looking to cash in on legalization is all too happy to propagate this claim.
But here’s the problem: This view is out of step with the medical literature. In fact, a scientific consensus exists that marijuana has serious health implications—even for casual users.
Despite marijuana gaining greater acceptance in our society, it is important for people to understand what is known about the adverse health effects and extenuating implications of its use in a society. Parliamentarians, in particular, are entrusted with the health and well-being of Canadians and should not overlook these risks.
Recreational marijuana has a very different use from the already legal medicinal marijuana. Recreational marijuana is used with the intention of altering how one feels by achieving an altered state of consciousness by getting high. THC is the main psychoactive or mind-altering chemical in marijuana and the one responsible for the intoxicating effects that people are seeking.
According to an April 2017 paper published by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, advancing an addiction science letter to the director:
When marijuana is smoked, THC and other chemicals in the plant pass from the lungs into the bloodstream, which rapidly carries them...[through the bloodstream and into]...the brain. The person begins to experience effects almost immediately....
If...consumed in foods or beverages, these effects are somewhat delayed—usually appearing after 30 minutes to 1 hour—because the drug must first pass through the digestive system.... Because of the delayed effects, people may inadvertently consume more THC than they intend to.
...THC stimulates neurons...to release the...chemical dopamine at levels higher than [attained normally by the human body. It is this assisted]..."high" that...recreational marijuana [users] seek.
The American Society of Addiction Medicine marijuana fact sheet states that pleasant experiences with marijuana are by no means universal:
Instead of relaxation and euphoria, some users [due to their age, previous exposure, and toxicity levels] experience anxiety, fear, distrust and panic.... People who have taken large doses of marijuana may experience an acute psychosis, which can include hallucinations, delusions and a loss of the sense of personal identity.
Richard Berman, The Washington Times writer, goes on to state in his August 1, 2016, report:
According to research published in the medical journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: “Someone who uses marijuana regularly has, on average, less gray matter in his orbital frontal cortex.”
Another study finds that the hippocampus—the part of the brain responsible for long-term memory—is abnormally shaped in daily marijuana users.... Studies show even casual marijuana use causes abnormalities in the density, volume and shape of the brain.
He concludes his argument by stating:
I don’t want to be associated with the fear-mongering “This is your brain; this is your brain on drugs” commercials from last century, but their underlying message was essentially correct.
In January 21, 2014, John Hawkins, a Townhall columnist, wrote:
A recent Northwestern University study found that marijuana users have abnormal brain structure and poor memory and that chronic marijuana abuse may lead to brain changes resembling schizophrenia. The study also reported that the younger the person starts using marijuana, the worse the effects become.
Marijuana has been shown time and again to distort perception and impair short-term memory and judgment. This reality played out in an even larger legal recreation forum has major future implications for our youth, industry, and government institutions, and the above seems to be just the start of our concerns.
In addition to the various mental health studies cited above, we cannot overlook physical health as well, specifically lung health. The National Institute on Drug Abuse states that because of how it is typically smoked, with deeper inhale and held for longer, marijuana smoking leads to four times the deposition of tar compared to cigarette smoking. Believe me, I am not suggesting that cigarette smoking is a better choice. Further, it stated that people who frequently smoke marijuana had more outpatient medical visits for respiratory problems than those who do not smoke. It states:
Like tobacco smoke, marijuana smoke is an irritant to the throat and lungs and can cause a heavy cough during use. It also contains levels of volatile chemicals and tar that are similar to tobacco smoke, raising concerns about risk for cancer and lung disease.
Marijuana smoking is associated with large airway inflammation, increased airway resistance, and lung hyperinflation, and those who smoke marijuana regularly report more symptoms of chronic bronchitis than those who do not smoke....
Marijuana smoke contains carcinogenic combustion products, including about 50 percent more benzoprene and 75 percent more benzanthracene...than cigarette smoke.
In short, marijuana smoking is terrible for one's physical health. It is even more toxic than cigarette smoke with the side effects manifesting themselves much earlier than found in tobacco users. In addition to lung health concerns, there is also concern for the effect of second-hand smoke and ingestion. Here is just one example of what I mean. We are all aware of the horrendous effects of fetal alcohol syndrome and how it has wracked our society. The same alarm bells can also be raised on marijuana use during and after pregnancy. A U.S. Department of Health and Human Services study published on December 11, 2013, states:
Smoking tobacco or marijuana, taking prescription painkillers, or using...drugs during pregnancy is associated with double or even triple the risk of stillbirth, according to research funded by the National Institutes of Health.
