14439 OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 222 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Tuesday, June 2, 2015 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES June 2, 2015 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 222 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 222 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 222 (Version officielle) 147 222 02 06 2015 2015/06/02 10:00:00 House of Commons Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates 41 2 The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS Routine Proceedings (1000) [ English ] Government Response to Petitions

Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's responses to 25 petitions.

Lake Superior National Marine Conservation Area Act Hon. John Duncan (for the Minister of the Environment) Bill C-61. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-61,

An Act to amend the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act . (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

National Institutional Abuse Awareness Day Act Mr. Ryan Cleary (St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NDP) Bill C-683. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-683,

An Act to establish a National Institutional Abuse Awareness Day . He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the House to table a private member's bill calling on the Government of Canada to establish a national day of awareness for people who have been abused by clergy, lay officials, and institutions in Canada. A national day of awareness would be a step on the path towards healing. By shining a light on the abuse, promoting awareness and education, decreasing stigma, and addressing the harm that has occurred through clergy, lay officials, and institutions as a whole, we can start to move forward.

This bill proposes that June 1 be set aside as the national day of awareness, because it is the beginning of the National Aboriginal History Month in Canada and the day the Roman Catholic Church in Newfoundland and Labrador closed Mount Cashel orphanage for good. By setting aside a national day, Canadians can engage in their communities to work together to ensure that this never happens again. I call on all members of the House to support this bill. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

(1005) Canadian Environmental Protection Act Mr. Massimo Pacetti (Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, Ind.) Bill C-684. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-684,

An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (microplastics) . He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill would amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, to prohibit the importation into Canada and the manufacture for use or sale in Canada of personal care products that contain pieces of plastic of up to five millimetres in size.

The bill had been ready to be tabled since the beginning of last fall, but due to some distractions, I decided it best to wait and table this bill today so that the focus could be on taking action in response to numerous recent studies that highlight the damage microbeads inflict on our marine ecosystem. As a Montrealer, I am personally troubled that my city's main waterway, the St. Lawrence River, contains high levels of microbead contamination. Even though this House unanimously passed the motion in March to deal with this problem, the government has yet to take action.

Seeing how little time is remaining in this session, and the fact that this bill is non-controversial, and that the House has already pronounced itself in favour of this matter, I was wondering if I can request unanimous consent to send this bill directly to the environment committee for study. The Speaker : Does the member have the unanimous consent of the House? Some hon. members: Agreed. Some hon. members: No. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Committees of the House Health Mr. Terence Young (Oakville, CPC) moved: Motion That the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Health, presented on Tuesday, October 21, 2014, be concurred in. He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise today to speak about the serious and lasting health risks of smoking marijuana, especially for our youth. I will be splitting my time with the hon. Minister of Health .

The report before us today, authored by the health committee, of which I am pleased to be a member, provides context on this important public health concern and a contrast to the disturbing proposal put forward by the Liberal leader to make marijuana available in stores, just like alcohol and cigarettes, making it even easier for children and teens to get their hands on and smoke. Marijuana is illegal for a reason, and that reason is well documented in this report on marijuana's health risks and harms.

Indeed, the former president of the Canadian Medical Association put it best when he said, “...especially in youth, the evidence is irrefutable—marijuana is dangerous”. That is why our Conservative government wants to stop children and teens from smoking marijuana. Unlike the Liberal leader, we do not support making access to illegal drugs easier. Through the national anti-drug strategy, our government is allocating approximately $100 million over five years to raise awareness and combat the production and distribution of unhealthy illegal drugs.

The Liberal leader, by contrast, would legalize marijuana, making it easier for children and teens to buy and smoke. This Liberal plan is irresponsible and can have only one indisputable effect. That is increasing access to and use of marijuana.

Whereas the Liberal leader, who advised one journalist he had smoked marijuana five or six times even as a member of Parliament, wants to make smoking marijuana a normal, everyday activity for Canadians, our Conservative government is contributing to safer and healthier communities through coordinated efforts to prevent illicit drug use, treat dependency, and reduce the production and distribution of illicit drugs. The national anti-drug strategy and the RCMP are actively working together to raise awareness of this serious public health issue, of which, incredibly, the Liberal leader makes light.

The national anti-drug strategy encompasses three action plans: prevention, treatment, and enforcement. The prevention component aims to prevent youth from using illicit drugs, through raising awareness of the harmful health effects of drug use, and to develop community-based interventions to prevent such drug use. The treatment action plan supports effective treatment and rehabilitation systems and services by implementing innovative and collaborative approaches. The enforcement element contributes to the disruption of drug operations in a safe manner, primarily targeting criminal organizations.

The RCMP has organized thousands of community outreach events to raise awareness among youth of the harms and risks of illicit drugs, including Kids and Drugs, which is a national prevention program for parents to help them learn strategies to prevent their school age children from abusing alcohol and other drugs. Drug abuse resistance education, commonly known as DARE, is a program designed to equip school children with the skills they need to recognize and resist social pressures to experiment with tobacco, alcohol, and drugs.

Aboriginal shield is a program created to better enable aboriginal youth to make informed healthy lifestyle choices regarding alcohol, drugs, and positive alternatives. Educating youth on the harmful effects of smoking marijuana is a responsibility that the RCMP has taken seriously, and our Conservative government commends it for its service to our communities. Indeed, the current head of the Canadian Medical Association was quite clear on the subject when he said, "Any effort to highlight the dangers, harm and potential side effects of consuming marijuana is welcome".

This report from the health committee lays out in plain language that which all members of the House should know: smoking marijuana damages teens' developing brains and everyone's lungs and causes other serious harms. This is the essence of what is so wrong with the Liberal leader's irresponsible plan to make smoking marijuana appear to be an acceptable, everyday activity. Our Conservative government recognizes the responsibility we have to Canadian families to prevent our youth from smoking marijuana. That is why we made tough new rules ending grow ops in residential neighbourhoods.

In terms of enforcement, the RCMP established the marijuana grow enforcement initiative back in September 2011 to better tackle marijuana grow operations. This initiative has resulted in strengthened collaboration among government agencies, community groups, businesses, and community members. It has also resulted in many successful enforcement activities.

(1010) As part of the Safe Streets and Communities Act, our government has also introduced mandatory minimum penalties for serious drug offences carried out by organized crime or those targeting youth, and it has increased the maximum penalty for the manufacture of controlled drugs, including marijuana, from 7 to 14 years. Shockingly, the Liberal leader cannot even agree that ending dangerous home grow ops is a good policy.

He quickly condemned the work to end these dangerous neighbourhood grow ops stating: Our worries are that the current hyper-controlled approach around...marijuana that actually removes from individuals the capacity to grow their own, is not going in the right direction. ...we don't need to be all nanny state about it.... These are homes with rerouted wiring for high-powered lights that are a fire hazard. They have high humidity that causes unhealthy moulds, and they are sometimes booby-trapped to ward off the theft of these drugs. Sometimes children live in these grow ops.

Grow ops are extremely dangerous for children. However, the Liberal leader is focused on aging hippies who want to grow their own. I wish there were some way to sugar-coat these statements by the Liberal leader. However, the truth is that is what he actually believes. Protecting children or teens is being a nanny state, to the Liberal leader. The Liberal leader wants to make smoking marijuana a normal, everyday activity for our youth, wants to make marijuana available in stores, just like alcohol and cigarettes, and wants to have home grow ops in neighbourhoods across Canada.

It is that kind of irresponsible approach that is proving to Canadian parents each and every day that he is just in over his head. Another important element within this report from the health committee is the concern about marijuana-impaired driving. It seems everybody knows that alcohol-impaired driving is bad and that no one should drink and drive. The message has been out there for a long time. However, the issue with drug-impaired driving is not as well understood. Drug-impaired driving is dangerous, illegal, and a risk to our communities and Canadians.

A 2011 report by the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse indicates that drugs are found in approximately one-third of all fatally injured drivers, almost as often as alcohol. Moreover, the age group most at risk is young men age 16 to 24, and the drug of choice for them is marijuana. On top of that, a study by the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators found that 26% of respondents did not believe that a driver can be charged while impaired by marijuana.

That is, marijuana was found in the system of dead drivers age 16 to 24, and many of those drivers did not know it was dangerous or illegal to drive after smoking marijuana. The Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse described that 15.8% of youth have reported being in a vehicle where the driver has smoked marijuana in the previous two hours. That is why the RCMP is working to prevent impaired driving and educate our youth.

Through RCMPTalks, the RCMP has provided a series of live, interactive video conferences with students in classrooms across Canada on many important issues, including impaired and distracted driving. The Liberal leader has said that this current approach is not going in the right direction, and yet we are seeing results. Youth surveyed by the RCMP have reported a decrease in the numbers of licensed students who drive after using marijuana or who get in a vehicle as a passenger with a driver who has been using marijuana. These and other initiatives are making a difference in communities from coast to coast.

According to the Canadian Alcohol and Drug Use Monitoring Survey, marijuana use by youth has dropped by almost 30% since 2008 and 45% since 2004. The Liberals' plan to legalize marijuana and their leader's insistence on normalizing the practice is reckless and will minimize all of these efforts by making it far easier for children and teens to buy and smoke marijuana. It would also make it socially acceptable, perhaps even a status symbol for youth. This Conservative government wants to stop children and teens from smoking marijuana, and we do not support making access to illegal drugs easier.

This discussion in the House today is timely. Our position is grounded in facts, and it is the right public health message that needs to be delivered to Canadian teens and their parents.

(1015) Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I was on the Standing Committee on Health when this study was done as well. Therefore, I am interested in hearing the member's comments about the study. I think the member is aware that one of the witnesses we heard from told us that Veterans Affairs Canada pays for the cost of medical marijuana for the treatment of PTSD in veterans. This study was completely biased and one-sided. In fact, we were extremely disappointed that the study was so one-sided.

