EVIDENCE

Standing Committee on Health NUMBER 064 1st SESSION 42nd PARLIAMENT Monday, September 11, 2017 Le lundi 11 septembre 2017 Standing Committee on Health CANADA EVIDENCE September 11, 2017 Committee Edited Evidence * Table of Contents * Number 064 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 064 (Official Version) Témoignages * Table des matières * Numéro 064 (Version officielle) 64 11 09 2017 2017/09/11 08:30:00 House of Commons Comité permanent de la santé Standing Committee on Health HESA Chair Mr. Bill Casey 42 1

(0830) [ English ]

The Chair (Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, Lib.)) :

It being 8:30, we are going to call together meeting number 64. I want to welcome everybody back and welcome new members to the committee. I welcome all of our invitees who are testifying today. We're starting on an interesting mission: a study on Bill C-45 ,

an act respecting cannabis. I expect that it's going to be interesting, and it looks like we have some interest in the issue. We have several witnesses today. I want to point out that with today being September 11, we're going to have a moment of silence at 8:46 in recognition of the disasters that happened in Virginia, Washington, and New York, when almost 3,000 people died in that awful tragedy, including between 24 and 29 Canadians. I will be interrupting at 8:46 and will call for a moment of silence, but in the meantime, I'll introduce our guests.

We have mostly federal, provincial, and territorial responsibilities on our agenda today. Our witnesses are, from the Department of Health, cannabis legalization and regulation branch, Jacqueline Bogden, assistant deputy minister, and Eric Costen, director general. From the Department of Justice, we have Carole Morency, director general and senior general counsel, criminal law policy section, and Diane Labelle, general counsel, Health Canada legal services.

From the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, we have Kathy Thompson, assistant deputy minister, community safety and countering crime branch. From the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, we have Joanne Crampton, assistant commissioner, federal policing criminal operations. I want to welcome all of you and thank you for coming. I'm sure your lives are getting very interesting right about now, so you can share some of that with us. My understanding is that Ms. Bogden is going to open up on behalf of everybody. You'll have 10 minutes, Ms. Bogden, and then we'll open the floor to questions.

Ms. Jacqueline Bogden (Assistant Deputy Minister, Cannabis Legalization and Regulation Branch, Department of Health) :

Good morning, and thank you for the opportunity to appear before the committee. As the chair has already introduced me and my colleagues, I'll dispense with introductions. As public servants, we're responsible for providing advice and support to ministers in developing this proposed legislation. I should also note that Bill C-46 was introduced to strengthen the laws for drug-impaired driving. It's being studied by the justice committee. Mr. Chair, your committee is embarking on the study of an important, complex, and transformative piece of legislation.

On behalf of my colleagues, I'd like to provide the committee with a brief overview of the proposed legislation. I'll focus on three main aspects. The first is the context that has informed the development of the new control framework for cannabis in this bill and the government's objectives. Second, I will highlight some of the key provisions of the bill, in particular the roles and responsibilities of the different levels of government. In doing so, I will also describe how we're working with our provincial and territorial colleagues collaboratively.

Third, I will describe the equally important work that is under way to support this legislative change, including increased public education and awareness focused on the health and safety risks of cannabis use. Let me begin by describing the current context. Canada has some of the highest rates of cannabis use in the world. Of particular concern are current patterns of use that we're seeing among teens and young adults. More than one in five Canadians between the ages of 15 and 19 say they have used cannabis in the last year. The rate is higher still for young adults.

Nearly one in three Canadians between the ages of 20 and 24 report using cannabis in the past 12 months. These rates of use are of concern given that the risks of cannabis use are higher for youth than for adults and that the risks increase the younger they start using it and the more often they use it. Alongside these high rates of use among youth and young adults is an illegal market that's valued at $7 billion annually for organized crime and those who choose to break the law. This illegal market also places a considerable strain on the resources of Canada's criminal justice system.

We see the results in the prosecution of simple possession offences. In 2016 Statistics Canada reported that over three-quarters of cannabis-related charges were for possession of cannabis. Mr. Chair, against this backdrop it becomes clear that the status quo has not been effective at deterring use or preventing easy access to cannabis for young people. With Bill C-45 the government is setting out a new proposed control framework for cannabis. The government's objectives are clearly laid out at clause 7 of the proposed bill.

These objectives are to protect the health of young persons by restricting their access to cannabis, and to protect them from inducements to use cannabis. It also seeks to deter illegal activities through appropriate sanctions and enforcement measures. It provides for the legal production of cannabis to reduce these illegal activities. It seeks to reduce the burden on the criminal justice system. It would allow adults to possess and access regulated, quality-controlled cannabis. Very importantly, it would enhance public awareness of the health risks associated with cannabis use.

The proposed act is closely aligned with the findings of the task force on cannabis legalization and regulation. The task force consulted widely and extensively. It sought expert opinion from public health, justice, and law enforcement, among others. It sought the view of provincial, territorial, and municipal governments; U.S. state government officials; and, of course, Canadians. The proposed act would create strict national rules that will control the production, distribution, sale, and possession of cannabis in Canada.

It would allow adults to have legal, strictly regulated access to cannabis that they could obtain through either a government-licensed seller or growing it in limited amounts at home.

(0835) In particular, the bill proposes a number of measures designed specifically to better protect young people from cannabis. For example, it would be illegal for adults to sell or to distribute cannabis to anyone under the age of 18, and provinces and territories could increase this minimum age. The act would create two new criminal offences with maximum penalties of 14 years in jail for distributing or selling cannabis to a young person or using a young person to commit a cannabis-related offence.

The act would also prohibit promotion and advertising of cannabis that could be appealing to young people, similar to the restrictions we have in place right now for tobacco. It would also prohibit products, packaging, and labelling that are appealing to youth. Adults would be permitted to possess up to 30 grams of dried cannabis in public or an equivalent amount in other forms. There would be penalties for those who break these new rules, and these penalties would be proportional to the seriousness of the offence. There would be ticketing options for minor offences.

More serious violations, such as illegal commercial production or taking cannabis across Canada's borders, would be subject to fines or imprisonment. I'd like to turn now to the roles and responsibilities of the federal, provincial, and territorial governments. In keeping with the advice of the task force, the proposed act sets out a shared framework for the control and regulation of cannabis, which would require ongoing federal, provincial, and territorial co-operation.

Under the proposed act, the federal government would be responsible for licensing and regulating the production of cannabis, including setting and enforcing high standards for health and safety. Consistent with their jurisdictional authorities and experience, the provincial and territorial governments would be able to regulate the distribution and sale of cannabis in their respective jurisdictions. Provinces and territories together with municipalities would also have broad flexibility to adapt certain rules into their own jurisdictions and to enforce them through a range of tools including tickets.

These could include setting a higher minimum age or stricter limits on personal possession or personal cultivation. Local governments would also have responsibility for establishing rules around whether cannabis can be consumed in public, enacting zoning bylaws governing where stores may be located, policing, and enforcing bylaws. Mr. Chair, coordination among various levels of government is and will continue to be absolutely essential.

For that reason, in spring 2016 federal, provincial, and territorial ministers of health, public safety, and justice established a working group of officials to facilitate consultation, information sharing, and collaboration throughout the design and implementation of this proposed legislation. Since that time, senior officials have been meeting every three weeks to discuss key issues, consult each other, share information, and coordinate our respective efforts, and this collaboration will continue. Provinces and territories are preparing.

Many jurisdictions have announced plans or launched public consultations or their intention to do so. We are completely committed to working together collaboratively in the months ahead as our respective jurisdictions prepare for potential implementation of this legislation if it is approved by Parliament. Mr. Chair, as I near the conclusion of my remarks today, I'd like to describe briefly a couple of other dimensions of work that will support this legislation. First is a system of comprehensive monitoring and surveillance.

It will help us to evaluate the implementation of the legislation and to make appropriate adjustments as necessary just as other jurisdictions, such as Colorado and Washington, have done. Second, as I mentioned as the outset of my remarks, is a comprehensive public education and awareness campaign in concert with provinces and territories, municipal health authorities, and other key partners. This campaign will provide Canadians, especially young Canadians, with the information they need to be informed about the health and safety risks of cannabis use. In closing, Mr.

Chair, I wish to emphasize that Bill C-45 seeks to provide a new, more effective control framework for cannabis, one that can ensure greater protection for young people and that will, in time, displace the illegal market. With that, we would be most happy to answer the committee's questions. Thank you.

(0840) The Chair :

Thank you very much. I want to make sure that Justice and Public Safety have an opportunity to make opening statements. They have no requirement to make opening statements? All right, we'll go right to questions with Mr. Oliver for seven minutes.

Mr. John Oliver (Oakville, Lib.) :

Thank you very much for the presentation, and thank you to the rest of you for being here. It's quite clear that our current approach to cannabis is not working. Jacqueline, I think your opening comments were that 21% of youth have reported using cannabis in the last year, and 30% of young adults have reported using it. We needed to make a change and I think this legislation has done a great job of bringing those changes forward.

I believe the goals from the government were to better protect youth, to take business away from criminals, and to put public health front and centre, so that the people who are consuming cannabis understand who has made it and how safe it is to use. Those were the three overarching goals. I want to begin with a question about youth. That's the number one goal: how do we better protect our youth, who right now have fairly easy access to marijuana? My first question is to Justice Canada. Carole and Diane, how does the proposed legislation specifically protect Canadian youth?

(0845) Ms. Carole Morency (Director General and Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice) :

Bill C-45 proposes criminal offences that would prohibit anyone from selling or distributing cannabis to a young person. The intention with the bill is to keep it out of the hands of young persons. However, the bill does recognize the reality that young persons, even under a completely prohibited regime as we have today, do have access to cannabis and in quite high numbers relative to other countries.

Bill C-45 would not propose to criminalize possession of a very small amount—five grams or less—but rather, would leave it to provincial jurisdictions to determine if, and how, they wish to address that through their area of legislative jurisdiction. To the extent that a young person does commit an offence under Bill C-45 , the bill does take the usual criminal law approach.

A young person who commits a cannabis offence would be dealt with under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, which takes a more rehabilitative, restorative approach and directs police to consider alternatives to the formal justice system, including cautions or warnings before laying charges, or referrals to community programs. Those are the criminal law protections that Bill C-45 proposes for youth.

Of course, as my colleague has already mentioned, the bill also proposes numerous requirements that would protect youth against being able to access...in terms of labelling requirements, promotion and advertising, and the like.

The Chair :

I'm going to break in here for a moment. As I said earlier as we opened up, we won't take away from your time, but today is the anniversary of 9/11. At 8:46, at this time exactly, planes crashed into the World Trade Center, taking the lives of 3,000 people, including dozens of Canadians. We'd like to take a moment of silence and remember that. There were men, women, children, grandchildren, grandparents, and people from all walks of life who lost their lives on that day. We'll just take a moment of silence on the health committee's side and think about it. [ A moment of silence observed ] Mr. Oliver.