I note that the previous speaker commented on some of the health concerns and also talked about packaging and what would be on that packaging for adults purchasing it. I did not hear about anything on that packaging that would indicate any of the health concerns that we are mentioning here today. The American Society of Addiction Medicine marijuana-use fact sheet says two alarming facts that parliamentarians need to take particular note of:
Brain development may be negatively affected by THC exposure very early in life. Research in rats suggests that exposure to even low concentrations of THC late in pregnancy could have profound and long-term consequences for both brain development and behavior of offspring.
Evidence from human studies shows that pregnant women who use marijuana have babies that respond differently to visual stimuli, tremble more and have a high-pitched cry, suggesting problems with neurological development.
Although laws will be put in place respecting age restrictions for the drug, we are all not so naive in this day and age as to expect that, with increased accessibility, those younger and below the legal age will not also access it. The April 2017 National Institute on Drug Abuse study raised additional concern for increased potential for youth exposure to the drug:
Considerable evidence suggests that students who smoke marijuana have poorer educational outcomes than their nonsmoking peers. For example, a review of 48 relevant studies found marijuana use to be associated with reduced educational attainment.... A recent analysis using data from three large studies in Australia and New Zealand found that adolescents who used marijuana regularly were significantly less likely than their non-using peers to finish high school or obtain a degree. They also had a much higher chance of developing dependence, using other drugs, and attempting suicide.
In the face of these revelations, for my fellow Liberal parliamentarians to want to rush to legalize this drug by July 2018 is deeply concerning.
Whose needs are truly being met here? As Townhall columnist John Hawkins further states:
Movies portray potheads as harmless, fun-loving people who spend their time giggling and munching Cheetos, but they don't show these people when they are flunking out of school, losing their jobs, frustrated because they can't concentrate or losing the love of their lives because [of their addictions].
Denver Post writer, Joanne Davidson, wrote, and quotes Dr. Drew Pinsky in a September 19, 2014, article:
Make no mistake, says addictions specialist Drew Pinsky, marijuana is addictive—and the earlier one starts to use it, the greater the consequences. “It acts like an opiate and causes severe addiction,” Pinsky said during a Colorado visit this week. “It affects the white matter of the brain, and for kids who start using marijuana when they are 12, or even younger, those bad consequences tend not to reverse.”
Do we need that to deal with as well?
It is not lost on anyone here that potency levels are a lot higher than they were 20 to 40 years ago. Not only are legalization alarm bells being raised by our respected health and youth institutions but also by industry.
As Tim Bradley writes in his October 2016 article, “No, We Should Not Legalize Recreational Marijuana Use”:
Some argue that marijuana use is merely a private vice—if it is a vice at all—and that it does not have much of an effect on others. But...private acts of vice can imperil important public interests when the private acts begin to multiply.
No one sits down to smoke a joint hoping to avoid getting high. No one ever seeks out a seller and says, “I want some marijuana, but not enough to get high on.” Even those who might try marijuana experimentally are intending to get high.
With legalization of this drug will come increased use by our workforce and with that, unintended consequences and costs for others, with increased risks for injury or accidents.
The National Institute on Drug Abuse, in April 2017, said:
One study among postal workers found that employees who tested positive for marijuana on pre-employment urine drug tests had 55 percent more industrial accidents, 85 percent more injuries, and 75 percent greater absenteeism compared with those who tested negative for marijuana use.
On February 17, 2017, on CBC News, Newfoundland and Labrador Radio One, Stephanie Kinsella interviewed Dan Demers, an occupational health operations manager at CannAmm Occupational Testing Services. It is well reported that detectable amounts of THC remain in the body for days or even weeks after use. Mr. Demers states:
Marijuana and dangerous activities, safety-sensitive duties, can't mix. The issue is, the use the night before work actually affects performance the next morning.... reaction time and depth perception can be affected even if someone uses marijuana the night before. If you're working at heights in the construction industry, your ability, for instance, to take into account somebody beside you, their facial expression changed because something is falling, the part of the brain that's responsible for recognizing facial expressions gets impeded for over 12 hours....