It serves no useful purpose other than to bolster the already-held political Conservative views that are not based on evidence. I would like to ask the member this. Why did the study only consider health risks and harms? Why were the Conservatives not willing to hear about some of the advances that have been made in medical marijuana and the fact that it is actually used by a federal agency to help veterans? Mr. Terence Young : Mr. Speaker, there are approximately 5,000 prescription drugs available on the Canadian market for patients who need them.

Those drugs, with one exception, have been proven safe and effective for Canadians, and we are working to improve the standards, to improve the safety of those drugs. Smoking marijuana has never been proven safe and effective for anything. The reason it is available to Canadians is because a court decided it should be made available. Instead of directing Health Canada to conduct studies to see if marijuana is safe and effective, the court simply ordered it to be made available on the market, so it has never been proven safe and effective for anything. The harms were outlined in the study.

As a member of the committee, you heard about the harms. Sorry, my colleague opposite is well aware of the harms. Over a quarter of our children and teens, aged 11 to 15 years old, already use marijuana. They are risking addiction, memory loss, apathy, psychosis, respiratory problems, diminished mental functions and even death in motor vehicle accidents. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : I remind all hon. members to direct their comments to the Chair.

Further, members who rise to ask a question while the previous member is still answering will not be recognized, in an effort to avoid encouraging that behaviour. Questions and comments, the member for Kingston and the Islands. Mr. Ted Hsu (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I wonder what my colleague across the floor on the Conservative benches thinks about the fact that marijuana use is so high in Canada among youth. To me it must mean that whatever we have right now is not working. In my colleague's speech, he talked on and on about the Liberal leader.

My question to him is, did the committee report mention the Liberal leader and what was the purpose of the committee report or even the member's motion, given the content of his speech? Mr. Terence Young : Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have a question from the Liberal side of the House because of the Liberal position on marijuana. We heard a great deal in this committee about the risks and harms of marijuana. I strongly recommend that the members of the Liberal caucus read this report, take it to your caucus meeting and tell your leader what it says. There may still be time for him to reverse—

(1020) The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : Order, please. Could I remind this hon. member to direct his comments to the Chair rather than directly at his colleagues? Mr. Terence Young : Mr. Speaker, the position of the Liberal Party is that it would legalize marijuana and regulate it. Let us look at another harmful substance that we do not want children using, which is alcohol. How is regulation working for alcohol? Because if it were working, no teen would get access to alcohol. We have heard from a CAMH speaker that over 25% of our youth in grades 7 to 12 are binge drinkers, and over 40% aged 20 to 24.

Eight per cent of those youth will become addicted to alcohol. Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death among teens 15 to 20 years old, and with alcohol a factor in half those deaths. How is regulation really working for our youth with alcohol? Hon. Rona Ambrose (Minister of Health, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to today's discussion on the serious and lasting health risks of smoking marijuana, especially for our youth. I would first like to congratulate the health committee on its excellent work in providing the report that is before us today.

Over the course of a month, I understand, the committee heard compelling testimony from various witnesses, including medical experts, researchers, the RCMP and government officials. What is clear from this report is that the Canadian Medical Association's former president was right when he said, “especially in youth, the evidence is irrefutable—marijuana is dangerous”.

Contrast this reality with the Liberal leader's plan to make smoking marijuana a normal, everyday activity for youth and to have marijuana available in stores, just like alcohol and cigarettes, and we arrive at why it is so important to have this discussion today. This report provides a thorough assessment of marijuana's potential for addiction and its negative effects on the developing brains of young people. The evidence is clear that when youth smoke marijuana, they have increased risks of developing mental health issues, including psychosis and schizophrenia.

We also know that the regular, long-term smoking of marijuana can harm concentration, memory, the ability to think and to make decisions, and cause paranoia. The report also points to the alarmingly low level of awareness about the very real risks and harms for youth associated with smoking marijuana. The Liberal plan would not help to raise this awareness. The Liberal leader wants to legalize marijuana, trivializing its risks and harms by making marijuana as easy to access as alcohol or cigarettes. The Liberal leader even wants to allow for and expand home grow ops in neighbourhoods.

Liberal MPs are on the record defending marijuana storefronts in Vancouver. These marijuana dispensaries have absolutely no regard for the rule of law and have been caught selling marijuana to kids as young as 15. These stores are hallmarks of what Canadian neighbourhoods from coast to coast should expect from the Liberal Party. Make no mistake that the Liberals' plan is to have marijuana storefronts across the country. Storefronts selling marijuana are illegal and, under this Conservative government, will remain illegal. We expect the police to enforce the law.

The serious health impacts on youth make this an important public health issue. We have been working hard to prevent kids from smoking marijuana, and that is why it is so encouraging to see that marijuana smoking among youth is trending downward. The Canadian drug use monitoring survey's most recent figures report that while 20% of youth smoked marijuana in 2012, it has dropped by almost 45% since 2004. This is a significant reduction and speaks to the success of our approach, which helps to educate families on the serious health risks of smoking marijuana.

Contrast this with another figure included in the same survey. Some 70% of youth drank alcohol in 2012, a fully regulated substance. The Liberal leader's contention that regulating a substance will prevent kids from accessing it is simply absurd. Such measures would serve only to legitimize and normalize the smoking of marijuana by youth and could mean more than tripling its use, as we have seen with alcohol.

The key problem with the Liberal plan to legalize marijuana, expand home grow ops and make marijuana more available in stores across Canada is simply that the role of a government is to communicate responsibly when it comes to public health messaging. I ask what kind of a message would we be sending to kids and parents if the government were to endorse the sale and smoking of marijuana? It would send the message that smoking marijuana is okay and that it is safe, when the reality is that it has serious and lasting health risks for kids.

That is why this Conservative government wants to continue to discourage and stop kids from smoking marijuana. Our national anti-drug strategy and its focus on the prevention and treatment of drug addiction is clearly having an impact. We have brought in tough new sentences on drug dealers and reduced youth smoking of marijuana by over 30% now. This report from the health committee makes it clear that there is still more that we should be doing. The Liberal plan to legalize marijuana would not help to reduce the number of youth smoking marijuana.

It would make marijuana more easily available and would normalize it. One study that was discussed before the committee revealed that the area of the brain most affected by marijuana use is the prefrontal cortex, the area of the brain responsible for executive cognitive functions, including decision making, planning, organizing behaviour, and setting and achieving goals. Most concerning for parents, however, is that long-term use can also lead to an increased risk of serious mental health conditions, such as schizophrenia or psychosis.

I have heard loud and clear from addiction specialists across the country about the overload of marijuana-addicted kids who are checking in for help.

(1025) It can also lead to psychological dependence and addiction. A 20-year medical review published in the journal Addiction shows that regular marijuana smokers face a one in ten chance of developing a dependency on the drug, and that number goes up to one in six for users who started smoking regularly when they were young. We must also consider the effects on the body and the lungs. We know the effects of tobacco addiction, but what about marijuana?

Witnesses before the committee explained that there are risks to a person's respiratory system as a result of smoking marijuana, which can contain between 50% and 70% more carcinogens than tobacco smoke. During testimony, witnesses noted that smoking marijuana resulted in the inhalation of these carcinogens and carbon monoxide, which can create health risks even greater than those that arise from smoking tobacco. Witnesses also noted research showing that marijuana smoke is an irritant to the lungs, increasing the prevalence of conditions such as bronchitis. These are not simply worrying statistics.

The facts speak for themselves and the risk is very real for our youth. One of the witnesses who provided testimony during the committee study was Dr. Melton Kahan, who said, “...public health organizations need to conduct public health campaigns to counter the prevailing myth that cannabis is harmless and therapeutic”. Last year, when Health Canada launched an awareness campaign on the serious health risks of smoking marijuana for youth, the Liberals cried foul.

They do not want Canadian families to know about the health risks that come with smoking marijuana because that would, of course, harm the Liberal leader's credibility and plan for legalization. Indeed, the Liberal member for Vancouver Centre was present during that committee study and even said this on the record, “...we have known all along that the long-term effects of cognitive problems coming from the smoking of marijuana over long periods amongst young people, under about 40, are high...” Canadians will not be fooled.

They know that the Liberal leader's plan to legalize marijuana, making it available in stores just like alcohol and cigarettes, is another example of how he is just not ready for the job. It has now taken us 50 years to curb tobacco smoking in this country and now the Liberal leader wants to open the door to commercial and retail marijuana companies. What is clear is that the scientific evidence on the risks and harms associated with smoking marijuana continues to grow. There is an ongoing need to ensure that this information is readily available to all Canadians, especially parents and youth.

As it stands, evidence shows that Canadian parents and kids are not properly informed about the risks of smoking marijuana as they are about other illicit drugs. For example, during the committee proceedings, a representative from the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse outlined how some Canadian youth are not aware of the effects of smoking marijuana and that they perceive it as a natural product rather than a drug. Some even believe that smoking marijuana before driving is not as dangerous as drinking and driving.

Our government shares the health committee's concerns about the harmful effects of smoking marijuana for youth. Unlike the Liberal leader, we do not support making access to harmful illegal drugs easier. As health minister, I find the Liberal leader's campaign to legalize and normalize smoking marijuana for youth completely irresponsible. This plan sends the wrong message. It sends the message that smoking marijuana is okay and safe for young people, when, in reality, it has very serious and lasting health risks.

Again, I thank the health committee for its report and we will continue to make sure that parents and young people are aware of the health risks of smoking marijuana.

(1030) Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am very surprised to hear the Minister of Health today in the House defend a report that is so clearly biased. The report that we are debating today only looked at health risks and harms. If the minister has read the testimony, she will know that approximately 50% of people who use medical marijuana do so to relieve chronic pain, according to Dr. Perry Kendall, who is a medical health officer in B.C.

The research on medical marijuana is very limited because of prohibition and yet when we look at the government report, none of the recommendations would allow, call for or urge the government to do research on medical marijuana. I would like to ask the minister why she is taking such a biased political stance, because it is very clear it is not based on evidence, and why she is so opposed to legitimate research on medical marijuana that would actually give us the information that is required. Why is she so opposed to that? Hon. Rona Ambrose : Mr.