Mr. John Oliver :

Thank you for that. I think everybody on the panel would agree that there has been lots of clinical evidence that shows the overuse of marijuana, especially for young Canadians, can create both short- and potentially long-term damages. Could you maybe explain, then, why the five-gram exemption is in place? Why wouldn't you want a zero tolerance?

Ms. Carole Morency :

It is correct, as you've noted, the medical evidence documents the impact that cannabis can have on all Canadians, including on youth and the developing brain. Bill C-45 proposes to protect youth, as I've described, but it also recognizes not just the harm to the health of the young person, but the harm that can come from having a criminal record that can follow a young person throughout their life. It could have an impact on education, employment, or crossing the border, etc. Bill C-45 recognizes that and proposes a very small window.

It's not condoning or promoting the use of cannabis, but recognizing the reality that young persons may still access and use cannabis. The committee may be aware that on Friday, September 8, Ontario announced its intention to move forward with its proposals to address cannabis. It included an announcement to the effect that it would not allow young persons under the age of 19 to possess any amount of cannabis. It's this combined approach that reflects a balancing of the harms to young persons.

(0850) Mr. John Oliver :

Is there anything you would like to see in the legislation that would go further to protect youth? Is there anything, since you've been involved in the drafting of it, that as a committee we could take on to further protect Canadian youth? Or are you fairly satisfied with that balance of issues that you've struck?

Ms. Carole Morency :

I would suggest that Bill C-45 strikes a welcome balance; however, the committee may hear from other witnesses as to other ways to address it. I think what's important to bear in mind, as I've mentioned, is that the Youth Criminal Justice Act would apply to young offenders who are dealing with cannabis-related offences and that, in and of itself, also brings a very different lens to dealing with young persons within the criminal justice system.

Mr. John Oliver :

Thank you for that. I've had some comment from members of my own community that they don't believe the legislation will actually deal with organized crime, in that organized crime is ubiquitous and is everywhere in the distribution of drugs. My other question is around that. Kathy Thompson, I'll direct this to you. One of the stated goals of the legislation is to take profit away from organized crime. Can you elaborate on that for us? How do you see the legislation doing that? Do you think it will be effective?

Ms. Kathy Thompson (Assistant Deputy Minister, Community Safety and Countering Crime Branch, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) :

We know that it's going to take some time to fully displace a sector that, over a century, has made a good gain in this area. It's going to take some time, and it's going to take a robust regime. You've heard Ms. Bogden describe some of the key elements that we are trying to address to ensure that we do displace organized crime, including a safe supply and, as well, communicating to Canadians that there is a safe supply available to them; making sure there is access for Canadians; and also ensuring that we meet marketplace demands, which goes to the variety. Eventually, over time, we will move into those areas.

Also, of course, pricing is going to be very important in order to be able to displace organized crime. We do have a FPT working group that is looking at the issue of pricing. At Public Safety, we conducted a large study over the past year in looking at pricing in the illicit market. We are working to tackle those four pillars in order to work to displace organized crime. We know in looking at other jurisdictions, such as Colorado, for example, that they are slowly displacing organized crime year over year in terms of the amount of supply that actually comes from the legal market.

I believe you are going to be hearing from officials from Colorado, Mr. Chair. As well, the government announced last Friday a significant investment of $274 million. Part of those funds will go to the RCMP and CBSA to ensure they have an intelligence-led approach to tackling and targeting organized crime and the transnational movement of cannabis. Organized crime is a key priority for federal policing as well. I'll turn to my colleague for the RCMP.

Assistant Commissioner Joanne Crampton (Federal Policing Criminal Operations, Royal Canadian Mounted Police) :

As Kathy mentioned, organized crime is a high priority for federal policing, in particular, for the RCMP. We target the highest echelon within the organized crime world. We're very cognizant...and realize that the chances of organized crime being eliminated in the cannabis market would be.... It's probably naive to think that could happen. Obviously, there will be a lot of unknowns as time goes on, and we'll have to assess, if the legislation is in place, how it moves forward and continue to reassess at that time. As Kathy mentioned, there are areas that would give us concern.

Those would include the undercutting of legal prices, the price market. The legal market could come in below the price point of what cannabis is sold at. They could continue to do exportation. It is a priority for us as well, ensuring that we have strong intelligence and that we understand that exporting market. Also, there is trafficking to youth—and the act is well legislated—and looking at infiltrating the legal regime. We're also engaged on the medical side, doing criminal record checks, and we would continue being engaged in that part.

(0855) The Chair :

Ms. Labelle, I think you wanted to make a comment.

Ms. Diane Labelle (General Counsel, Health Canada Legal Services, Department of Justice) :

I would like to mention to the committee that the purpose of protecting youth is carried throughout the proposed approach before you today. For example, if a province enacts legislation addressing the distribution and retail sale of cannabis, it's required to have a prohibition against selling to youth. That's one item I wanted to mention. We also need to look at the broader regulatory measures that are proposed in Bill C-45 , such as placing restrictions on promotion, particularly promotion that is appealing to youth.

We've learned, through lessons from tobacco, that youth are particularly vulnerable to the manipulations of advertising. The Supreme Court of Canada has recognized, in several cases, the significance of protecting youth from these types of measures. As well as having these two new offences on selling to youth or using youth to commit some sort of a crime with cannabis, we've asked provinces to take this issue into consideration as they develop their own legislation. These measures will carry through restrictions on promotion and advertising aimed at youth, also with packaging and labelling measures.

The Chair :

Thanks very much. I want to acknowledge that the question went quite well over the time period—or the answers did. I think we all want to hear the answers. I'll continue to allow the testimony to continue. Once the time is up, I'll stop the questions but I won't stop the answers, unless somebody disagrees with that. I think the answers are important. We want to hear them all. Now we go to Ms. Gladu. Welcome.

Ms. Marilyn Gladu (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC) :

Thanks very much. Certainly I also would like to hear answers. I'm all about fairness. I'd like to thank the witnesses for their testimony today. It will likely come as no surprise to you that I'm opposed to the legalization of marijuana but am in favour of adult personal possession being ticketed. My questions will mostly be directed at how to protect the children and public safety, issues like these. We'll start off with the Department of Health.

The Canadian Medical Association has clearly given scientific evidence that people under the age of 25 who are smoking marijuana have a much increased chance of psychotic disorders and schizophrenia. In light of that, what do you think about this legislation allowing all provinces to set their own age, anything under...?

Ms. Jacqueline Bogden :

Establishing a minimum age for access to cannabis is a key control in the legislation. It's an area where the government actively sought expert opinion, the advice of experts like the Canadian Medical Association and the task force on cannabis legalization and regulation. After extensive consultation with public health officials, law enforcement and justice officials, and youth and youth advocates, the task force recommended that the government set the minimum age at 18 and that provinces have the flexibility to set a higher minimum age if they wished to do so.

This strikes a balance between not only the known health risks of cannabis use for youth and young people, but also the reality as I mentioned in my opening remarks that 30% of young adults between the ages of 20 and 24 report accessing cannabis. It's trying to strike a balance between those two things. What I could also offer is that setting a minimum age that is too high runs a number of risks, including encouraging those young adults to continue to seek out cannabis on the illegal market, which poses risks to their personal safety because they're accessing products that are unregulated and potentially unsafe.

I think another important point is that it would also continue to subject them to the possibility of criminal prosecution, conviction, and a criminal record which, as my colleagues outlined earlier, can have lasting consequences.

Ms. Marilyn Gladu :

My next question has to do with the purpose of the legislation, which is to protect the health of young persons by restricting their access to cannabis and also to provide access to a quality-controlled supply of cannabis. I wonder if you could comment on how allowing every person to grow four plants of up to three metres high in their house prevents or reduces the access of young persons to cannabis and controls the quality of the cannabis.

(0900) Ms. Jacqueline Bogden :

Under the proposed cannabis act, it would no longer be a criminal offence for adults to grow a maximum of four plants at home, and provinces and territories would have the flexibility to set additional rules in their jurisdiction. The proposed approach in this bill reflects the advice of the task force after extensive consultations with law enforcement and public health officials and others in careful consideration of the issue of personal cultivation.

The task force ultimately recommended that adults be permitted to grow up to four plants, but that there be certain restrictions around that, including that the plants could not be more than one metre in height; that they would need to come from a legal source, which would be important; and that if someone is growing them at home, they would be prohibited from selling the cannabis to another person or providing it to young people. Of course, as I mentioned, provinces and territories could put in place additional controls.

Ms. Marilyn Gladu :

To the witness from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, if you think about people who are growing this material in their house, who of course are not doing any of the testing or quality control that any of the legal businesses would be required to do, you can't really tell whether they're giving it away. How do you police and enforce that?

A/Commr Joanne Crampton :

We would recommend that the local police of jurisdiction be engaged in that, or a regulatory body that the government might set out. Certainly there's concern about growing it in a home like you've suggested, but there's provision for that within the legislation.

Ms. Marilyn Gladu :

My next question has to do with some of the information I've received from provinces. There are fewer than 290 days left until the government intends to legalize cannabis. It has downloaded to the provinces the ability to make up their own rules within some guidelines and then to implement them—although the money that the government is giving is going towards training and not really to enforcement or to helping implement tests or any of that kind of thing. I'll start with the Department of Justice. Do you have any concern about the provinces being able to put into place their accompanying guidelines in the fewer than 290 days left?

Ms. Diane Labelle :

I believe that ADM Bogden and my colleague Mr. Costen would be quite able to describe the number of measures that are being taken at the moment to set out the framework and to proceed with the implementation. I believe they're in a better position to respond to these questions.

Ms. Jacqueline Bogden :

As I mentioned in my opening remarks, government officials have been working very closely with provinces and territories since the bill was introduced in the House of Commons. We spent the weeks and months following that with our provincial and territorial colleagues, making sure they understood the government's objectives and the content of the legislation, and answering technical questions, to do exactly as the honourable member suggests, to ensure they have the capacity and support from the federal government to prepare legislative frameworks.

As I also mentioned, we are seeing provinces moving forward with announcing plans for what their legislative frameworks might contain and other measures they are putting in place. Most, if not all jurisdictions, have begun public consultations or announced their intentions to do so. We will continue to make sure we are there to help them do the work they need to do in their jurisdictions.

The Chair :

For clarification, Ms. Gladu said that each adult has the right to have four plants. Is that each adult or each household?

Ms. Jacqueline Bogden :

That is a very good question. It is each household, and it is an important restriction or a conscious choice in the design of that provision of the legislation. I should have mentioned that.

The Chair :

Thank you. Mr. Davies.

Mr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP) :

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to all the witnesses for being here today. Bill C-45 restricts legal cannabis products to dried cannabis, cannabis oil, cannabis plants, plant seeds, and one other part, which escapes me. However, what is clear is that the legislation will continue to keep cannabis products such as edibles, creams, tinctures, patches, and those kinds of things illegal. What percentage of the current cannabis market is taken up by the products that will still remain illegal under the bill?