It's going to become much easier to access and there's going to be less cultural stigma towards it...
Which is what will happen,
... and the consequence is we're going to see it more frequently on our roadways, more frequently on our work sites...that's going to have some consequences.
Mr. Demers is right in citing this concern. According to a May 10 2017, CBC News report, Saskatoon police handed out over $18,000 in speeding tickets to 50 drivers in construction zones in one day over two hours. That is a lot of workers lives needlessly already in danger, without additional marijuana impairments added to the mix.
When speaking to industry stakeholders in my own constituency, similar concerns are being levelled. As Dean Beeby, senior reporter for the CBC Parliamentary Bureau, notes in a March 15, 2017 article:
“More stoned workers will be showing up in Canada's workplaces with the coming legalization of marijuana, but companies have few tools to cope with potential safety risks.... We're caught in a potential Catch 22: how do you protect the worker and those around them as well as deal with legalized marijuana?” said Cameron MacGillivray, president of Enform, a Calgary-based oil-and-gas safety group. “It is a pressing concern for the industry because of the...catastrophic impacts of somebody doing a critical safety job when they're impaired.” The Liberal government is expected to introduce legislation by the summer making recreational marijuana legal, at a time when the science of detecting and measuring impairment is incomplete.
Even more disturbing is a news development cited, on April 17, 2017, in The Globe and Mail, in an article by Robert Weir and Adam Pennell, “How Canada’s marijuana legislation will affect employers”. It says:
In the meantime, Canadian employers have questions about how to respond to this changing legal landscape. This uncertainty also extends, to a somewhat lesser degree, to the Canadian judicial system. Coincidentally, on April 3, 2017, an Ontario Superior Court judge declined to grant an injunction striking down a random drug testing policy sought by the union representing employees of the Toronto Transit Commission.
Think about that. With legalization, what challenges will existing employee protection laws be under? It is alarming to think that safety laws are already starting to be questioned and challenged. Although marijuana users will be subject to similar rules as alcohol users, the propensity of THC to remain in the system and impair judgment long after use remains in play.
The article goes on to say:
...section 25 of the Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act requires that employers take every precaution reasonable in the circumstances for the protection of a worker. Safety-sensitive positions, such as those involving the operation of heavy machinery, may include essential duties or requirements that create safety concerns when a proposed accommodation plan includes marijuana use.
Right now, workers' compensation rates for Saskatchewan for injury time losses are down. What toll on these otherwise encouraging statistics, personal and economic, will legalized marijuana have in this instance? We need to think about the added time and cost for both small and large businesses to monitor marijuana toxicity in their work sites. As well, there are looming safety implications for workers in industries like Alberta's oil sands plants and Saskatchewan's potash industry, industries that require thousands of operators a day to run some of the largest equipment on earth. I have to shudder at how at ease the Liberal government is putting this additional weight on our industry stakeholders to fulfill a poorly thought through election promise to garner the votes of a special interest group. Is that the priority of the Liberal government? Is this worth putting at risk the health and safety of Canadians impacted by illness, addiction, injuries, and death on our roads and in the Canadian workforce?
Two junior high boys stopped me on the street while I was campaigning for the election and asked if I was supporting the guy who wants to legalize marijuana. The response to my “No, definitely not”, was “Good, we don't want that in our town.”
At every school I have visited since becoming the MP for Yorkton—Melville, classrooms have always asked why the government wants to legalize marijuana. These concerned young people told me that they know doing so will increase access, use, and negative repercussions for their generation. I share their concern with the government today, and on their behalf, indicate that the common sense and concern they have toward this issue is refreshing and affirming and should be heeded by the government.
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's remarks. She did lay out quite a number of good facts, but the sentiment of her remarks is this: that attitude is burying one's head in the sand in terms of what the reality out there in the world is today. That is what it really is, burying her head in the sand about the reality of what is happening out there today. They are good facts, and we have a problem in terms of marijuana use we have to deal with. What is the best way to deal with that?
If members ask young teenagers who are in school, or 11- or 12-year-olds, which it is easier to gain access to, legal liquor or illegal marijuana, if they are being honest, they will answer illegal marijuana. By legalizing marijuana, we will know what the strength of the marijuana is. We are establishing education programs to talk about its dangers. We are controlling the product. We are moving to set up roadside testing.