Speaker, I would ask the member opposite why she is so opposed to the scientific evidence, which the former head of the Canadian Medical Association said is irrefutable, that the harms and risks of marijuana for young people are irrefutable. The evidence exists internationally. Here in Canada, we have outlined it. We had experts in front of the committee. This report is backed by science. I have said repeatedly that if there is any research that anyone wants to do to prove a health impact or a health effect of marijuana, they are welcome to do that research. The member is incorrect.

There is no prohibition on research. The problem is that there has been a lot of research, but there has not been any proof that marijuana actually has, other than in very specific instances, any medical effectiveness in any way, sense, or form. However, we do have irrefutable evidence that it is harmful to young people, and as the Minister of Health , I have to make my decisions based on science, not on hearsay. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the current government and the Prime Minister know no shame.

Let me quote the Prime Minister , who, while the leader of the Canadian Alliance, said, when speaking to a classroom, “I like to tell people I was offered a joint once, but I was too drunk to smoke it”. I suspect that the Prime Minister was trying to give an image of being cool to a bunch of teenagers. However, he is not alone. What about the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington , a Conservative member of the caucus, who said to Grade 10 students that we should have full, complete legalization of marijuana.

The government wants to use this issue as a wedge issue, using tax dollars to try to spread misinformation. Canadians should not be surprised by the current government, which consistently uses tax dollars to spread misinformation to Canadians. It should be ashamed of itself. My question for the minister is, why does she believe she has the right to use tax dollars to spread false information to Canadians? Hon. Rona Ambrose : Mr.

Speaker, one of the first things I did as Minister of Health to deal with the numerous parents I ran into who told me about the marijuana addiction their kids were suffering from and who did not have anywhere to go for information was get a group together of the top addiction experts and specialists across Canada. We held a round table. I asked them, “What is the number one thing we can do to support you, as a government?”. They said, “Please, please, have a national ad campaign for marijuana smoking cessation”, and I said, “I will do that”.

That is exactly what we have done to raise awareness for parents and for young people. They have repeatedly told me that in our society, in the last 10 years, across the country, governments have failed to make the proper evidence available to parents and to young people. We said that we are going to turn that around, and we are going to make sure young people know. We are going to work hard to curb marijuana smoking for youth, because it is very harmful to their health. We are succeeding. We are down by 30%. We are seeing that message get to kids.

We are going to continue to work hard to make sure that the message continues to reach not only young kids but their parents so that they know that the marijuana that it is out there now is 300% stronger than what they might have used when they were young. It has lasting health effects, as serious as schizophrenia. We are seeing more and more young people check into rehab addicted to marijuana, and this has to stop.

(1035) Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am glad we are having this debate today on the report from the Standing Committee on Health, which was produced in October 2014, because it is a very important subject in terms of public policy as it relates to marijuana. The first thing I want to say is that the report we are debating is unfortunately completely biased. The name of the report is “Marijuana's Health Risks and Harms”.

We can see from its title that in looking at the subject of marijuana, the majority of the members of the committee, the government members, were only interested in building a political case for themselves to show what they believe to be risks and harms. From day one, the study and the report were very suspect, because they were actually not based on evidence and a scientific approach in terms of how we should be conducting studies by standing committees of Parliament. We heard from a number of witnesses.

It is regrettable that the government members tried to prevent witnesses from coming forward who hold evidence-based views on marijuana based on a health approach. It was very difficult to get that point of view across in the committee. However, I am pleased to say that we were able to get some witnesses who gave us a very balanced picture of what is taking place in terms of public policy. I would say that the approach that was put forward, and certainly the approach the NDP favours, is an approach that focuses on health promotion and on public education and safety.

We need to have an approach to marijuana that is more balanced. That is something that did not result from the study and this report. We produced what is called a dissenting or minority report for this study. Our number one recommendation to the Government of Canada was that it is essential to pursue a public health approach to marijuana that is focused on education, and where necessary, treatment and harm reduction. This is something we heard from witnesses. It is something that is sensible.

We understand that there is a broad consensus now in this country that the Conservatives' approach of a war on drugs and prohibition has been a catastrophic failure economically, socially, and through the justice system. Giving people criminal records, having a zero-tolerance policy, and denying the reality of what is going on in terms of marijuana in this country is something that is producing more harm than good. That is the Conservatives' approach. We have a different approach in the NDP. It is based on focusing on public health and health promotion. We heard from a number of witnesses, like Dr. Evan Wood, Dr.

Tony George, the Canadian Public Health Association, Philippe Lucas, and Dr. Perry Kendall. These are all eminent doctors and scientists who have actually studied this issue, and they all told us that a public health approach to the non-medical use of drugs is necessary, and in fact critical, to minimize the risks and the harms. I spoke a bit earlier and questioned the minister about the fact that very limited research has gone on. We heard at the committee that approximately 50% of people who use medical marijuana do so to relieve chronic pain. This came from Dr. Perry Kendall, who was a very credible witness.

We also heard from Veterans Affairs Canada that the department pays for medical marijuana for the treatment of PTSD in veterans. The witnesses all said that we need to have more research on medical marijuana, but it has been very difficult to do so because of the approach of the government. I find it contradictory that on the one hand, the Conservatives are willing to encourage research to look at risks and harms, yet there is not one recommendation in the majority government report that calls for research on medical marijuana and some of the benefits that have already been shown.

So much for a parliamentary study. It is actually shameful that it is so biased and prejudicial.

(1040) We believe that we need have more research done. We believe that we need to take a broad public health approach. In fact, what we think should happen, and this is one of our recommendations in our report, is that we should: Establish an independent commission with a broad mandate, including safety and public health, to consult Canadians on all aspects of the non-medical use of marijuana and to provide guidance to Parliament on the institution of an appropriate regulatory regime to govern such use. Why do we come to this conclusion?

We come to this conclusion because it is very clear that the current unregulated market has been a complete failure. It produces violence, stigma, and, in fact, control by organized crime. It is very clear. I think most Canadians understand that criminalization is not the answer. In fact, criminalization produces a huge amount of harm in and of itself. The reality is that whether the Conservatives can see it or not, they know that it is there. It is very clear that they politically choose to deny it. Our marijuana laws need to be modernized, and they need to be based on evidence and public health principles.

This is something that is taking place throughout the world. We only have to look south of the border to see that different states, whether it is Colorado or Washington, are taking a much more realistic public health approach to marijuana based on a balance of prevention, public health, well-being, harm reduction, community safety, and public education. That is the kind of approach we need in Canada. It is something the government has politically decided it wants to reject. It simply wants to play a little political game. All it talks about is youth.

I have not heard anyone in this House or any witness who came forward say that they think marijuana should be available to youth. In fact, that is precisely the reason we need a regulatory approach; it is so we can set clear rules as to where use can take place, and it should be adults who look at issues of commercialization. We need to look at issues of distribution, just as they have done in some of the states south of the border. The government's sort of political mantra on this focuses on youth.

There are issues around the use of any substance, whether it is alcohol, marijuana, or any other substance, but that is only part of the question we are looking at. I would argue strenuously that a regulatory approach, a public health approach, would enable us to have much better coordination and an overview of what we need to do in terms of ensuring that youth do not have access to substances, whether it is marijuana or anything else, that are harmful. It is staring us in the face that this is the classic example of the response of the Conservative government to an issue.

It is tougher laws and bringing in mandatory minimum sentences. That is what it did for drug crimes. However, everything we see before us is telling us that criminalization of drug use, whether it is marijuana or other substances, is actually producing more harm. It is abundantly clear that what is needed is a public health approach, which has been adopted by the medical health officers across the county and has been supported by many major cities across the county. Certainly the city of Vancouver has led the way on this issue.

I find it astounding that, still today, as this report comes forward, the Conservatives are using this as a political hammer. I want to say that I do not think it is going to work. It is a failure. Canadians actually understand what this debate is about. Canadians understand that criminalization is something that has failed in this country. The so-called war on drugs, just as we saw with Prohibition in the 1930s, actually produces more crime and violence. That is what we are facing in Canada today. We can look at what has been happening in Surrey or Vancouver.

We can see the gang violence and the violence that comes about as a result of prohibition. In this party, we would rather be on the side of evidence. We would rather be on the side of reality. We would rather be on the side of a proper regulatory approach that produces a coherent response, based on public policy and public health, to the issue of marijuana.

(1045) The Conservatives can rant all they want and try to create a black and white situation in which people are either with them or against them, as we have heard so often in the House, but Canadians are not fooled. Canadians know that we need to have these laws modernized. They know that we need to have proper oversight and a regulatory approach that will actually help young people be safer. We need a regulatory approach that would ensure that we have proper rules, regulations, and guidelines about where marijuana use can take place. These are all very important questions.

I am very proud of the fact that the NDP produced a brief report in the overall Standing Committee of Health report in October. It lays out very clearly the principles and the direction that we believe are absolutely necessary in dealing with the issue of marijuana use in Canada.

To conclude, I will again reiterate that, one, we think it should be pursued as a public health approach; two, we believe that we need to fund research to examine the potential effectiveness of medical marijuana; and three, we call for an independent commission with a broad mandate to provide guidance to Parliament on the institution of an appropriate regulatory regime to govern such use. Hon. Michelle Rempel (Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification), CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, in my role as Minister of State for Western Economic Diversification, I find myself spending a lot of time in the beautiful city of Vancouver, and I know my colleague opposite represents a riding there. However, one of the issues I hear about outside my economic portfolio is the issue of the marijuana dispensaries that are operating illegally in British Columbia right now and in other cities in the country.

The fact is that they are operating illegally, and since my colleague opposite represents a riding in a city where this is a big issue for many people, I am wondering if she could give her thoughts on the marijuana dispensaries that are operating illegally in the city right now. Ms. Libby Davies : Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question. It is a very good and thoughtful question. She is correct that there are numerous medical dispensaries for marijuana, and probably most of them are in my riding of Vancouver East.