(0905) Ms. Jacqueline Bogden :

Perhaps I could clarify that the legislation does contemplate the provision of both dried cannabis and cannabis oil, as well as plants and seedlings, but it also contemplates the sale of edibles, a broader range of products that would be competitive with the illegal market. Upon introduction of the legislation, the government indicated that sales at the outset of the coming into force of the legislation would be for dried cannabis, oil, and plants, and that it will take us a bit more time to develop the regulations we need to bring into force sales of edibles. If you would like more information—

Mr. Don Davies :

I understand that. My question is this. Upon the coming into force of the bill, edibles will not be legal. I understand the bill contemplates future legalization, but am I correct that the day after this comes into force I can't go buy edibles?

Ms. Jacqueline Bogden :

That's correct.

Mr. Don Davies :

Thank you. What percentage of the market currently is taken up by things that will still be illegal upon the coming into force of the bill? Does the government not know?

Ms. Jacqueline Bogden :

I don't think I have that information but I can commit to getting back to you, if we have an estimate in that regard.

Mr. Don Davies :

Thank you. My research indicates that about 65% of cannabis in this country is currently being smoked and about 35% of the market is being accessed by people who don't want to smoke cannabis for a variety of health-related and preference reasons. One of the purposes of the bill is to bring illicit, black-market products into the licit, regulated market.

I'm having trouble understanding how it would achieve that if we still leave to the black market one-third of the products Canadians are currently accessing and, I'm advised, growing because people are seeking to move away from smoking and prefer to ingest cannabis in healthier ways. Isn't it the case that by leaving those products illegal we're still going to have Canadians accessing those products in the black market way, and therefore, not really achieve one of the prime objectives of the bill?

Ms. Jacqueline Bogden :

I'll start and perhaps turn to my colleague, Mr. Costen. You raise a very important point. You are absolutely correct that an increasing number of Canadians are choosing not to smoke cannabis, but rather are moving to consuming, for example, cannabis oil, which can be consumed in many forms. I should clarify that Canadians would be able to consume cannabis oil in the form of edibles. They could bake it into goods, as they do now. People create butters at home and things like that. There is a provision in the legislation that would prohibit people from using dangerous solvents to produce those edibles at home, so people would have the ability to consume it in healthier ways.

Mr. Don Davies :

Can I ask you a question about that? I'm curious about it. When you went through clause 7, you indicated that one of the purposes of the bill was to provide Canadians with “regulated, quality-controlled” cannabis. How is leaving Canadians to bake their own edibles in their own kitchens, with no quality control whatsoever—and I would imagine that some of those products are going to get out of those kitchens and be shared with neighbours, etc.—giving Canadians quality-controlled cannabis, as opposed to regulating edibles and other products, like the task force actually recommended that this government do?

Ms. Jacqueline Bogden :

I think it's important to recognize that it will take time to be able to have all of the regulations in place to implement this legislation. We have existing regulations that govern the production of cannabis for medical purposes that can be used and easily brought into force with respect to the production of cannabis—dried cannabis and cannabis oil—and the government is planning to have the regulations regarding edibles prepared as soon as possible so that those could be brought into force quickly.

(0910) Mr. Don Davies :

Thank you. I'm going to move to something else if I can. The Government of Canada information relating to Bill C-45 explains that provinces or territories could “increase the minimum age” of sale of cannabis, but it also says that they may “lower the personal possession limit in their jurisdiction”. That's from the Government of Canada information, “Legalizing and strictly regulating cannabis: the facts”. Is that correct? Would this legislation permit provinces to lower the personal possession limit, which I believe is 30 grams?

Ms. Jacqueline Bogden :

Yes, that's correct.

Mr. Don Davies :

What if a province decided to reduce that to zero?

Ms. Jacqueline Bogden :

I'm going to ask my colleague from the Department of Justice to answer that question, if that's all right.

Ms. Diane Labelle :

As stated in the legislative backgrounder as well, we have used that example. The scheme set out in Bill C-45 provides for prohibitions, offences, and penalties, and it authorizes activities in relation to cannabis, while at the same time allowing provinces and territories to enact legislation of their own in this same area. This comes back to how the legislative power is divided amongst the federal level and the provincial levels. Health is one of these areas that's been described as “amorphous” by the Supreme Court of Canada.

Depending on the purpose of the legislation, it can fall either to Parliament under the use of the criminal law power or to the provinces in this very area under a power of their own—for example, local matters or civil rights.

Mr. Don Davies :

Ms. Labelle, can it go to zero? If they could, what's the floor that provinces could reduce it to? Could it not defeat the purpose of the legislation?

Ms. Diane Labelle :

The idea here is each exercising their own authorities, right? Parliament has set an upper limit, for example, for 30 grams in public. A province, for its own purposes, could then set it down to 15 grams. Where we have limits to this kind of range has to do with the double aspect doctrine. Where compliance with one act requires non-compliance with the other—a province brings it down to zero—or where the purpose of a federal act would be frustrated by the provision of a provincial one—again, a province bringing it down to zero—this could give rise to paramountcy.

In other words, a court would examine whether there is a conflict, or whether the purposes of the federal act are frustrated, and could find the provincial law inoperable to the extent of that frustration. When we're looking at a situation where Parliament is wanting to allow access to a lawful supply by adults and a province enacts legislation that interferes with that ability to the point where it is zero, then a court, if challenged, could look at the situation and see to what extent Parliament's law has been frustrated.

The Chair :

Your time is up. Thank you very much. Dr. Eyolfson.

Mr. Doug Eyolfson (Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, Lib.) :

Thank you all for coming. This legislation, I've always believed, long before I was in politics, is a long time in coming. I practised emergency medicine for 20 years in Winnipeg. One of the things I found, in my experience, was that in one respect, cannabis was a very dangerous drug, and it does kill. How I found it kills is through the criminal activities of those who market it. I saw an unconscionable number of gunshot wounds, stab wounds, and fatal beatings. The vast majority of them were due to the drug trade.

I was once evacuated from an apartment building that was firebombed over a bad drug deal, back in the late eighties. It was not my apartment but the building I lived in. I know the extent of the violence of the current regime and how thriving the black market is, so it's important that we make a change to this. In regard to some of the concerns I've heard brought up.... The provinces may set their own ages. We know that the Canadian Medical Association suggested 21. Our legislation says a minimum of 18. There was an experience in the United States a number years ago.

They increased their drinking age to 21 across the board, but before that, there was a variation in ages. They had the experience that if there was a drinking age of 19 in one state, and a neighbouring state had 21, they had a lot of people travelling over to drink and a lot of accidents. They used the term “blood borders”. If there were too much of a disparate age restriction between provinces, would you see that kind of public safety issue?

(0915) Ms. Jacqueline Bogden :

The situation we have in this country now recognizes that provinces can make those decisions. We have different ages for alcohol. I would also offer that the provinces are very alive to the issue you're raising and are having discussions among themselves about the areas where they might wish to achieve consistency. What are the areas where they might wish to have consistency, and what are the areas where they could live with inconsistency but put in place mitigation measures of some kind?

Mr. Doug Eyolfson :

All right, thank you. In regard to the policing costs, there has been a lot of speculation by the provinces about how much this is going to cost and whether they should be getting money for policing. Is there an estimate as to how much the current regime is costing police departments? We know that police resources are right now being used for arresting people for simple possession, these people going through the courts, and court costs and these sort of things. There are also the societal costs of these people having criminal records. They can't get jobs now because of this.

Is there an estimate of how the costs of our current legal regime might compare with what they would be after this legislation is passed?

Ms. Jacqueline Bogden :

Perhaps my colleague from Justice, Madame Morency, could respond to that question.

Ms. Carole Morency :

We don't have an actual estimate of costs, but what I can indicate to the committee is the magnitude of the charges and offences before the criminal justice system today. You may know that the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics releases an annual report on police-reported crimes. In the July Juristat , which reflects the 2016 data, they reported that there were just over 95,400 offences reported to police under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. Of these, 58% were related to cannabis. If you drill down further, cannabis possession was the number one charged offence.

In 2016, 76% of the charges, or 17,733 charges, were for possession of cannabis. How does that translate to the criminal justice system? Well, the committee may know that the Supreme Court of Canada pronounced on the issue of delays in the criminal justice system in July 2016. The number of cases being processed has a huge impact on the system. Presumably if and when Bill C-45 is enacted and implemented, one would expect to see fewer charges being laid for simple possession.

To the extent that there are charges or there is an offence being committed, police would have new authority under Bill C-45 to deal with ticketing for smaller amounts slightly over the 30-gram possession, so between 30 and 50, as an example. Beyond that, the regular penalties would apply. So Bill C-45 would definitely have an impact in diverting many charges from the system officially. To the extent that some stay in, it would provide new tools to police and the crown to deal with them in a more efficient and effective way, thereby, we would expect, reducing some of the costs to the system overall.

Mr. Doug Eyolfson :

Thank you. This question is directed to Justice. You talk about some of these offences as being ticketable offences as opposed to criminal record. One concern that people have regarding anything to do with drugs is that we know that if you travel to the United States, if you so much as admit to a border officer that you've ever consumed marijuana, or if you're even on the public record as admitting it, you might be indefinitely banned from entering the United States. Let's say you have one of these ticketable offences. I know that U.S. border services would have access to any of your criminal records.

Would they have access to these lesser offences? If you had one of these tickets, would this be somehow accessible to the database of U.S. border services?

(0920) Ms. Carole Morency :

I think there are two parts to the question. I'll start, and then my colleague can finish. In terms of the ticketing offences, Bill C-45 requires that if a person is convicted pursuant to a ticket, the judicial record of that conviction on the ticket remains separate from other records and cannot be used to identify the person. It is treated differently from a criminal record.

Ms. Kathy Thompson :

Just to build on that, it's currently prohibited to import or export cannabis. That will continue to be the case. It will continue to be prohibited to import or export it under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. Moreover, CBSA will be undertaking awareness campaigns. They have received some funding to do that. They'll have clear signage to warn Canadians not to take cannabis across the border. As well, Canadians should be aware that cannabis is illegal at the federal level in the United States. We'll make that very clear to Canadians and make sure they understand that this is and continues to be the case.

The Chair :

Ms. Morency, could you clarify the statistic you gave us on 76%? What were those numbers you gave us?

Ms. Carole Morency :

They were with regard to the charges laid for the possession of cannabis. There were 23,329 persons charged with cannabis-related offences. Of those, 76% were charged with possession of cannabis. We can provide the committee with the link for the Juristat , if you'd like.

The Chair :

Yes, please, if you would.

Mr. Doug Eyolfson :

Mr. Chairman, what year was that?

Ms. Carole Morency :

It came out in July. It's the Juristat for the year 2016 data.