Is the member burying her head in the sand, or is she looking at the reality of the world and what legalization can do in improving and lessening marijuana use, ensuring that it is a safer product, and having an education system to take it out of the hands of young people?
Cathay Wagantall Conservative Yorkton—Melville, SK
Mr. Speaker, talk about burying one's head in the sand. This is before us today because the Liberal government made a promise, one of a gazillion, to simply gather the vote of a particular group. I can assure the member that when I hear the Minister of Health saying that we need to legalize marijuana because 30% of 20- to 24-year-olds are using, the rationale is—
Cathay Wagantall Conservative Yorkton—Melville, SK
I'm sorry, your minister said 30%.
The reality is that the government somehow thinks that if it legalizes this drug, it is going to be used less. I have worked in addiction circles. I have individuals who are very near and dear to me, and I can assure members that they know that legalizing this drug will not keep it out of the hands of young children. As a matter of fact, they are the ones telling me that this will not be the case.
Clearly, this is not a good move for the young people in our society. It is not a good move for adults who want to use it. When the government says what will be on the package, there is no reference to what we know are the dangers of this particular drug. The education the government is suggesting it is going to have will not even come out before it makes it legal in our communities. It is very disconcerting.
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Yorkton—Melville very clearly laid out some of the concerns that still exist in society, and that is why we in the NDP have taken the strong position that on this road to legalization, the government must be very clear and must have the resources to make sure we have that public awareness and that public health approach.
When I was listening to the facts and figures, it seemed to me that the member was building a stronger argument against the status quo, because if there are a high number of youth using it in an unregulated system that is illegal, where we cannot keep track of it and have a public health approach, it seems to be an argument against the status quo, and we need to move beyond that.
I want to reference something for the member. What prevents people from getting the help they need is the stigma attached to using drugs when they are criminalized. I will point out the example of Portugal. Portugal, which decriminalized all drugs in 2001, now has a rate of overdose deaths of three for every one million citizens. That compares to about 44 in the United Kingdom, where drugs are illegal. By removing that stigma, perhaps we can take a more public health approach and encourage people to get the help they need without fear of being criminalized for their actions.
Cathay Wagantall Conservative Yorkton—Melville, SK
Mr. Speaker, the truth of the matter is that legalizing any of these drugs does not mean that our health system will better deal with it. Why is our health system not dealing with it now? Why do we need to legalize it? Why do we need to regulate the height of a plant in a house and how many there are? Who is going to do that? No one is going to be doing that. There is no way the government has the amount of money it needs to set up a regulation system like that. It is going to be in homes and available to children, children who never thought about using it in the past. It will be there, and they are going to be tempted to use it. This is not the approach we should be taking. If we are serious as parliamentarians about the health and safety of Canadians, this is not the route to take.
One individual talked about brown packaging somehow making it less appealing. Why are we not doing that with beer or wine products? We do not do that. It does not make a difference. I can assure everyone that from the interactions I have with youth in my communities, access to these drugs is available to them now, and the government will not have the money it needs to compete, because it is overextending itself in every direction.
Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
Mr. Speaker, as a father of three children and a grandfather of nine, I can say without question that I am very concerned about the direction the government is going. The government claims to be basing its decisions on science-based evidence, and so on, but clearly, science is not on its side on this one.
The Canadian Medical Association has been very clear in its recommendations. In fact, just this week, Dr. Diane Kelsall, in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, said, “Simply put, cannabis should not be used by young people.” She provided a number of statistics and then said, “If Parliament truly cares about the public health and safety of Canadians, especially our youth, this bill will not pass.” I wonder how my colleague would respond to that.
Cathay Wagantall Conservative Yorkton—Melville, SK
Mr. Speaker, this is the part that confuses me the most. A government that says it enacts legislation only on the basis of sound science is completely turning a blind eye to the recommendations from organizations such as that health organization that know that this is not a good move for our country. This is not something that is going to improve the lives of young people, right up to the age of 25.
Yes, we all get to make those decisions. As the member across the floor said, “We're adults, so we get to make these decisions.”
Why, as a government, empower making negative decisions? I do not understand it.