The reality is that in Vancouver, local law enforcement has basically not enforced whatever laws it could against these dispensaries, nor has the City of Vancouver, in terms of zoning or licensing, because they are not considered to be harmful. The member may not be aware that recently the City of Vancouver made an announcement that it wants to provide a proper licensing and regulatory approach to these medical dispensaries. It was very interesting to hear the response from the Minister of Health in Ottawa, who is so far away from what is going on in Vancouver.

Of course, her response was nothing surprising: it was no, no, no, this is not going to be allowed to happen. The fact is that in the city of Vancouver, elected officials, the police department, and other agencies understand that it is much better to have oversight, licensing, and a regulatory approach to these dispensaries to make sure they are operating properly. That is something, again, that is based on public interest.

Therefore, yes, there is a lot going on in Vancouver, and I expect as with other issues, Vancouver will lead the way on this and will be able to bring in proper oversight and a proper licensing system. Ms. Joyce Murray (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the member for Vancouver East for her clear remarks about the use of marijuana as a health issue. I too am from Vancouver, and I have also heard from people like Dr. Perry Kendall and Dr. Evan Wood.

Actually, four former attorneys general of British Columbia have spoken out for legalization because of the crime factors and the access for youth in this situation, in which prohibition is the Conservative government's approach. I do not disagree with anything the member said. Everything she said was consistent with legalizing this product so that we can regulate and control it, make it inaccessible to young people, and take it out of the hands of criminals. However, my understanding is that on this issue, her party does not support legalization but is actually in favour of decriminalization.

While that is better than the current situation in which it is regulated and controlled by the criminal underworld, decriminalization would still not allow regulation and control by government. I would ask the member how decriminalization is consistent with the factors of control and regulation that she described as being important, as is done south of the border?

(1050) Ms. Libby Davies : Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments. I would draw her attention to the report from the standing committee within which the NDP minority report is contained. This is an official response from the NDP, and its recommendation is very clear: we are calling for an independent commission to institute an appropriate regulatory regime to govern such use. I would encourage the member to read the reports. If we look at the Liberal minority report, we see that it uses the word “explore”.

The NDP has been very clear about the direction and the steps that are needed, based on public health and public interest. We need to have an independent commission and we need to have the guidance to Parliament to institute an appropriate regulatory regime. I think that should be very clear to her. [ Translation ] Mr. Raymond Côté (Beauport—Limoilou, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. The sun is definitely setting on the Conservative government's reign.

It reminds me of monarchs in ancient times who, during their final days, assassinated their entourage to facilitate the transition in an attempt to ease their own passing. This is so sad because the Conservatives have adopted a really hard-line attitude that rejects scientific evidence and social consensus. I am talking about consensus among various stakeholders with an interest in the problems associated with drug use in general, including marijuana use.

I would like my colleague to tell me how concerned the witnesses who appeared as part of the study were about the government's attitude and what it is trying to achieve through excessive criminalization. [ English ] Ms. Libby Davies : Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the clarity with which my colleague has put forward this issue. He is quite right. There is a sense of desperation that we see from government members. They are clinging to the vestige of a criminalization and prohibitionist policy, even though they know that it was a failed policy many decades ago when it came to alcohol.

There is a sort of blindness to what they are doing. That is very evident. To answer the question, a number of witnesses came forward and made it very clear that we need to have more research. We have some evidence now about medical marijuana, but we need to have more evidence-based research. However, the problem is that it is not going to happen with this government, because it has already said in its report that it would only allow research based on risks and harms. Therefore, it is a completely one-sided debate.

We have to reject that, just as we hopefully will reject the government so that it will not be here any longer and we can actually move forward with an intelligent public health-based approach to marijuana and many other issues. Mr. Terence Young (Oakville, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the member wants to talk about reality and evidence, so why not look at the reality and evidence from Colorado, where marijuana was legalized and where its sale was normalized in January 2014. Here is what has happened so far.

First, the tax revenues Colorado expected have levelled off because given the choice, people would rather stay in a bar and meet their old drug dealer and get their dope 29.5% cheaper, with no tax, than travel to a government-run store. Therefore, that is not proving to be true. Forty-five children eight years old and under have ended up in hospitals getting spinal taps and having their stomachs pumped after eating gummy bears or brownies or whatever their parents left around the house with marijuana in it. There were 45 very seriously ill children.

As well, there have been an least two deaths reported from psychotic reactions from people who consumed too much marijuana. That is the experience so far. Were you aware of that, and are you not afraid the exact same things would happen in Canada?

(1055) The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : Once again, could the member direct his questions and comments to the Chair? I am presuming it is the member for Vancouver East he would like to hear from. The hon. member for Vancouver East. Ms. Libby Davies : Mr. Speaker, that is the fourth time that the member has not gone through the Chair. I would hope someone with his experience would know the respectful way to debate in this House. Yes, I am somewhat familiar with what is going on in Colorado.

In fact, I was there a year ago as part of a conference, where we heard directly from Colorado officials from the Governor's office. They have a special law enforcement unit only for marijuana that was very impressive, so I do have some knowledge. The fact is that their approach for legalization has only been in operation for about a year, so I am not surprised to hear that there are still issues that they are working out. However, let me say this: the member is cherry-picking.

I am sure that there have been youths who have been harmed by marijuana, but let us put that in relation to prescription drugs and the number of people who have died from so-called legal prescription drugs. This is all a relative debate. Rather than cherry-picking and saying that this happened to two youths or whatever it might be, as tragic as that is, let us learn from what is happening in Colorado or in Washington State.

Let us focus on the need to have a made-in-Canada public-health-based approach to marijuana use that has the proper oversight and regulations to actually protect our young people while ensuring that there is not criminalization and that we bring forward a modernization of our law as it pertains to marijuana. Why would the government not do that? Hon. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I find it very interesting that we are speaking to the concurrence on a report that was tabled in April 2014. This is obviously no longer about a report and its concurrence, but about politics.

At no point when we were studying this in the health committee did people start talking about the Liberal leader. We were talking about marijuana. The fact that the

summary is about a report that was not even mentioned is quite amusing and fairly transparent, which is probably the only time the government has been transparent about anything. The Liberal Party of Canada rejects this report. We do not concur with it, and we presented a dissenting report. I want to be very clear that this report does not reflect the testimony and advice we heard from expert witnesses who presented to committee. In fact, much of the testimony, specifically around scientific evidence, is absent from the report.

There is very little scientific evidence in this report, so we find the report inherently flawed. The Liberals asked that the study include the benefits versus the risks, as all drug studies do in any kind of appropriate review of any drug. My colleagues in the New Democratic Party also asked for it. It was completely rejected. We have a study that is very flawed because it looks at only its harms and risks, and not its benefits. In fact, in the testimony we listened to during the whole course of the five committee hearings on this, we heard about the benefits, but they were completely discarded in the report.

Many witnesses said that this should be looked at in a objective, scientific manner, in the same manner in which all drugs are assessed. What we heard was very clear. We have the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health recommendations, based entirely on evidence and because of the high use of marijuana among youth aged 11 to 15 years old in Canada. UNICEF reports that Canada has the highest use among all other countries. The UNICEF report is a comparative report, based on looking at other countries in the world. The minister continues to refer to one report that says that the rate is going down.

It is one simple report, and it is a Canadian report. It is not a comparative report. It simply says that the rates are going down. The minister has yet to prove to anyone what she is in fact referring to when she says that new reports have shown this. The Canadian Alcohol and Drug Use Monitoring Survey showed very clearly that of the 41.5% of Canadians who had used marijuana in the past, at least once in their lifetime, 25% were chronic users. In that report, what we did not break down in the report was that 17% of people who used cannabis did so for medical purposes.

Of that 17%, 50% use it for pain and the other 50% use it for depression, insomnia, and anxiety, which suggests there is a medical benefit to marijuana. Incidents among youth remained at 20.2%, as per UNICEF. Here is what we did not see in the report. Every scientific group presented conflicting evidence. Mr. Philippe Lucas of the University of Victoria said that regulated access to marijuana was associated everywhere that it was done with a decrease in the recreational use of other drugs, such as alcohol and prescription drugs. It is important to look at the regulated use of marijuana. Dr.

Evan Wood at the BC Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS and the Urban Health Research Initiative pointed out that the illegal status of marijuana did not prevent youth access, since 80% of young people in a U.S. suggested that cannabis was very easy to obtain.

(1100) Dr. Le Foll of the University of Toronto and Dr. Didier Jutras-Aswad of the University of Montreal recommended legalizing marijuana through a system of strict regulation of use and taxation, which would help reduce its health risks and harms. However, they also said that if we regulated it, there should be oversight of content, including the level of THC, which we know has gone up a great deal since the 1960s. They also said that we could look at less harmful ways of using medical marijuana and marijuana per se.

Clearly, we have all of these very well-known incredible researchers and physicians saying that we should legalize marijuana and that wherever that is done, it not only brings down the use by youth, but also brings down the use of other related drugs that are used in conjunction with marijuana, such as alcohol, cigarettes and prescription drugs. We recommended that the Government of Canada explore a regulatory framework of legalization, working with experts in the field, that aimed at keeping marijuana out of the hands of youth.

We wanted to explore what the legislation would look like based not only on best practices of other countries, but by bringing in the experts to show exactly what should be included in that kind of recommendation, one of the biggest things being age-related. Data from 2002 told us that hospitalizations in Canada related to cannabis accounted for 0.3% of all hospitalizations in our country. Yet hospitalizations for the use of alcohol was 5.8%, and for tobacco was 10.3%. Tobacco and alcohol are legal drugs in our country.

The direct cost to the health care system of cannabis in 2002 was $73 million, for alcohol it was $3.3 billion, and for tobacco it was $4.4 billion. Here we have huge health risks associated with two legal drugs. When the minister spoke so movingly about how much she cared about youth and how much she cared about the harms of the drug, did she mean that she intended to make alcohol and tobacco illegal in the country? I do not know. If she really cares, that is what she might be talking about. One of the things that we learned was that a public awareness campaign was very important. For instance, Dr. Tony P.

George of the University of Toronto said that in the United States it was found that the perception of harm among youth would decrease if there was a public awareness campaign. However, what he did not say was that a public awareness campaign needed to focus on accurate information, because using scare tactics have been shown to be the least effective way. The government put out its ad that was a scare tactic and did not have any accurate information at all in it. This is important.