The Chair :

That completes our seven-minute rounds. We will begin our five-minute rounds with Dr. Carrie.

Mr. Colin Carrie (Oshawa, CPC) :

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I want to thank all the witnesses for being here. At the end of the day, I think everybody's priority is the health and safety of Canadians, particularly our youth. I think everybody would agree that youth use is obviously too high. I'd like to maybe challenge a little bit what you said, Madam Bogden, that clearly the status quo is not working. The World Health Organization and the Public Health Agency of Canada released a survey of over 30,000 kids in 377 schools across Canada. This survey was first administered in 1990.

According to this survey of kids, cannabis use is now at its lowest level since 1990. About 23% of boys and girls aged 15 to 16 report having tried the drug, which is down by half compared with its peak in 2002, when 50% of boys said they had smoked. I was interested that you parroted exactly the government's line that Mr. Oliver put out, that obviously the status quo is not working. If we define the status quo, we've seen the rates go from, say, 50% of boys.... Maybe it's just 40% or whatever, but clearly we're seeing a decline to where they're saying it's around 22% now.

If we're saying that a decline of that percentage is not working, how would you define a system that is working? How are you going to measure what you're going to be doing? Do you have any evidence to suggest that legalization is going to lower that even further?

Ms. Jacqueline Bogden :

I appreciate that. I've shared with the committee the information that we have. Health Canada does regular surveys of Canadians and young people to get a better fix on the rates of use. We are also investing additional funds to undertake additional surveys to get an even better sense of—

Mr. Colin Carrie :

My question, though, is that you've said that the status quo is not working.

Ms. Jacqueline Bogden :

Yes.

Mr. Colin Carrie :

I'll take that statement at face value in terms of what you've said, but according to the evidence that's out there, it seems that cannabis use is now at its lowest level since 1990, and significantly so. As for the approach of legalization, we have a few states that have done it. Is there any evidence that this use will go even lower with your approach? If you define it as not working—going from 50% at its peak down to 23%—how are you going to define something that's working?

(0925) Ms. Jacqueline Bogden :

My colleague Mr. Costen will answer your question.

Mr. Eric Costen (Director General, Cannabis Legalization and Regulation Branch, Department of Health) :

I'll do my best to answer your question. I'm not familiar with the specific data you're making reference to, but I can talk a bit about the data we have at our fingertips, which inform the position around youth access. One of the Health Canada surveys that Ms. Bogden is referring to is called the “Canadian Tobacco, Alcohol and Drugs Survey”. It's a survey that's issued every few years. It allows us to track use longitudinally. The most recent data come from the 2015 survey, and this is the data that is often described: for 15- to 19-year-olds, 21% report use, and for 20- to 24-year-olds, 30% report use.

When we look at this survey over the course of the past decade, we see that the levels have been relatively unchanged. To the second part of your question about what confidence we have that in moving to a new controls framework we might see those rates decrease, I think the experience in Canada in terms of tobacco control is perhaps illustrative, insofar as you have a fairly aggressive regulatory regime coupled with a number of other education, prevention, cessation, and policy interventions—

Mr. Colin Carrie :

Well, Mr. Costen, that is theoretical. What I was quoting is from the World Health Organization and the Public Health Agency of Canada. What they released is the 2014 health behaviour in school-aged children survey, so maybe you can take a look at that. I'm not talking about a theoretical thing. We're worried about our kids, and that's why I wanted to see how you are actually coming up with those statements where you're saying that the status quo isn't working. Maybe I'll move along to Ms. Crampton. What happens today if I'm under 18 and I get busted for a couple of joints? What happens to me? When I turn 18, does that record get wiped or does it stay there forever? How does that work?

A/Commr Joanne Crampton :

Legal counsel might be better to answer with regard to what happens to a criminal record, but there is the option of charging. Under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, a youth could be charged with an offence of possession; however, there is always officer discretion involved in any charges we lay—

Mr. Colin Carrie :

I know that's kind of what happens today, in that officers do have discretion, but with the proposed legislation, I believe the amount is five grams, from age 12 to age 17. I don't know if you are aware, but I think five grams of marijuana can be 10 to 15 joints, right? These are not just high school kids. Some of these kids are in public school. Maybe I will ask Justice: what happens now if I'm under 18? I believe, Ms. Morency, you said that this is going to be something that stays with me my entire life, but I know people who have been charged in the past, and I think at 18 doesn't it get wiped...? Or it can get wiped, right?

Ms. Carole Morency :

Yes. Records can.... Youth records absolutely are dealt with differently, and they're protected against disclosure after the sentence has been served. But in the sense of what your question was, I think it was dealing with two aspects. On what happens now when a young person is found in possession of drugs, police have discretion right now under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

Mr. Colin Carrie :

Yes. Most of the time, they don't charge, right?

Ms. Carole Morency :

They can do a warning, a caution, or a referral to a community program, or charges can be laid. Under Bill C-45 , that discretion would continue to apply where an offence is alleged to have been committed by a young person, but you were talking about the five grams, and again, that would depend on whether a province has implemented a different approach to deal with the five grams under their non-criminal law powers—

Mr. Colin Carrie :

I'm talking about this legislation. It seems to be okay with five grams, but I'm just saying that people in my community aren't okay with that and—

The Chair :

That's your time, Dr. Carrie, so if we can let her answer...?

Mr. Colin Carrie :

Sure.

Ms. Carole Morency :

I would just say that Bill C-45 is not promoting or condoning the use of cannabis, but it recognizes that a young person who does come into possession and uses a very small amount—five grams or less—would also be exposed to a greater harm that comes with a criminal record, which can affect their ability in terms of employment and other issues. There are harms in getting involved with the criminal justice system itself, and not just with the record. The whole experience of being involved in the system also can have a greater negative impact than what comes from the use of a small amount of cannabis.

All of that is to say as well that the government, as has been noted, is having a public education campaign to promote awareness not only among youth but among all Canadians about the harms of cannabis use, etc., and that would be part of the targeting for youth not to have access to it.

(0930) The Chair :

Thank you very much. Mr. McKinnon, welcome to the committee. I look forward to your contribution.

Mr. Ron McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Lib.) :

Thank you, Chair. I have questions all over the map here, so we'll just dive in. My understanding is that Canadian youth have the highest rate of cannabis consumption, at least in the OECD countries. Mr. Costen, could you comment on that?

Mr. Eric Costen :

There are a number of different surveys that look to measure global use of drugs. There was a survey released by, I believe, UNICEF a number of years ago that put Canada as the top ranked country in terms of youth use. There are other international instruments that look to measure youth use. While the particular methods and the results vary, the results across the board show that Canadian youth do use cannabis at rates that typically exceed their peers in like countries.

Mr. Ron McKinnon :

How do we measure youth use? Do we do it by voluntary surveys?

Mr. Eric Costen :

Yes. The different surveys use different methods, but typically it's self-reported use. The surveys would ask if they had used in the last year and the last six months, and then the respondents would volunteer their answer. That's typically how they're done.

Mr. Ron McKinnon :

I'd like to move on to the five-gram limit. Ms. Bogden, I believe you mentioned that one of the goals here is to protect youth, and one of the harms from which we are protecting them is having a criminal record. It seems somewhat counterintuitive then that we put youth into the criminal justice regime at a much lower threshold than for adults. Adults don't get into the area of a criminal charge until they have 30 grams of cannabis in their possession,

whereas for a youth, it happens at five grams. That seems counterintuitive to me. Could you comment on that? If there is a need for a lower limit for youth, or rather that within the same 30-gram limit we just confiscate, fine, whatever, but no criminal record risk.

Ms. Jacqueline Bogden :

The legislation is very clear that young Canadians shouldn't have access to any amount of cannabis. That is absolutely clear. I'll ask my colleague, Carole Morency, to explain again the reasons for that specific provision, under five grams, and to try to answer the honourable member's question.

Ms. Carole Morency :

Bill C-45 proposes to prohibit providing, distributing, and selling any amount of cannabis to a young person, and proposes to prohibit using a young person to commit a cannabis-related offence. The expectation with this framework for C-45 is that youth should not have any amount of cannabis for use or possession. That's based on health as well, as has already been described by my colleague in terms of the objectives of protecting young persons against the harms associated with use of cannabis.

As has also been noted, the reality is that under a completely prohibited regime, youth in Canada still have a high use and possession of cannabis. Recognizing that, Bill C-45 proposes to carve out a very small amount. If a young person is found to be in possession of five grams or less, Bill C-45 reflects the choice: should persons be criminalized even under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, which has a lesser, more restorative, rehabilitative approach, or should they be given a different way to be dealt with under the law?

It carves out that five grams from the criminal law perspective, because it recognizes the greater harms of exposing young persons to a criminal justice system, not just the record but the whole system, for that small amount. The federal government has been encouraging the provinces and territories to take that five grams and decide how they will deal with it, if they choose to do so, within their areas of legislative competence. Ontario has already announced that it would not allow any possession of any amount by young persons.

It would not allow five grams under its legislative approach, and it would raise the minimum age from 18 to 19. That's a different approach for youth altogether than adults because adults have a different level of maturity. Bill C-45 proposes to legalize, but strictly regulate for adults, and endeavours to keep it out of the hands of youth altogether.

(0935) The Chair :

We move on now to Mr. Webber.

Mr. Len Webber (Calgary Confederation, CPC) :

I just want to talk about production and the regulations around it. I had an opportunity to tour a licensed facility in Airdrie, Alberta, called Sundial a few weeks ago. I was quite surprised to see the amount of security around the facility. Coming into the facility, there was razor-sharp barbed wire. It looked like a federal prison, and they had security buzzing us into rooms. Touring the facility also showed me the quality of what they were producing; it was incredible. There's no doubt that this will be a safe product, not contaminated in any way, which is a nice thing to know.

The overhead costs to put this facility into place were immense, of course. With that, obviously the product will have to be sold at a high price as well. Canadians, I guess, are willing to pay a high price for a safe product, but I don't see the average Canadian being able to afford that kind of product. They will obviously have to go to some other supplier, meaning organized crime. I don't see the illegal market being displaced at all, with the requirements that are already in place.

You talked about that illegal market being displaced in time, but with these regulations that are in place right now, I just don't see that happening. I wonder, Ms. Bogden, if you have any comments on that. Does the government plan on continuing with these strict regulations on all production of marijuana throughout the country?

Ms. Jacqueline Bogden :

The requirements that are in place right now governing the production of cannabis for medical purposes are under the current legislative framework, where all cannabis, unless it's authorized by legislation, is prohibited, and thus there are stringent requirements around security to protect against diversion to the illegal market, and a number of other measures. I would also say that there has been considerable analysis indicating that some of the product currently produced under the access to cannabis for medical purposes regime is actually competitive with some of the product available in the illegal market.

That said, one of the government's most important objectives is to displace this illegal market. We need to be very conscious of that in creating regulations that will govern production under the new industry. I will ask my colleague, Mr. Costen, to speak a little bit about the need to put in place regulations and the considerations that we're thinking about.

Mr. Eric Costen :

If I may, I may even go back to the price question briefly. The parliamentary budget officer, in the report that was published a number of months ago, included quite an elaborate commentary on price, including providing a mid-range average of the current illegal market price, which put it, if my memory serves me correctly, at just under nine dollars. While I think the observation you've made is a very good one, as Ms. Bogden just described, when we look at the reality of pricing amongst the licensed producers, the average midpoint price price is only slightly higher, at just over nine dollars.

This is obviously going to be a very dynamic marketplace and price is going to be absolutely critical to achieving that second principal government objective. In terms of your question about regulations and the future of those regulations, as you've no doubt observed, in Bill C-45 there are regulation-making authorities across a whole manner of aspects of the new system, one of which is around security, whether it's physical security or security of the personnel. I would echo Ms. Bogden's comments that the regulations in place right now really were born in time, given the legal status of cannabis.

Given all of the observations that have been made about the interest of organized criminal organizations in this marketplace, the regulations were designed in such a way as to create a system with a lot of integrity, whether from a consumer perspective or a government perspective, to ensure that the system wasn't being infiltrated by organized criminal organizations. That, in some part, explains the stringency you observed.

(0940) The Chair :

Thank you. Mr. Ayoub.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Ramez Ayoub (Thérèse-De Blainville, Lib.) :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. My thanks to all the witnesses for joining us. This is an extremely important subject for generations to come, and even for generations gone by. It raises a lot of questions, but I am going to focus on the various applications of the Canadian legislation in the provinces. The government has a leadership role to play, and that is what we are doing at the moment by discussing this important bill. How are we going to make sure that the legislation will apply all across Canada, and that it will not result in criminality, despite the major differences between provinces in this area?

Some provinces, like Ontario, are going to choose to not allow the possession of cannabis at all. When people travel to another province, what will happen then? There are no borders between provinces. For example, you just have to cross a bridge between Ottawa and Gatineau. How is that going to be handled? Can you enlighten me, and enlighten Canadians, about it? I will perhaps have other questions for Ms. Morency and Ms. Labelle.

[ English ]

Ms. Jacqueline Bogden :

Maybe, Mr. Chair, I could take that question. [ Translation ] Thank you very much for the question. [ English ] I am going to answer in English so that I give you a completely accurate answer. I think the legislation that is before this committee recognizes and sort of flows from consultations and discussions with the provinces and territories, which identified, in their conversations with the task force and their conversations with the federal government, the desire to have a degree of flexibility in how they design how this system will operate in their jurisdictions.

A fundamental aspect of the way this country is governed is that there is flexibility that the provinces can exercise. They're closest, as municipalities are, which we also recognize, to their jurisdictions.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Ramez Ayoub :

I understand that nuance very well, but my question is really about the way the law is applied and about criminality, if any. How are we going to handle it, given that the regulation differs from one province to another? When you cross the border to enter the United States, it’s very clear; on the American side, cannabis is illegal; on the Canadian side, we are working to make it legal. Inside Canada itself, how can the legislation be applied everywhere? I’d really like to look at the legal side of things.

Ms. Diane Labelle :

I will answer that question, if I may, Mr. Chair. In terms of criminal law, the major prohibitions in Bill C-45 are the same everywhere in Canada. If it is a little difficult to answer your question, it is because it is going to depend on provincial legislation. To provide an answer, we would really have to see the details of the legislation in each province in order to find out at what point someone could be subject to a penalty under provincial legislation and a penalty under Bill C-45. This is a real issue, which is being studied as the legislation is being drafted.

The discussions between the federal government and the provinces and territories are very important here. As Ms. Bogden indicated, we also wanted to have an approach based on a co-operative federal system. It was important to recognize that the provinces wanted to have their input. We had to provide the space they needed to be able to adapt the rules to their own situations. Knowing how the legislation is going to apply is somewhat of a theoretical issue at the moment, but we are going to study it.

(0945) Mr. Ramez Ayoub :

I have one final remark, if I may. The object was to partly legalize and decriminalize the use and, to a degree, the production of marijuana. That is all it is at the Canadian level. It’s a plan in which there must be federal leadership. Of course, we are working together with the provinces, but we also must ensure that everything can blend together properly and that everyone understands the goal we had in mind. That is what I wanted to hear.

Ms. Diane Labelle :

We agree on that. That is what we are working towards in our discussions with the provinces and territories.

Mr. Ramez Ayoub :

Thank you.

[ English ]

The Chair :

Time is up. That completes our five-minute rounds. Now we go to the three-minute round starting with Mr. Davies.

Mr. Don Davies :

Thank you. Just to be clear, this legislation sets a federal possession limit of 30 grams, but you've confirmed that the provinces may change that. You could have one province that has a 28-gram limit, one that has a 25-gram limit, or one that has a 20-gram limit. I understand you would look at that to see if it offends the fundamental premise of the bill, but we could end up with a patchwork of different cannabis possession amounts across this country. Is that not possible?

Ms. Diane Labelle :

Yes, the approach in Bill C-45 is such that it allows for provinces to make a determination based on their local population and local needs as to the range of possession limits. They could not, I think—

Mr. Don Davies :

—violate the principle of the bill to zero. I get it. Thank you. Ms. Morency, you gave a very passionate and, I thought, cogent explanation of why this bill permits 12- to 18-year-olds to possess up to five grams, which is almost a quarter of an ounce of marijuana. You explained that it's because the bill recognizes the increased relative harm of exposing young Canadians to the criminal justice system for simple possession. If that's the case, why is this government arresting those Canadians now? Wouldn't it make sense, then, to not be enforcing the law right now, and not subject those young Canadians to the stigma of the criminal justice system presently?

Ms. Carole Morency :

We just reiterate what the ministers and the Prime Minister have said on this point, which is that the law remains the law unless and until Parliament enacts a change to that law, and to that end, law enforcement and the crown deal with cases as they are presented because that's the system we have.

Mr. Don Davies :

Thanks. To the RCMP, has the government given any direction to the RCMP to perhaps exercise discretion against charging Canadians, particularly young Canadians, until Bill C-45 has passed? Have you received any directions about that?

A/Commr Joanne Crampton :

No, not at all, and I would expect that we wouldn't receive that kind of direction.

Mr. Don Davies :

Thank you. Ms. Bogden, once this bill passes, will it allow Canadians to consume cannabis by vaping?

Ms. Jacqueline Bogden :

That's a question that relates to the regulations. It's a good question. I'll ask my colleague Mr. Costen to answer that.

Mr. Eric Costen :

This is a continuation of the questions you were asking earlier about edibles and the range of products, which will—

Mr. Don Davies :

Well no, this is about—

Mr. Eric Costen :

—about vaping particularly, yes. The

schedule to the act lists the types of cannabis that would be legal and itemizes them. The question of vaping, in particular, speaks to the qualities of what is being vaped and so, to the degree that there are chemicals used to create vaping cartridges that are not included in the schedule, it would not be permitted at the time of issuance. To the degree that those types of cannabis listed in the

schedule could be used in a vaping, then it could be possible.

(0950) Mr. Don Davies :

I have one last question. Dr. Eyolfson asked a question about Canada-U.S. relations. Canadians know when they go to the border that U.S. border guards will often ask, “Have you ever smoked marijuana?” They don't ask about convictions; they ask if you've ever smoked marijuana. Once this bill comes into force and it's legal in Canada, Canadians will be put in the position of either having to lie about that or to tell the truth and risk lack of entry. Is the Canadian government right now engaging in discussions with the United States, at the NAFTA table or otherwise, to protect Canadians once July 1, 2018 comes, if in fact, that's the date that cannabis consumption is legal in Canada?

Ms. Kathy Thompson :

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll take that question. As I said earlier, CBSA will be working to make sure that Canadians are aware of the fact that it is illegal in the United States and also that it continues to be illegal and prohibited to import or export. Also, they'll be reminded that every country has the right to determine admissibility, as does the U.S., and they will be counselled on responding truthfully to any questions asked by a border official. We'll make sure that the information is available.

We also talked about ticketing and where the record is maintained in terms of those judicial charges, so we will try to get as much information as possible out to Canadians. With respect to your question about whether we are engaging with our U.S. counterparts, absolutely, we have been and we continue to be engaged with them as the bill continues to progress through Parliament, so they are in discussions with us, and we're trying to communicate the objectives of legalizing but strictly regulating cannabis and why we're taking that approach.

The Chair :

We have time for another first round. Is it the committee's wish that we continue to ask questions based on round one, only instead of seven-minute questions we will have five-minute questions? Do we have consensus on that? All right, we'll start it again with the Liberal Party, for five minutes. John.

Mr. John Oliver :

I have a question about federally licensed distribution versus provincially or territorially licensed distribution. As I understand it, when the bill is passed, a federally licensed producer will be able to distribute, through e-commerce provisions, to people who are buying online. It will be delivered through Canada Post and shipped that way. The Province of Ontario, for instance, just came out with a plan that the LCBO will be its main distributor. First of all, is it true that a federally licensed producer will be able to distribute through e-commerce under the provisions of this legislation?

What will happen then to the provinces, which think they have their hands on how it's going to be done, when there's a parallel federal system?

Ms. Jacqueline Bogden :

The legislation provides for provinces and territories to be able to authorize distribution and retail in their provinces. That's the design of the bill. As it relates to the prospective coming into force of the legislation, no later than July 2018, which the government has committed to do providing the legislation is passed by Parliament, what you're referring to would apply only in provinces and territories that have not put in place a regulated retail system.

If provinces have put in place a regulated retail system, then those rules would apply, providing of course that the legislation meets the minimum conditions that the government has set out in the federal legislation, and for those provinces that have not yet put in place a system, the federal government will then authorize federally licensed producers to distribute in those jurisdictions.

Mr. John Oliver :

Where do I find in the legislation the right of a federally licensed producer to directly sell? Otherwise, it looks like it's illegal.

Ms. Diane Labelle :

It is both a policy and a legal decision. From a policy perspective, my understanding is that as provinces establish their own regimes for retail and distribution in the provinces, the federal government will then be satisfied that there's lawful access for adults in those provinces and will then be able to step back in terms of the online sales by licensed producers. There are various ways the Minister of Health will be able to address the licensing aspect, with regard to licensed producers. Where we might draw a distinction is with respect to licensed producers continuing to sell directly for medical purposes.

(0955) Mr. John Oliver :

How does that happen in real terms? Does the province then have to pass legislation that says we forbid any e-commerce shipping other than what we've envisioned through our permissions? How do you actually police it? To me it seems like a big, opaque, unclear aspect of distribution, and it's hard to determine in the legislation how you intend to handle it.