When the government asked the Canadian Medical Association and the College of Family Physicians of Canada to help it with the public awareness ad, both of these groups, which are very credible organizations, said no because the ad was all about scare tactics and did not have anything to do with accurate information. Here we have this predisposed bias of which the government is taking care. Therefore, if the government cares so strongly, why would it not want to legalize it? We found a lot of conflicting reports about the harms and risks of using cannabis versus the benefits of using cannabis.

From some groups we heard that there were obviously risks of cognitive impairment, brain development, respiratory effects, mental health problems, motor vehicle accidents and cardiovascular disease. Then we heard from others that there was no direct causality between chronic marijuana use and long-term cognitive effects. We heard that there was a comprehensive meta-analysis done at the University of British Columbia that showed no substantive systemic effects of long-term cannabis use and neuro-cognitive function. Therefore, we are getting two sets of conflicting reports.

(1105) Then we heard again that there were long-term effects of marijuana toxicity on the lungs and yet others suggested that research in this area was unclear and that more studies were necessary, especially with the vehicle for inspiring marijuana, either with paper and all of the leaves, which has an effect, or vaped. We heard two sides of that argument, all from very credible scientists. Some witnesses said that marijuana impaired cognitive function and psychomotor skills, and that it could lead to driver impairment.

Others said that, in fact, traffic fatalities related to cannabis were always combined with multi-drug use or alcohol. Therefore, we cannot take these simplistic responses that we have been hearing from across the way that this bad and this is good, unless we understand the causality of certain things and the multi-factorial causality involved. Always in terms of motor vehicle accidents there was use of another drug, mostly alcohol. All researchers pointed out that MRI and brain activity studies showed that the developing prefrontal cortex was where marijuana had its biggest effect.

However, other researchers warned that other factors could contribute to intellectual attainment in certain youth who used marijuana, because we had to take into consideration the multi-factorial causality: economic static, social stress and personality characteristics. Therefore, we cannot say that one plus one equals five in the way the report suggests. In

summary, all of the contradictory evidence pointed to a need to look at benefits versus harms and risks. We heard that cannabis increased anxiety and psychosis and yet other physicians and scientists said that it was used as an antipsychotic. One is a benefit and one is a risk. We heard that evidence of panic attacks and increased depression came from the use of cannabis. Then we heard that cannabis was used to diminish anxiety and chronic pain conditions, such as multiple sclerosis, HIV-AIDS and post traumatic stress disorder.

I find it increasingly amusing, and I do not know if maybe the Minister of Health was not aware of it, that Veterans Affairs Canada pays for the cost of medical marijuana for PTSD patients. Much of this contradictory testimony was not included in this report. In fact, the vast majority of witnesses pointed to inconclusive evidence so far of direct harms and risks and the need to research. The Liberals suggested that extensive research be done on the risks and benefits, and we got an absolute no from the Conservative members of the committee. The report, as we can see here, does not mention research.

It is unfortunate that much of the evidence from credible witnesses would be taken out of the report. It is unfortunate that something as serious as a drug is being used by Canadian youth starting at the age of 11. Remember when people used to smoke cigarettes, when they 10 and 12, behind the barn. We now see, with all of the regulation that came about in terms of tobacco use, 11 and 12-year-old kids are not hiding out behind the barn. In fact, there are enormous fines if a young person tries to buy cigarettes.

Therefore, we can see how the legalization, regulation, age-related specifics and strong penalties for selling to young people has had an impact. I remember when I graduated from medical school, and I am sure many in this room can remember this, that the whole idea was to get absolutely blind drunk at the graduation. Today, with the work of MADD and the regulation on age-related limits being imposed and enforced with regard to alcohol, we have dry grads. Any kind of public health approach to anything needs to be based on evidence. We need to look at the benefits of the drug.

Every drug has a benefit and every drug has harms. Aspirin has benefits and also has huge harms. Let us really talk about scientific evidence and data. We cannot look at any drug without doing both. This report, which we do not concur in, does not speak to both and does not weigh those two pieces of evidence so we can look at that drug in the way we look at all other drugs. Also, we have heard that the cost to the health care system of alcohol and tobacco is, by thousands, more costly and harmful than cannabis.

(1110) Here, we have some stuff we have to look at. If we are going to look at evidence-based systems, we have two drugs in use currently that are regulated and that are legal and that have a lot of evidence to show that regulating and legalizing and imposing penalties makes us decrease the use of those drugs. The idea that this is being used as a political football is a disservice to our caring about the young people we do not want to see drink, smoke and use cannabis. Why would we take cannabis and treat it so differently? It is a drug, just like alcohol and just like nicotine.

Let us really talk about good scientific evidence, objective data. We in this party care about youth. We do not want to see our young people using cannabis in large amounts. We do not want to see them using it at all. We know how easy it is to get. Eighty per cent of youth have testified it is easy to get. Let us start regulating this drug, very clearly, and let us start putting penalties to the drug, but let us also, at the same time, do research so that we do not deprive our population of any benefits that this drug could have.

I notice that the minister talked a lot about Vancouver and the municipality of Vancouver and how it is licensing dispensaries. Way back, in about 2001, Health Canada decided to license dispensaries for the production of medical marijuana because there was evidence that for people with MS, HIV/AIDS, chronic pain, depression, certain mood disorders and terminal illness, it did have impact. Doctors would write prescriptions. People would go to the licensed dispensaries, that Health Canada licensed, and they would be able to get their prescription filled.

The current government came in and decided that, in fact, it did not like the idea that Health Canada licensed it. The government decided to commercialize the industry, giving licences to commercial entities, and stalking people who needed to use this drug and who would grow two plants. We actually set up regulations in which people could grow two plants, for personal use only. Now, people are not allowed to do that. The current government cancelled that. What we have are thousands of commercial industries waiting to get licensed to produce medical marijuana and we have not got very many of them done.

Those that have licences are in the single digits. We have a government that entered the fray and changed what was working extremely well. Now we are in limbo. The Province of British Columbia and certain health authorities in British Columbia took the Government of Canada to court because it did not want people to grow two plants and people were now going to have to buy it at enormous prices from these commercial entities. The Supreme Court of British Columbia said, “Well, no, you can't do that. You cannot protect people who are taking something that is helping them, in effect.

If some physicians are prescribing it for them, you cannot remove that at a cost that many people cannot afford.” Many of the people who use this for medical purposes are either terminally ill or disabled and are not working full time. They do not have money to buy an extraordinary amount of drugs. We know, in this country, that most people cannot afford to buy prescriptions for diseases like hypertension, diabetes, et cetera, because the cost of drugs is so high.

The government absolutely admitted that there was a medical benefit to it because it was going to license commercial industries for the production of medical marijuana. The City of Vancouver, because of the chaos caused by the current government that does things and then never follows up on them, has been sitting in limbo now for about two years. We find that there are many dispensaries being set up that are not licensed and are not legal. The cities of Victoria and Vancouver had to take matters into their own hands to license and bring some control to the chaos of the current government.

Finally, I am saying we presented a dissenting report. I gave all the reasons we cannot concur with the report that we are discussing today.

(1115) Mr. Terence Young (Oakville, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the member has claimed that the marijuana issue has become a political football. That has never been the goal of the government. It is not a political football. The government's goal is to protect Canadian youth. To the extent that it could be considered a political football, that came when the Liberal leader went to a high school on Prince Edward Island where children as young as 14 were present and announced to great cheers that he wanted to legalize marijuana. If the marijuana issue is a political football, it is because of the Liberal leader's attitude.

The member has also said, “there is very little scientific evidence in this report”. I am sorry, I was at the same committee hearings she was, and we heard from Meldon Kahan, Women's College Hospital; Harold Kalant, University of Toronto; Michel Perron, chief executive officer of the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, and their senior researcher. We heard from Andra Smith, associate professor, University of Ottawa, and three professors who came as individuals, professors of psychiatry from the University of Toronto, and others. Here is what they told us.

They told us that marijuana can cause psychosis, marijuana can cause neurological damage, marijuana damages the prefrontal cortex of children's brains. That is scientific evidence. Why is the member misleading this House? Hon. Hedy Fry : Mr. Speaker, I was not misleading anybody. I quoted the people who talked about the frontal lobe. I quoted the people who said there were harms.

However, this report is only quoting those people; it is not talking about the other people who said that there is no actual causal link and that we have to look at some of the effects of combined drug use, with cannabis, that may have caused some of the problems. If members are going to present scientific evidence in a report, they have to present both sides, including the ones that a particular political party does not like. They cannot just pick and choose one set. I stood in this House and talked about all the pluses and all the minuses that we heard from different scientific evidence. I did not cherry-pick.

I gave both. We need to research this thing properly. The government does not want to do that, because we have a ideological belief in here that this is bad for people. That is what the government is saying. As far as politicizing it, the Liberal leader spoke to a policy issue. That is going to be our policy. He said it very clearly. Now, we said why we think it is important, and all who care about youth would think it is important as well.

(1120) Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the hon. member for Vancouver Centre and her contribution on the HESA committee. I know she is very knowledgeable on this issue, and I thank her for that. We had a Liberal government and there was a commitment to move to decriminalization. I remember it was in a Speech from the Throne. Former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien had that commitment. A bill came forward. I was the NDP critic on it, so I remember it very well. It went through second reading. It even went to committee.

In fact, we were at the point where we had the then-minister of justice Martin Cauchon agreeing with us on an amendment that the bill would be amended to ensure that the estimated 600,000 Canadians who have a criminal record for the personal use of marijuana—that he would agree to that. Then all of a sudden, it came to a crashing halt. The government decided not to proceed with the bill. We actually did have that opportunity. I am wondering if the member could tell us why the bill did not proceed, was dropped at that time and never came back. Hon. Hedy Fry : Mr.