Ms. Diane Labelle :

I think what's clear, if we look at clause 69, is that a province brings into place a statute that covers four important aspects: that they can sell only cannabis that's been produced by a person authorized under this act, in other words, a federally licensed producer; that they may not sell to young people; that they're required to keep appropriate records—

Mr. John Oliver :

I understand what the provinces' requirements are.

Ms. Diane Labelle :

Right. So, once they have that legislation in place and they establish their retail sales system, whether that's online—

Mr. John Oliver :

Do you then federally forbid e-commerce into that province at that point in time?

Ms. Diane Labelle :

It's not that it's forbidden; it's that the Minister of Health has the tools necessary to address the situation through licensing producers and determining which jurisdictions they can go into. Mr. Costen may wish to add to this.

Mr. Eric Costen :

I'll try to wrap this all up, but I'm not a lawyer. Recognizing that, on day one, consumers in Canada have a legal option to purchase cannabis, the policy design of the entire system suggests that the ultimate retail environment will be designed and implemented and overseen by provincial and territorial governments. It recognizes, as Ms. Bogden said in her opening remarks, that this is a transformative and complex undertaking, and that on day one, if a particular jurisdiction doesn't have a retail environment established yet, there is the option that at the federal level a producer who is licensed by the federal government can sell directly to a consumer in a particular jurisdiction.

Mr. John Oliver :

That option is a granted permission or is it just there as a legal thing they can do?

Mr. Eric Costen :

There are a bunch of different regulatory mechanisms by which we could grant it, but it would be a permission given to the company. That permission can be defined in a number of different ways. Does that help?

Mr. John Oliver :

I believe I can phone a winery in British Columbia and order wine from them. They would ship it to me, and it would come through Canada Post. Taxes would be paid. Why would you not be recognizing that ability to ship from a local producer instead of limiting it to different provincial and territorial distribution strategies? Why don't you allow that Canada Post delivery system?

Mr. Eric Costen :

You're asking why that provision would—

Mr. John Oliver :

Why didn't you continue it?

Mr. Eric Costen :

—perhaps only exist as a transitional measure?

Mr. John Oliver :

No, I meant as an ongoing strategy for access to different markets.

Mr. Eric Costen :

As the bill is designed, that possibility is allowable. My comments recognize the Ontario announcement. As a part of their announcement, they described wanting to enable an online sales platform much as you just described, pursuant to their legislation. The bigger policy design is that retail experience would be described by and defined by the provincial legislation.

The Chair :

Thank you very much. As interesting as this is, the time is up. Ms. Gladu.

Ms. Marilyn Gladu :

I think my colleague brings up some points worth looking into—but in any case I think it's illegal to buy B.C. wine and ship it to Ontario. I want to talk a little bit about one of the outcomes Canadians wanted from this legislation. I think we were trying to, in some way, off-load the huge number of possession charges that were clogging up the courts. In this legislation I see a lot of protections that are trying to prevent trafficking, and trafficking to younger people. But there's one thing I don't see—maybe it's in here and I just haven't seen it. Young persons are described as people between 12 and 18.

There's really nothing in this legislation that prohibits people from trafficking, or being charged for trafficking, to people younger than 12 years old. Ms. Labelle?

(1000) Ms. Diane Labelle :

This is a criminal law question and my colleague Ms. Morency is best placed to respond to it.

Ms. Carole Morency :

Bill C-45 prohibits distributing, providing, or selling cannabis to any young person under the age of 18. A young person between the ages of 12 and 17 would not be criminalized for possessing five grams or less. They could also share it, without being criminalized, with another youth the same age. The age of criminal responsibility is 12 to below 18 under the Youth Criminal Justice Act , so any adult who gives it to any young person is criminalized, but a youth is dealt with differently.

Ms. Marilyn Gladu :

Yes, but the problem is that in the definition in the bill a young person is defined as being between 12 and 18, so the definition needs to be fixed, otherwise there's no protection for anybody under 12.

Ms. Carole Morency :

The age you're referring to is for the purpose of charging a young person with a cannabis-related offence. Bill C-45 clearly prohibits any adult organization from providing, selling, or distributing cannabis in any form to any young person.

Ms. Marilyn Gladu :

Where is it defined that “young person” means everybody below 18 in the bill? That's what I didn't see.

Ms. Carole Morency :

If you look at the offence provisions in the bill, for example,

article 9 on page 8 of the bill, which deals with the offence against distribution, you'll see that it's an offence to distribute cannabis to an individual under the age of 18 years. It would be the same for selling or providing.

Ms. Marilyn Gladu :

Thank you. The other thing I wanted to talk about was the possession quantities. It sounds like a lot to me, 30 grams possession. Depending on how you roll it—I don't have any experience in this area—I'm told that this could be between 60 joints and 90 joints. That sounds like a lot. I'm interested in what we would typically find with people we think are trafficking. What's a typical amount? How did we come to the 30-gram amount? Maybe I'll start with Ms. Crampton.

A/Commr Joanne Crampton :

I wouldn't be able to speak to how the 30-gram amount was established. I believe Ms. Bogden would be best to answer that piece.

Ms. Jacqueline Bogden :

The 30-gram amount that you find in the legislation is one of the recommendations of the task force on cannabis legalization. This was one of the key design questions that the government asked the task force to consider. After extensive consultations and careful consideration and deliberation, the task force, as it noted in its report, also looked at measures that other jurisdictions such as Colorado and Washington had taken. Its recommendation to the government was that 30 grams was a reasonable amount that individuals could possess for personal purposes.

Ms. Marilyn Gladu :

One other question has to do with packaging and regulations for cannabis versus packaging and regulations for the tobacco industry. It seems to me that there are a lot of similarities in terms of how we would want to protect the public by using some of the learning we've had. We've spent billions of dollars trying to prevent people from smoking. We know that the toxicity of cannabis smoke is about five times as much as tobacco. Ms. Thompson, perhaps you could comment on why there are differences in the legislation between how we package and regulate tobacco versus cannabis.

Ms. Jacqueline Bogden :

That would be more in Health Canada's jurisdiction. The point that the honourable member makes is a very important one about the role that packaging and labelling, or promotion and advertising, may play in encouraging youth to use these. The legislation before the committee provides the government with the authority to establish regulations that would put in place additional controls around, for example, packaging, labelling, and other measures such as childproof, child-resistant packaging that would better protect youth.

With the experience that we've had with the regulation of tobacco, we are continuing to learn important lessons about how to regulate these substances in a way that will discourage use among youth. We will draw from those lessons as we develop those regulations for consultation.

(1005) The Chair :

Your time is up. Mr. Davies.

Mr. Don Davies :

Thank you. The statistics that we heard about 23,000 people being charged in 2016 for cannabis, 76% for possession, obviously leads to the conclusion that there are hundreds of thousands of Canadians who have convictions for cannabis-related offences, many for things the legislation would make legal. Does the Department of Justice have any plans to deal with some sort of streamlined pardon process for Canadians who have been convicted of offences that will no longer be illegal under the legislation? I'm reminded of the fact that the previous Harper government raised the price of pardons.

It's over $600 to apply for a pardon and you have to wait five years. Is there any contemplation or consideration to helping Canadians receive pardons for offences that the bill would no longer make offences?

Ms. Jacqueline Bogden :

I would ask my colleague Ms. Thompson to respond to the honourable member's question.

Ms. Kathy Thompson :

As the honourable member noted, there is currently a process whereby Canadians who have been convicted of sole, single possession, can apply to the national Parole Board for a pardon five years after serving their sentence. That is the process currently in place. There are no plans at this time to introduce an automatic pardon.

Mr. Don Davies :

Thank you. I want to go back to the sentences that are proposed under the legislation. If I understand correctly, the penalties for which someone may be subjected for a contravention of the act range up to 14 years in prison. If you have a 19-year-old who sells cannabis to a 17-year-old, am I correct that the bill would subject them to that potential penalty? Would they have the possibility of being sentenced to prison for up to 14 years?

Ms. Carole Morency :

As you have noted, the bill proposes a range of penalties for the offences. The offence you're referring to in terms of selling is currently under the Controlled Drugs and Substance Act. It's a trafficking offence, and it carries a maximum of life imprisonment. It imposes mandatory minimal penalties. Under Bill C-45 , the offence of distribution or selling would be a hybrid offence, meaning that the crown would have the right to elect to proceed summarily for less serious offences, and to proceed on indictment for more serious offences. On indictment, the premise is correct that it would be a maximum of 14 years. However, on

summary conviction, for an adult who sells to a young person, the maximum penalty would be 18 months,

whereas for an adult who sells to an adult, the maximum penalty would be six months. What Bill C-45 does is provide greater flexibility to the criminal justice system, including the crown and the courts, in terms of sentencing, to proceed in a manner that best reflects the seriousness of the offence. It provides the courts with more flexibility at sentencing to deal with a range of possibilities, instead of an indictable-only offence with a maximum of life imprisonment.

Mr. Don Davies :

Thank you. In weighing the arguments for and against limitations on edibles, the majority of the task force on cannabis legalization and regulation concluded that allowing edible products offers an opportunity to better address health risks. Edible cannabis products offer the possibility of shifting consumers away from smoked cannabis and any associated lung-related harms. To our representative from the health department, why did the federal government ignore that recommendation?

Ms. Jacqueline Bogden :

I think the legislation is clear that it contemplates a wide range of products, and that if we are going to meet the objective of displacing the illegal market, we need to be able to provide something that can actually compete with that. This would include a range of products. It is the government's intention that edibles be made available. As I indicated, we will need a little bit of time to develop those regulations and to consult with industry and others before bringing those into force, but the intention is to do so as expeditiously as possible, following the coming into force of the legislation.

(1010) The Chair :

Thanks very much. Dr. Eyolfson.

Mr. Doug Eyolfson :

There were some concerns brought up regarding cultivation at home, particularly with quality control. Where would be the quality control when someone's growing it themselves? What are the safety considerations? For a very long time, people have been able to brew their own beer and wine at home. Can I ask how similar or different this provision would be from the existing ability to do those activities?

Ms. Jacqueline Bogden :

I will say a couple of things about cultivation at home. The task force recognized in its report that there are many circumstances in which individuals grow a small number of plants, and can do so safely at home. Of course, as the health regulator, we will want to do our part to make sure Canadians are aware of the potential risks associated with cultivating cannabis at home. Under the current medical access regime, there are provisions that allow people to grow cannabis at home for medical purposes. We undertake extensive education to try to help Canadians be aware of some of the precautions they should take.

For example, we will want to actively encourage Canadians to take measures to protect children from accessing it, whether it's indoors or outdoors. We also encourage Canadians to make sure there's enough ventilation, particularly if they are growing indoors. You want to be able to remove excess moisture on the plant that could cause mould in your buildings. If they are going to use chemicals such as pesticides in the growing, we'll encourage them to have a look at the very important information we have available.

Those would be an active part, I think, of our efforts to ensure that if Canadians choose to do this under the new legislation, they are well informed about the things they should take into consideration.

Mr. Doug Eyolfson :

Thank you. Is Health Canada aware of any widespread untoward events or widespread health problems regarding these pre-existing practices of making wine and beer at home?

Ms. Jacqueline Bogden :

I am not in a position to answer the question that the honourable member has put.

Mr. Doug Eyolfson :

Thank you, that's fine. I had a town hall on this subject a number of weeks ago, and I was approached by some retailers in my riding who sell accessories used in smoking these products. In the vernacular, they're called “head shops”. In regard to the legislation and promotion of this, they were worried about how this legislation might affect how they do their business and what they might have to do differently under the new legislation.

Mr. Eric Costen :

The question of accessories is dealt with in the proposed legislation, and I think the easiest way to understand what's being proposed is to say that there is no proposal that the government would regulate the production or the manufacturing of those products through this act. However, the sale as well as the promotion and marketing of those activities would be captured. In many instances throughout the act, you'll see that the provisions—for instance, those that apply to advertising and promotion—apply equally to cannabis that will be consumed, as well as to accessories.

(1015) Mr. Doug Eyolfson :

Thank you. That's helpful. I just want to clarify something. I believe I know the answer, but I just want to make sure it doesn't get lost here. Let's say that any given province simply says, “We're not going to be ready by this time. We're not going to do anything. We're just out.” Can someone in that province obtain cannabis through any online or mail-order system?

Ms. Jacqueline Bogden :

This is the question that we were discussing earlier. The legislation is designed so that provinces and territories can occupy that space and be responsible for sale and distribution. In the event that they are unable to do so by the prospective coming into force of the legislation, we will put in place a mechanism whereby the federally licensed producers would be able to provide product directly to individuals in that province or territory.

The government has recognized that it would be very important upon the coming into force of this legislation, when adults are allowed to legally possess cannabis, that there be a legal supply of quality-controlled cannabis available to anyone, right across the country. We will have that ability.

Mr. Doug Eyolfson :

All right, thank you.

The Chair :

That completes our session. I want to thank the presenters. I think they've done a great job answering questions. You've obviously put a lot of work into this new evolution of our development. I think it's amazing what you've done and how you've answered the questions. I have two quick questions, myself. Back to households and the ability to grow your own, what happens if a family has two households, a primary residence and a summer home? Does that qualify as two households, or is it one? Second, can you grow it inside or outside? Is there any regulation about that?

Ms. Jacqueline Bogden :

Mr. Chair, I'll answer the second question and then perhaps turn to my colleague, Madame Labelle, to answer the first one. The legislation would allow indoor or outdoor cultivation. Of course, I'll also acknowledge that provinces and territories or municipalities could exercise their own authority to put in place additional controls, which might restrict it to growing indoors. On your first question, I'll ask Madame Labelle to answer that.

Ms. Diane Labelle :

Bill C-45 proposes that adult individuals be able to cultivate up to four plants in their dwelling house. That could be indoor or outdoor cultivation, as we've heard, and it has to be where they ordinarily reside, so this becomes a question of fact. If they ordinarily reside at their cottage for seven months of the year, that may be where their dwelling place is. If it's in downtown Ottawa that they normally reside for seven months of the year, then that would be their ordinary residence.

The Chair :

Thanks very much. With that we'll thank our presenters. We're going to suspend the meeting until 10:45.

(1015) (1045) The Chair :

We will reconvene our study on Bill C-45 . We have a panel of federal, provincial, and territorial representatives as well as some representatives from the pharmaceutical industry. We certainly want to welcome everybody. We welcome the Honourable Anne McLellan, senior adviser for Bennett Jones, as an individual; Michael Spratt, criminal lawyer; Mark Ware, associate professor, department of family medicine, McGill University; from the Canadian Association for Pharmacy Distribution Management, Mr. David Johnston, president and chief executive officer; and from the Canadian Pharmacists Association, Dr.

Shelita Dattani, director, practice development and knowledge translation. My understanding is that the Honourable Anne McLellan and Mr. Ware are going to split their time. You have 10 minutes between you, and you can fight out how you want to divide it.

Hon. Anne McLellan (Senior Advisor, Bennett Jones LLP, As an Individual) :

Mr. Chair, we thought we had 10 minutes each.

The Chair :

The clerk says it's okay.

Hon. Anne McLellan :

Oh, good.

The Chair :

See how easy we are. We want to hear all we can, so we'll start with you.

Hon. Anne McLellan :

Great. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Good morning, everyone. Let me say it is a great pleasure to be back in the parliamentary precinct. I must say I am amazed at the transformation of the Wellington Building. It's a very impressive building. It didn't exist in its present form when I was here. As you've already heard, I'm Anne McLellan. I served as chair of the task force on cannabis legalization and regulation. I'm here today with Vice-Chair Mark Ware to share a brief overview of the work and the recommendations of the task force.

Our mandate was to consult and provide independent advice on the design of a new legislative and regulatory framework. The outcome of this work is our report, “A Framework for the Legalization and Regulation of Cannabis in Canada”, which we provided to the Ministers of Justice, Public Safety, and Health, as well as to all Canadians, on December 13, 2016. Our report contains more than 80 recommendations. Our advice details safeguards that we believe are important to achieve the objectives set out by the government to better protect the health and safety of Canadians by regulating access to cannabis.

We spent five months travelling across the country and hearing from Canadians, including representatives of indigenous communities, parents, youth, activists, growers, and patients who use cannabis for medical purposes. We spent time with experts and organizations, which shared diverse perspectives and helped us to appreciate the complexity of legalization and regulation. We met with officials from provincial, territorial, municipal, and indigenous governments, who emphasized the need for close collaboration amongst all levels of government.

We travelled to Colorado and Washington and spoke to officials in the Government of Uruguay—the only other country to have legalized access to cannabis—to hear directly from those who have had first-hand experience enacting systems for legal access to cannabis. We also received close to 30,000 responses from experts, organizations, and Canadians who took time to respond to our online questionnaire. Through your committee hearings, you will, like us, hear a variety of thoughtful, informed, and passionate perspectives on myriad issues relating to legalizing and regulating cannabis.

These perspectives will in some cases contradict one another. In considering the experience and expertise of those with whom we consulted, we sought to strike a balance between implementing appropriate restrictions in order to minimize the harms associated with cannabis use and providing adult access to a regulated supply of cannabis. Further, we wished to reduce the scope and scale of the illicit market and its social harms. We also concluded that it is appropriate to proceed with caution.

We are only the second nation to move forward in this way, and we were told by those who have gone before to expect surprises. While there are important lessons to be learned from other jurisdictions, designing and implementing a national Canadian system is a unique undertaking. This balanced and cautious approach, with a focus on protecting public health and safety, helped dictate where the task force ultimately landed on some of the more controversial issues. I would like to highlight two issues that help illustrate our approach.

It came as little surprise to the task force that setting a minimum age for the purchase of cannabis was the subject of much discussion during our consultations. The task force's deliberations on the issue reflected this, and we gave serious consideration to the various recommendations, ranging from 18 to 25 years of age.

(1050) We recognized the increased risks associated with use of cannabis at an early age. Research suggests that cannabis use during adolescence may be associated with negative effects on brain development, yet we also know that adults 18 to 24 are the segment of the population most likely to consume cannabis. Nearly 30% of that age cohort reported past-year cannabis use in 2015. Setting the bar for legal access too high could result in a range of unintended consequences, such as leading young adults to continue to purchase cannabis on the illicit market where, among other things, there are no quality controls.

We heard—and you discussed these earlier with public servants—that the criminal prohibitions that exist today and have existed for more than 90 years have had little success in preventing access to cannabis and dissuading people from its use. In 2016, 80% of cannabis-related offences were for possession, which in turn led to 18,000 charges for cannabis possession. We also heard about the negative stigma of arrest and the potential lifelong consequences for those young adults who have criminal records for simple cannabis possession.

In proposing a federal minimum age of 18 and respecting the interests of provinces and territories to set a higher age if they choose, we aimed to balance the need to protect minors with the objective of reducing the illicit market. Based on our study, the task force also concluded that an age limit alone was insufficient to discourage and delay cannabis use. We recommended that robust preventive measures such as sustained public education along with smart regulation would better control access and use by young adults and mitigate health risks.

A second issue that garnered significant debate, with compelling arguments both for and against, was the issue of home cultivation. On the one hand, we heard concerns about the health and safety risks of home cultivation, the challenges of providing adequate oversight, in particular as it related to children, and the potential ease with which it could be diverted into the illicit market. However, it became clear to us that these concerns pertained most particularly but not exclusively to large-scale clandestine grow operations, not small-scale home cultivation.

We also heard arguments in favour of allowing home cultivation, premised on the belief that it can be done safely and responsibly with appropriate limits and safeguards. Ultimately, the task force recommended allowing a limited home cultivation of no more than four plants per household along with a prohibition on dangerous manufacturing processes, reasonable security measures, especially in relation to children, and oversight by local authorities.

In our view, this recommendation accounted for the noted health and safety concerns and provided a framework for enabling small-scale cultivation for personal use by law-abiding adults much like what we currently see with the home brewing of alcohol. In no way should our recommendations on home cultivation be interpreted as condoning large-scale clandestine grow operations, which we all have seen reported in the media and which cause significant risks to the health and safety of Canadians, including law enforcement and other first responders.

On both these issues—age and home cultivation—we heard divergent and passionate views, as you will. Our recommendations reflect a belief that Canada, in embarking on this new path, must be both smart and pragmatic. We must also look to those who have already gone down the path of legalization, few though they are. It is encouraging to examine the experience of Colorado, one of the trailblazers in cannabis regulation. Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper and Attorney General Cynthia Coffman recently wrote to U.S.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions to provide a progress update that dispelled some of the misconceptions surrounding legalization. They noted that, despite the fears of many, cannabis use among youth following legalization has seen no statistical significant increase, and I'm happy to report the same is true in the state of Washington when you look at its most recent stats.

This was due in large part to strong regulatory provisions to help prevent use, such as age verification requirements and prohibitions on advertising, packaging, and products that appeal to children, and a robust public education campaign that highlighted the consequences of use.

(1055) Similarly, while initial data demonstrated a rise in cannabis-related emergency visits, the most recent data in Colorado shows a reversal in this trend. This reversal is, again, the result of targeted public education campaigns regarding the risk of use, and the necessity for safe use and storage. For example, all edible cannabis product packaging in Colorado must be childproof and resealable.

While there is no guarantee that Canada will experience similar outcomes, it is nonetheless encouraging to see that some of the concerns raised initially around cannabis legalization do not appear to be borne out by the most recent evidence in Colorado. Canada can learn from these experiences that through sound policy, robust public education, and enforcement of the regulatory regime created, many of the perceived risks of legalization can be mitigated. I have often said that it will be critical that the government remain vigilant and be prepared to course-correct as evidence and experience indicate.