Speaker, as the hon. member mentioned, there was a move to decriminalize. The hon. member also remembers when this went through and came to second reading. There was an election very soon after, so a lot of these bills did not come to the floor and get done. The government did decriminalize the use of marijuana in terms of allowing people to grow enough plants for medical purposes. In the meantime, there was enough evidence coming out to suggest that legalization, as some countries in Europe were doing, was achieving better and more effective results than simple decriminalization. Ms.

Joyce Murray (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the member for Vancouver Centre for her health-based approach and all her work on good public policy on marijuana. Coming from Vancouver, of deep concern to me is the kind of unfettered access that young people have to this product, at very young ages, in the corners of their schoolyards. I would like to ask the member this. From the research and the testimony that she has heard, how would regulating and controlling marijuana help to prevent children from accessing this product?

That is a big concern to some of the communities in Vancouver, whether in Richmond, Surrey or Vancouver itself. Reducing young children's access to marijuana is a big priority for us in Vancouver. How would regulating and controlling help accomplish that? Hon. Hedy Fry : Mr. Speaker, I look at the experience with tobacco. There was a time when I first came into this House in 1993 when we found that young people were able to buy cigarettes off street corners. There were contraband cigarettes being sold all over the schoolyards. We began to tighten and increase regulations until we got it right.

Now we have high penalties, and labelling on tobacco packages that says the harm that tobacco can do. We have seen rates of smoking among young people in this country go down very much as a result of those regulations and the strengthening and enforcement of those regulations. When 11-year-olds to 15-year-olds in Canada have the highest use of marijuana among 11-to-15-year-olds in all other countries in the world, it is something that concerns everyone in the same way it did with alcohol and tobacco.

We are suggesting that if we learn from what we did with tobacco, we can get some of those same results if we ensure that there is an age-related regulation to this and that in fact huge penalties are attached to selling to minors. However, it has to be legal to regulate. Mrs. Cathy McLeod (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and for Western Economic Diversification, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I find it very bizarre that the hon. member brought up the issue of smoking. We saw just yesterday billions of dollars in settlements against the tobacco companies.

We watched some of the coverage of families who were so distraught over what that did to their loved ones who either died or were suffering from cancer. We have seen municipalities taking on this issue. I compare Vancouver to Whistler. In Whistler, people are saying that they are going to ban smoking, not just in public buildings and patios but more broadly. We have provinces where people are very concerned about youth and they are getting into banning flavours. We have so many issues related to smoking.

The member has made the point that when we have something that is very harmful we can never catch up with that process. I would like the member to acknowledge and recognize that legalization of marijuana would not help youth at all.

(1125) Hon. Hedy Fry : Mr. Speaker, I cannot actually agree with the member. She would like me to acknowledge something that is untrue. We are talking about evidence again. Evidence is what used to happen. We would apply certain policies and the results would show that we got improved outcomes. Evidence is telling us that in fact the rates of smoking have gone down because of the regulations that have been applied and that alcohol use has gone down because regulations have been applied.

If we are very concerned about 11-to-15-year-olds using marijuana here more than in any other country in the world, we need to look at how we legalize, regulate and tax. We have seen this happen with very much more harmful drugs. If the member does not think that we should legalize and regulate, then is the member suggesting, as I asked before, that we actually make tobacco and alcohol illegal in this country? Mrs. Cathy McLeod (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and for Western Economic Diversification, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am really pleased to contribute to the debate today.

I would like to note that I will be sharing my time with the member for Kootenay—Columbia . The health committee did an excellent job in producing the report before the House today that enumerates the evidence provided by expert witnesses detailing the serious health risks and harms of smoking marijuana. From the debate that has happened today so far, it is really clear that our government's position is starkly different from that of both the Liberal Party and the NDP. I would argue that we are really the only ones who have a strong focus on the health of Canadian youth.

For the benefit of my colleagues I will read a portion of the report, which is in fact a quote from Dr. Harold Kalant, a professor of pharmacology in the faculty of medicine at the University of Toronto, who has been involved in researching the harmful effects of marijuana since 1959. Dr.

Kalant said: …the use of cannabis for pleasure comes at a cost, and society must ponder whether the pleasure is worth the cost…society as a whole must give careful thought to changes in policy that could increase the number and severity of health problems caused by use by its more vulnerable members, which, as I have pointed out, means its younger users. This is just one of the quotes from one of the experts who testified during the committee's study. This particular expert has over half a century of his own professional expertise and research to back up his testimony.

It is one of the reasons I am concerned when the Liberal leader wants to make smoking marijuana a normal, everyday activity for Canadians and make marijuana available in stores, just like alcohol and cigarettes. The report from the health committee details comments from not only Dr. Kalant but others too that highlight the problem with the proposal to legalize marijuana. For the benefit of my colleagues, I will quote again directly from page 15 of the committee's report. It states: Witnesses such as Dr. Kahan, Professor Kalant and Dr.

Sabet do not support the legalization of marijuana because it would increase the health risks and harms associated with its use. They suggested that the legalization of marijuana would increase its availability and lower its price, which would make its use more widespread....the legal status of alcohol and tobacco does not prevent youth from gaining access to it, nor does it eliminate the black market for tobacco, where content remains unregulated. Legalization is irresponsible in my opinion and can only have one effect: increasing access to and use of marijuana by our young people.

Our Conservative government does not support making access to illegal drugs easier. We have made significant progress in recent years, reducing drug use through the national anti-drug strategy. What is more, this strategy is working. The Canadian Alcohol and Drug Use Monitoring Survey's most recent figures report that while 20% of youth smoked marijuana in 2012, this has dropped by almost 45% since 2004. That is a significant reduction.

This speaks to the success of our approach in educating families on the serious health risks with smoking marijuana The same survey highlights the problems with the Liberal leader's plan. Seventy per cent of youth drank alcohol in 2012, which is of course a regulated substance. Comparing 20% to 70%, it is very clear that the legalization process would, at least in my opinion, add to increased use. Not only have medical experts and families lined up to criticize the Liberal plan, but we have also heard hard numbers demonstrating the fallacy of his logic.

Having marijuana in stores just like alcohol and cigarettes would not decrease the use in this country and it could actually triple its use. Remember that figure of 20% compared to 70%. I have to go back to the question I just asked the hon. member. We look at the tremendous concern and effort by our municipalities and provinces around the issue of smoking and by individuals suing tobacco companies. It really contrasts moving forward and encouraging use, on one hand, with the huge costs and enormous effort being put into concerns about the use of tobacco, as an example, on the other hand.

The committee report also put forward some important recommendations that have helped inform our Conservative government's action to prevent kids from smoking marijuana.

(1130) The first recommendation tasked the government to work with relevant stakeholders and experts to develop a campaign to raise public awareness and knowledge of the risks and harms associated with marijuana use. Health Canada did just that. The preventing drug abuse campaign ran from mid-October to early December and provided parents with the tools they need to talk with their families about the risks of smoking marijuana and prescription drug abuse.

The campaign featured ads that focus on the fragile brains and bodies of teenagers, and demonstrated how marijuana use and prescription drug abuse can cause permanent damage to their development. I can remember key instances in my past career when I saw young people who came in to the ER with their first psychotic episode. As we did the histories with families and friends, we heard of heavy use, and so anecdotally there were certainly some causal relationships, and we saw traumatized and devastated families and friends, and we saw young adults whose lives had been changed irreversibly.

Health Canada worked with research experts throughout the development of the campaign to ensure that it was based on the most up-to-date peer-reviewed scientific evidence. I'm pleased to say that the results of this collective effort were extremely positive. Over 60% of parents saw the campaign, and of those, more than 80% understood the message of the dangers drug use can inflict on youth. The second recommendation from the committee's report was regarding the need to increase awareness of the scientific evidence regarding marijuana's health risks and harms. Again, we have taken action in this area as well.

In April 2014, the Minister of Health hosted a round table with representatives of the health care community and research experts to discuss the scientific evidence of the risks associated with the use of marijuana by youth, especially over the long term. The committee's third recommendation calls for further strategies to address the risk of impaired driving due to marijuana consumption. Canadians, unfortunately, know all too well the risks of impaired driving related to alcohol and the devastating impact it can have on families and communities.

We should be just as intolerant of impaired driving due to drug use, and there is a real misconception that driving while under the influence of drugs, such as marijuana, is harmless. Our government shares this concern and is committed to ongoing enforcement of impaired driving laws and is working with provinces, territories, and key stakeholders on strategies and initiatives to prevent drug-impaired driving. I contrast this work again with the Liberal plan to legalize and normalize the smoking of marijuana.

The Liberal leader wants to allow for and expand home grow ops in residential neighbourhoods, normalizing marijuana and creating grow ops in neighbourhoods across the country. He quickly condemned our Conservative government's work to end these dangerous neighbourhood grow ops saying: Our worries are that the current hyper-controlled approach around...marijuana that actually removes from individuals the capacity to grow their own, is not going in the right direction. ...we don't need to be all nanny state about it ... Again, we heard that same comment from the previous speaker.

Liberal MPs have brought their leader's legalization policy to its logical conclusion by supporting marijuana dispensaries in B.C. that are, as of today, operating illegally and providing marijuana to children. In fact just a few weeks ago the Vancouver Police, who had so far been loathe to enforce the law, finally raided one of these dispensaries when an employee was caught selling marijuana to a 15-year-old who actually ended up in hospital.

The message that our Minister of Health and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness have sent to the City of Vancouver is crystal clear: storefronts selling marijuana are illegal, and under this Conservative government will remain illegal, and we expect the police to enforce the law. To sum up, the committee's hearings over the course of a month and the testimony heard from expert witness have painted a very clear picture. Marijuana is an illegal drug that is so for a reason: it has lasting and serious health effects for kids who smoke it.

Whereas the Liberal leader would legalize marijuana, making it easier for kids to buy and smoke, this Conservative government wants to prevent kids from smoking marijuana. I would like to thank committee members for their report and end with a quote from the former president of the Canadian Medical Association who said: ...especially in youth, the evidence is irrefutable—marijuana is dangerous.