There will be unforeseen challenges and unintended consequences. Only through careful and close monitoring and a willingness to be flexible and adaptable will it be possible to respond effectively to issues as they emerge. Thank you, Mr. Chair, I look forward to questions and comments.

The Chair :

Thank you very much and I'm sure you're going to get some good ones. Dr. Ware.

Dr. Mark Ware (Associate Professor, Department of Family Medicine, McGill University, As an Individual) :

Good morning, everyone. My name is Dr. Mark Ware and I served as vice-chair of the task force on cannabis legalization and regulation. [ Translation ] I am pleased to be able to address the committee today.

I hope to be able to provide some suggestions from the time when I was the vice chair of the task force and also to draw parallels with my professional experience. [ English ] I believe that my greatest value to the committee can come from providing a researcher's perspective on the state of evidence surrounding cannabis, including its potential harms and benefits; outlining some of the challenges that the evidence may present to you as you explore some of the issues; sharing some of the considerations and conclusions from the task force's examination of how access to cannabis for medical purposes might be impacted following legalization; and finally, highlighting the importance of research in supporting sound public policy. [ Translation ] As a clinical physician specializing particularly on pain management, I have been studying cannabis for medical purposes for a long time.

I have been able to witness for myself the paradigm shift in Canadian culture that has brought us to the point at which we intend to implement a framework for legal cannabis. This is a really remarkable change, but it is important to remember that it was a long process that started in 1996, with the legalization of hemp.

This culminated in a regulatory framework on cannabis for medical purposes during the 2000s. (1100) [ English ] Through my own research and through many of the conversations the task force has had with experts across Canada, it has become evident that there is a wide variety of thoughtful, often diverging, and at times very colourful perspectives surrounding cannabis. I have learned that no one has a monopoly on the truth about cannabis. This is a theme that Ms. McLellan noted and it is something that I think is worth reiterating. As you venture through this week of hearings, you will hear many perspectives.

Ideally, all of our clinical decisions, as well as policy recommendations, would be based on clear, well-documented evidence. However, the task force recognized through our many conversations and readings that cannabis policy lacks comprehensive, high-quality research in many areas. On many issues, there is little doubt that the evidence is often non-existent, incomplete, or inconclusive. This is why we framed our recommendations as evidence-informed rather than evidence-based. This is particularly evident when examining the harms of cannabis use.

You will hear reference to studies that demonstrate associations between frequent cannabis use and mental illnesses, such as psychosis, and other studies that speak to the short-term effects on memory, attention, and psychomotor function, yet there is also agreement that many individuals suffer from a variety of serious medical conditions and may derive therapeutic benefit from cannabis, especially in relation to pain management. In the course of the next few days, you will hear a great deal about associations between cannabis and a number of health-related outcomes.

You will probably already have your own prior perceptions about some of these issues. You will no doubt rapidly become aware that for many of these associations there is uncertainty. Even among the scientific community, there is debate around the strength and the directions of these associations. One aspect that I have been particularly struck by in considering the evidence on cannabis use is the lack of consistency on quantifying use. We talk of frequency of use—daily, weekly, monthly—but rarely of the potency of the cannabis itself.

THC content varies enormously in cannabis preparations, yet is rarely considered in epidemiological and research studies. However, it is hugely important in terms of understanding the effects on the brain and other behaviours. This is where legalization and regulation is likely to have an important impact. We will be able to accurately quantify cannabis use. Knowing what people actually use will allow us to learn the language of cannabis potency and concentrations in terms of THC or CBD percentages or milligrams per dose.

This will allow for more informed research, and as a result, a more informed public. [ Translation ] This divide between the potential risks and the potential benefits is one of the factors that the committee will have to consider when it examines a number of topics and hears different points of view. You will discover that there is no universal solution that can clarify all those points of view. The fact is that current research does not lead to a consensus. It is important to understand and accept that fact. [ English ] The case of access to cannabis for medical purposes is a notable example of divergent views.

On the one hand, there are those—notably patient groups—with the view that a separate system for medical cannabis is necessary to preserve their relationships with health care practitioners and their access to specialized medical cannabis products. They stress that they use cannabis out of necessity, not choice, and they fear that their needs and access rights would not be accommodated under a single system.

On the other hand, we heard, primarily from representatives of the medical community, that there is no need for a dedicated medical cannabis system since the end of prohibition will mean that those who need access to cannabis for medical purposes will be able to do so through the general cannabis market. Given the lack of evidence and concerns about being responsible for authorizing the use of a substance that is not an approved medicine, they did not want to play the role of gatekeeper moving forward. Others pointed to the challenges of administering and enforcing a dual system.

Ultimately, weighing the different perspectives and using the principles of caution and balance, the task force determined that the most reasonable course of action was to preserve the medical system in its current form and re-evaluate its need in five years, once the legal system has had a chance to become established. The lack of consensus in different areas highlights the need for more research to ensure systematic monitoring, evaluation, and reporting, not only to better understand and mitigate risks associated with problematic use but also to understand the potential benefits of use.

The task force heard compelling accounts from patients who told us of the benefits they experienced from cannabis use, as well as from researchers in the medical community who called for more evidence to better understand its therapeutic potential. Both physician and patient interests would be served by advancing science and clinical research on the therapeutic uses of cannabis and associated cannabinoids. There is tremendous strength across Canada in terms of research capacity, from plant sciences to psychiatry, from neuroscience to nursing, from clinical trials to community practice.

The Canadian discussion about cannabis legalization has already fostered communities of researchers to discuss the research and education agenda needed to support and inform the changing policy. There is an opportunity for Canada to take a leading role internationally in addressing questions that are of global importance. (1105) [ Translation ] Canada is embarking on a new path, a path that will provide us with opportunities to conduct additional research in order to better understand the detrimental and the beneficial effects of cannabis.

As the body of probative data grows and is better understood, we can learn those lessons and consider them as we implement our programs and policies, in order to better protect public health and safety. I feel that this is a unique and exciting opportunity for Canada to become a world leader in the area. [ English ] Taking all of the consultations of the task force into account, we provided our report to the ministers, and I provide my comments to you today with the conviction that Canada is well positioned to undertake this work carefully and safely. Thank you.

The Chair :

Thank you very much for your comments. They outline our challenge quite nicely. Mr. Spratt, you have 10 minutes.

Mr. Michael Spratt (Criminal Lawyer, Abergel Goldstein and Partners, As an Individual) :

Thank you. It's an honour and a privilege to have been invited to make submissions before this committee. My name is Michael Spratt. I'm a criminal defence lawyer. I'll leave it at that in terms of an introduction of myself. I have a more verbose introduction in my written submission, which should be translated and distributed to all of you shortly. On February 21, 2010, while a young man named Michael Swan was watching Canada's gold medal hockey team play the United States, three young men from Toronto were driving down a dark highway toward Ottawa.

The Toronto three, as they would come to be known, had a plan to make some easy money. They were going to steal Mr. Swan's marijuana. Swan was murdered later that night, killed by a single bullet that pierced his lung and tore apart his heart. There was nothing particularly unique about Mr. Swan. He was a typical teenager. He came from a good family. He had a tight circle of friends and, like almost half of Canadians have done, he smoked marijuana. He also sold it, mostly to his friends, but rumours of his large pot supply had reached Toronto. I represented one of the Toronto three.

Like Swan, he was 19 years old. He had no prior criminal record. Now, he didn't shoot Swan but he was there when Swan was shot and he was convicted of second degree murder and now he's serving a life sentence. Some cases stick with you. That's an occupational hazard of being a criminal defence lawyer. Often we remember cases because of the result, the unexpected victory or the wrongful conviction. I remember the Swan case because it was tragic. A young man was killed. Three young men were sentenced to life in jail, and a family was destroyed. Sadly, this kind of tragic story is not an isolated incident.

The simple fact is that criminalization of marijuana kills. But that's not all it does. The criminalization of marijuana is a drain on court resources. It diverts law enforcement resources away from truly harmful activities. The prosecution of marijuana offences unduly stigmatizes otherwise law-abiding citizens through the imposition of criminal records. The criminalization of marijuana disproportionately impacts individuals who are young, marginalized, members of over-policed communities, or racialized. In our drug laws there are, indeed, echoes of racism and bias.

The government should be commended for taking a tentative first step toward a rational and effective drug policy. There is promise in Bill C-45 , but there are also some serious flaws and room for improvement. Bill C-45 contains no measures, for example, to address the tens of thousands of Canadians who have been stigmatized through the war on drugs counterproductive imposition of criminal records. The Criminal Records Act was first introduced in 1970 to augment the discretionary royal prerogative of mercy.

The act detailed the manner in which persons convicted of criminal offences could apply for forgiveness for past wrongdoings. With the enactment of the Canadian Human Rights Act in 1985, offences for which people were pardoned could no longer be used as a discriminating factor by employers. Similar human rights legislation has been enacted provincially. It is in the public interest to have a robust system of pardons. It is in the interest of society to reintegrate people back into society after they have committed a criminal offence.

The logic is that even a partial removal of stigma of the conviction will aid in reintegration. It is well documented that the continued stigmatization of an offender is ineffective in reducing recidivism and reoffending. Those who have criminal records are less likely to be able to obtain employment, housing, cross international borders, and less able to fully engage in educational opportunities. Bill C-45 does not offer any measure whatsoever, such as an automatic, expedited, or subsidized pardon, to individuals who are convicted of activities that will now be legal under Bill C-45.

Nor does Bill C-45 take the opportunity to amend the currently unconstitutional sections of the Criminal Records Act that retroactively increased pardon ineligibility periods. These retroactive amendments were found to be unconstitutional and in violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by courts in Ontario and British Columbia. I was counsel in the case in Ontario. Both courts declared those amendments, the retroactive increase in pardon eligibility periods, to be of no force and effect. However, that unconstitutional pardon provision remains in force throughout most of Canada.

As a result, if you don't live in Ontario or B.C., you're subject to an unconstitutional law.

(1110) Bill C-45 should amend the Criminal Records Act to remove the unconstitutional retrospective application of the pardon ineligibility period. It should restore pre-amendment waiting periods, and a further reduction in the waiting period should be available for individuals convicted of marijuana offences, offences that would now be legal under Bill C-45. Currently, 18-year-old, first-time offenders who are convicted of simple possession of marijuana the day before Bill C-45 comes into force will be required to wait five years before they're even eligible to apply for a pardon.

Bill C-45 must remedy this situation. Bill C-45 is also an unnecessarily complex piece of legislation that leaves intact the criminalization of marijuana in too many circumstances. An adult who possesses 30 grams of marijuana in public is a criminal. A youth who possesses more than five grams of marijuana is a criminal. An 18-year-old who passes a joint to their 17-year-old friend is a criminal. An adult who grows five marijuana plants is a criminal. An adult who lets his one-metre tall marijuana plant grow an extra centimetre is a criminal. This continued criminalization is inconsistent with a ratio