(1135) Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I know that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health has some very strongly held views, but I wonder if she could comment on whether or not this report was actually balanced in its views. As she knows, the name of the report was the “Marijuana's Health Risks and Harms”, so there was no intent from the beginning to actually look at, say, medical marijuana and what benefits there have been, what research needs to be done.

I am sure she is aware that Veterans Affairs actually does dispense or allow medical marijuana as part of its program to help veterans. I am curious to know the member's response as to why government members refused to include a recommendation that would have allowed research into medical marijuana. All of the research that the recommendations speak about are only associated to risk and harm, as opposed to any of the benefits that we believe have come about. I wonder if she could tell us why they were so biased that they refused to allow research on medical marijuana to be included in their government report.

Mrs. Cathy McLeod : Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to speak to this issue, but as the member knows, committees are responsible for their own destiny and decisions. In this case, the committee clearly decided to look at the health risks and harms, and I think that is important to do. We have not done enough of that. We have heard a lot of issues out there about medical marijuana, but we have not looked at the normalization and what the potential health risks and harms are. This study was strategically and importantly focused on something that is very important to Canadians. Hon.

Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. parliamentary secretary can answer a question. Dr. Philippe Lucas of the University of Victoria, Dr. Evan Wood of British Columbia Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS and Urban Health Research, Dr. Le Foll of the University of Toronto, Dr. Didier Jutras-Aswad as well of the University of Montreal, and the Centre for Addiction on Mental Health, based entirely on evidence, have all suggested that marijuana be legalized, regulated, and taxed.

They have shown that in other jurisdictions, and I visited many of those countries in Europe, it has brought down use, especially among youth. What part of that evidence does the hon. parliamentary secretary not understand? Mrs. Cathy McLeod : Mr. Speaker, within my comments and remarks we looked at alcohol use as an example and the incidence of its use with our youth of 70%, and the use of marijuana, which is an illegal substance, has now gone down to about 20%. So it is important that we look at what the impact would be.

To me, not only intuitively but from many of the experts from whom we heard, we would be heading down a path of potential disaster in terms of our youth. As we are getting more and more evidence, it is becoming more clear in terms of the real significant concerns that we need to hold as parliamentarians in terms of the impact, especially on our youth and especially in terms of the brain, the link with mental health, psychosis, schizophrenia, and others.

(1140) Mr. Dave Van Kesteren (Chatham-Kent—Essex, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest, and it is somewhat bizarre. The government has recognized that there are potential medical reasons for a regulated system, but it is somewhat bizarre to suggest that we legalize a drug that we know principally, aside from medicine, is used to get stoned, frankly. I am wondering if the parliamentary secretary could comment. We have listened about experts saying this and experts saying that, but what about moms, what about moms with kids?

Can the parliamentary secretary tell us what they think about the Liberals proposing that we legalize marijuana for that purpose? Mrs. Cathy McLeod : Mr. Speaker, we all have families and friends who have had challenges in terms of their children, not only in terms of becoming addicted to marijuana, but becoming addicted to harder drugs, and the tremendous toll it takes on the families and the life of a particular child, as the families try to support their young ones, their children, into rehabilitation.

So again, as parents, we all want our children to grow up healthy, to have lives that are very strong and positive. Really, to support making it easier for them to perhaps head down a path that is less healthy is not in anyone's interests. Mr. David Wilks (Kootenay—Columbia, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to rise and contribute to this timely discussion on the health committee's report on marijuana's health risks and harms.

The report details clear evidence of marijuana's risks for addiction, the effects on the developing brain, and the level of awareness among Canadians regarding the health risks and harms associated with marijuana use. Our government shares the committee's concern about the harmful effects of marijuana on youth. That is why we are working to stop kids from smoking marijuana. This approach is in stark contrast to the Liberal leader's policy of legalizing marijuana and making it available in stores, just like alcohol and cigarettes.

The Liberal leader's approach is irresponsible and shows that he is just not up to the job. There is increasing evidence that marijuana today is much more potent than it was even three decades ago. On average, it is 300% to 400% stronger. We also know that smoking it can seriously harm the developing brain. Numerous studies show that being exposed to THC early in adolescence, frequently and continuously over time, can not only interfere with brain development and harm brain function but can increase the risk of triggering a psychotic episode or a mental illness such as schizophrenia.

These lasting and serious health risks, enumerated in the report before this House today, demonstrate how the Liberal leader's plan to make smoking marijuana a normal everyday activity for Canadians is irresponsible. Regular marijuana use poses a risk of becoming dependent on the drug, and those who begin as teenagers have a one in six chance of dependency. These are facts the Liberal leader has either willfully ignored or missed entirely. The normalization of marijuana would have a very serious consequence on intellectual function.

Marijuana impairs concentration, reaction time, memory, and the capacity to make decisions effectively. These are essential abilities needed in operating a vehicle, going to work, paying attention in school, or indeed, delivering responsible leadership. When it is mixed with alcohol, as many young people may do, these functions are further impaired. The Liberal plan to legalize and normalize marijuana sends a message to youth that smoking marijuana is not only an acceptable activity but is one endorsed through government regulation. The Liberal leader's policy is irresponsible.

It ignores marijuana's lasting and serious health effects, as reported by the health committee in the report before the House today. It is quite simply bad policy. We know that exposure to marijuana use before birth also has an impact on the intellectual development of children, based upon the findings of the Ottawa Prenatal Prospective Study, which followed groups of children of mothers who smoked marijuana during pregnancy and compared them to the offspring of mothers who smoked tobacco or did not smoke any substance at all. It followed them from birth until young adulthood.

The study found that children of mothers who smoked marijuana during pregnancy experienced certain cognitive harms, beginning at school age, that stayed with them into their adult years. These harms were reported as being significant enough to affect the children's educational attainment. The many dangers and unpredictable consequences of drug abuse make this a real and widespread public health issue, and no one feels that more acutely than families. This Conservative government takes the responsibility to inform Canadians of the real and lasting health effects of smoking marijuana seriously.

Unlike the Liberal leader, this government wants to stop kids from smoking marijuana In 2013, we invested an additional $11.5 million to support the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse drug prevention strategy. The 2014 economic action plan also committed $44.9 million to expand the national anti-drug strategy, which educated Canadians about the serious effects of drug use and abuse.

(1145) What is more, we are seeing results. According to the Canadian drug use monitoring survey's most recent report, marijuana use by youth has dropped by almost 30% since 2008 and 45% since 2004. These are some encouraging figures, which demonstrates that when families are made aware of the health risks associated with substance abuse, they take notice. Another interesting point from the same report is that while 20% of youth smoked marijuana in 2012, 70% drank alcohol.

The Liberal leader's plan to make marijuana available in stores, just like alcohol and cigarettes, could see kids smoking marijuana at more than triple the rate seen today. Early in her mandate, the Minister of Health met with the Canadian Medical Association and a broad range of researchers and health stakeholders to discuss the harmful effects of smoking marijuana. The clear message coming from this meeting was that it is imperative to make sure that health messages on the serious and lasting effects of smoking marijuana were reaching parents and their children.

They also said that kids do not know how harmful marijuana is to their health and that parents think it is the same as it was 30 years ago. They do not realize how harmful it is today. Researchers recognize psychosis and schizophrenia as real and serious health issues resulting from marijuana. That is why they recognize the need for action, and the Government of Canada has responded. The Canadian Medical Association called for a national marijuana smoking cessation campaign for youth.

The president of the CMA said, “Any effort to highlight the dangers, harm and potential side effects of consuming marijuana is welcome”. The former president of the CMA was a strong advocate against smoking marijuana, having stated that “especially in youth, the evidence is irrefutable—marijuana is dangerous”. Contrast these experts with the Liberal leader's plan to legalize and normalize the smoking of marijuana by our young people and it shows that he is just not up to the job.

What is more, the Liberal leader not only wants to make marijuana available in stores, just like alcohol and cigarettes, but wants to allow for expanded dangerous home grow ops in neighbourhoods across Canada. This Conservative government does not support making access to illegal drugs easier, and we will continue to support strategies that stop kids from smoking marijuana. Health Canada, for example, has done its research to advance its successful awareness campaigns.

Its recent marketing campaign was aimed at educating parents on how to talk with their teenagers about the dangers associated with smoking marijuana. The campaign, which ran from October 20, 2014, to December 28, 2014, featured television ads that focused on the fragile brains and bodies of teenagers and how smoking marijuana and prescription drug abuse can cause permanent damage to their development.

Additional web and social media content, including print-ready resources on the dangers associated with drug abuse, was developed to encourage parents to get the facts and tips on how to speak with their children about drug abuse. After the completion of this campaign, surveys were conducted to look at recall and awareness levels and to evaluate the ads' overall effectiveness. I am pleased to say that over 60% of parents saw the campaign, and of those, more than 80% understood the message about the dangers such abuse can inflict on youth.

What I found particularly striking about this campaign was that it was designed to help parents protect their children from the dangers of marijuana, first by describing the harmful affects it can have on the developing brain and second by equipping parents and educators with the information they need to keep their children safe.

(1150) This Conservative government's approach is to educate families about the lasting and serious health effects and to stop kids from smoking marijuana. The Liberal leader's plan is irresponsible, ignores the facts in the health committee's report, and is simply bad policy. [ Translation ] Mr. Raymond Côté (Beauport—Limoilou, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it is pretty sad to hear the Conservatives' messages. This is a show of political power. They are trying to strong-arm their opponents. Good for them. I do not blame them.

However, we know that to achieve their goal, the Conservatives chose to listen to a very limited number of opinions and to focus solely on the dangers of marijuana. Nobody here denies that there are problems associated with marijuana use. However, by taking a very narrow view and carefully selecting a few witnesses who support their hard-line position, the Conservatives are preventing us from seeing a bigger picture and taking a more sensible approach that could prevent drug abuse.

Can my colleague comment on why the Conservatives are choosing to emphasize just the dangers of marijuana rather than educate people and adopt much broader policies based on prevention and knowledge of this phenomenon? [ English ] Mr. David Wilks : Mr. Speaker, the member opposite answered his own question when he said that no one denies the harm from marijuana. Since I retired from the RCMP, I still go into schools and speak about the harmful effects of marijuana and other drugs. There is no good that can come from this. The member opposite has spoken about the medical uses of marijuana.

From the perspective of the medical uses of marijuana, we have been brought down this path by the courts, and we are respecting the courts' decision, and we will move forward on that. However, with regard to harm to youth in this country, it is irrefutable that smoking marijuana at younger ages can have extremely harmful effects on the brain and can have other cognitive effects.

(1155) Mr. Sean Casey (Charlottetown, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, just repeating something over and over again does not make it true. The suggestion that we are constantly hearing from the other side is that the Liberal leader is committed to making marijuana available in stores and is encouraging young people to use marijuana, both of which are not true. Repeating that over and over again does not make it true. My question for the member is based on his law enforcement background. He would know full well that enforcement of the simple possession law for marijuana across this country is extremely uneven.

In his own province, in fact, it is routine for people not to be charged with simple possession. What does it say about the progress that has been made by the government with respect to the war on drugs when front-line enforcement has decided what the most appropriate allocation of its resources is at the low end of the scale? Mr. David Wilks : Mr. Speaker, the member opposite brings up a very good point. It was his government that changed the rules in 1995. I would encourage the member to go back and look at what the Attorney General of Canada did in 1995 to change the laws with regard to simple possession.

That is the problem today with police officers having a lot of difficulty with regard to enforcement for small amounts. When I say “small amounts”, it is under subsection 4(5) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. He should read it. Mr. Terence Young (Oakville, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, since 2010, 5,000 Ontario youth, 18 years old and under, have ended up in emergency rooms of hospitals desperate for care after smoking or ingesting marijuana. Some of them were treated, some were addicted and had been there before, and some were there due to automobile accidents.

I think there is great value for the House in hearing from the member who I think was an RCMP officer for over 20 years. I wonder if he could please tell the House what he witnessed, as a police officer on the front line on the streets, roads, and hospital emergency rooms, of the harms and risks of marijuana. Mr. David Wilks : Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that children have become normalized to using marijuana at younger and younger ages.

The challenge we have as a government is ensuring that children do not have access to marijuana at young ages because their cognitive activities, especially in school, become affected. As a police officer, I saw time and again that youth who were smoking marijuana on a daily basis were making poor judgments that they normally would not make under other circumstances. If they had not been smoking, they would have not made the same decisions. Mr. Murray Rankin (Victoria, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise and contribute to this important debate today.

The government has sought concurrence in a report from October 2014 from the Standing Committee on Health, entitled “Marijuana's Health Risks and Harms”. I start by noting the title because, as members will note from my remarks to follow, it seems to be the theme of the government to emphasize one part of this complex public policy debate involving marijuana. I was not the deputy chair of the health committee, as I am proud to be now. At the time, it was my colleague from Vancouver East , who has been leading the charge on this debate for the official opposition. I salute her work on the dissenting report.

I would like to focus my remarks upon this dissenting report and then talk more generally about the war on drugs and what has led us to this state today. The report that the government wishes us to concur in is a report that focuses, as its title would suggest, on health risks and harm, which are of course not to be minimized. However, there is another side to the story, and that is why the New Democratic Party produced three recommendations in a dissenting report, the subject of which I would like to address today.

The dissenting report starts by saying what I did: that the current study was unbalanced and designed to focus on the harms of marijuana policy and use in Canada. It then says that significant testimony was dismissed, so the committee was not allowed to hear and address points of view that were different from the government's preconceived notions about marijuana. The dissenting report also says that so-called opinions are what were at stake, rather than evidence-based decisions, which everyone in health policy says is the important way to do business.

As a result, there were more witnesses focused on harms and risks than on the other side of the debate. The point I want to make by way of introduction, which the dissenting report clearly addresses, is that a war on drugs is simply not working. To that end, I would like to refer to last month's issue of The Economist magazine, a very right-wing publication from the U.K., which starts a full discussion on illegal drugs with the following: In 1971 Richard Nixon fired the first shot in what became known as “the war on drugs” by declaring them “public enemy number one”.

In America and the other rich countries that fought by its side, the campaign meant strict laws and harsh sentences for small-time dealers and addicts. ... Billions of wasted dollars and many destroyed lives later, illegal drugs are still available, and the anti-drug warriors are wearying. The

article concludes by saying: Those preparing to prosecute the next drug war need only look west to see what lies ahead of them: more violence and corruption; more HIV/AIDS; fuller jails—and still the same, unending supply of drugs. Prohibition, which seems to be the only solution offered by the government, is simply not working. Billions of dollars later, even The Economist magazine has acknowledged that reality. That is why the NDP has sought a more balanced approach, focusing on health promotion, public education, and safety. To that end, three recommendations were made.

I would like to address each of them in turn. The first was that we “pursue a public health approach to marijuana focused on education, and where necessary, treatment and harm reduction.” Let me be very clear. No one is suggesting that somehow there are no risks or harms associated with this activity, and I hope I am not misunderstood. Particularly for youth, there are issues that need to be addressed, without a doubt. However, to avoid a public health approach and to simply revert to a war-on-drugs approach is not going to work in addressing those harms.

For example, many people came forward—including a constituent of mine, Dr. Philippe Lucas—to advocate a public health approach to the non-medical use of marijuana and other drugs in order to minimize risks and harms. Public awareness campaigns aimed at youth have to focus on accurate information. I am old enough—and I believe you are too, Mr. Speaker—to remember the reefer madness ads that used to be around in my day. It was a joke. They did not work, and they were dismissed by most of the young people whose marijuana consumption the ads were trying to change.

(1200) Using a zero tolerance approach has not worked either. Something more nuanced is required. We should listen to the experts like Dr. Lucas and others to that end, so I will come back to that first recommendation, the public health approach. The second recommendation by the NDP in its dissenting report is to “fund research to examine the potential effectiveness of medical marijuana.” Medical marijuana has become a large industry. Dr. Perry Kendall, from my part of the world, claims that approximately 50% of the people who use medical marijuana do so to relieve chronic pain.

There are a number of illnesses, such as HIV-AIDS and multiple sclerosis, for which it has been proven to be an important contributor to treatment. Indeed, Veterans Affairs Canada pays for the cost of medical marijuana to treat veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder. However, research on medical marijuana, which could provide benefits in many areas, is limited because of the prohibition approach that the government takes to this issue. We need more research. I am the first to acknowledge that. Funding research on clinical effectiveness and, yes, on risks to youth and others is critically important.

The expansion of the use of medical marijuana in Canada has been absolutely remarkable. In an

article in the National Post back in March 2014 that examined the marijuana medical access regulations program, I was shocked to see that in 2001 there were 88 Canadians authorized to possess marijuana under those regulations. As of 2013, that number had gone up to almost 37,000 Canadians. There were 85 marijuana production licences in 2001; in 2013, there were almost 30,000. We can see that this is an enormous issue and a challenge, but it seems to be beyond dispute that medical marijuana has certain benefits.

The third recommendation that I would like to focus on is the one that is the most salient in this discussion: that we “establish an independent commission with a broad mandate, including safety and public health, to consult Canadians on all aspects of the non-medical use of marijuana and to”—here is the punchline—“provide guidance to Parliament on the institution of an appropriate regulatory regime to govern such use.” We believe there needs to be this kind of independent commission to hear from people from different communities, including the law enforcement community, the medical community, the legal community, and others, to figure out how we can provide guidance to Parliament on instituting an appropriate regulatory regime, because prohibition has failed.

All it has produced is violence, stigma, and control by organized crime. Simply continuing with the criminalization model is not going to work. We need to use evidence-based solutions to figure out an answer to this problem together. Dr. Lucas is now with Tilray, a licensed producer of marijuana on Vancouver Island near Nanaimo. He has pointed out that cannabis prohibition creates more harms than cannabis use itself and that prohibition has failed to control the use and domestic production of marijuana.

He points to higher and higher arrest rates in certain parts of the country, and one of my colleagues made reference to the very uneven enforcement across the country with respect to marijuana. He says cannabis is our top cash crop in Canada and claims it has been used by approximately 50% of the population.

He says prohibition ensures that young Canadians can access unregulated cannabis of unknown potency and quality and points out that it is a well-known fact that the potency of this drug has changed dramatically since the 1970s and that the drug is often cut with other products that are either very addictive or cause great harm to those people who take them. There is no quality control. People do not know what they are getting. Youth cannabis rates have been going up. They have gone down in the last little while, but they have generally gone up. So much for the war on drugs.

So much for saying, “Thou shalt not, young people.” It has not worked. We know that. Certainly in my part of the world, it is self-evident.

(1205) Cannabis enforcement is highly disproportionate across the country. That much we know. Young men, visible minorities, and first nations are greatly overrepresented in cannabis arrest statistics. That is a fact as well. Gangs, organized crime, and so forth are part of the picture, as we all know. There are other ways to address the problem. The country I am most interested in at the moment is Portugal. In 1997, opinion polls in Portugal said that drug use was the country's biggest social problem.

Now, 12 years since Portugal decriminalized personal use of small amounts of marijuana and other drugs, meaning less than 10 days' worth, what has happened is that drug use now ranks 13th in concerns. All parties in that country—left, right, and centre—support the policy of treating drug use as a health issue, and that is the first thing that was said in the dissenting report of the NDP: that this issue needs to be understood as a public health challenge and that we have to address it as such. In Portugal, all parties support the policy of treating drug use as a health issue, not a crime.

HIV rates have plummeted as well. However, decriminalization is not the same as legalization. Portugal uses what they term “dissuasion boards”, made up of doctors, psychologists, and other specialists, which aim to get addicts into treatment and prevent recreational users from falling into addiction. When necessary, they can impose fines and community work. However, removing the fear and stigma of criminal punishment has encouraged drug users to seek the help they need. There are different approaches around the world that need to be studied if we are going to come to terms with this issue.

That is why the fundamental recommendation of the NDP in its dissenting report, again, is to create an independent commission to guide Parliament on instituting an appropriate regulatory regime for the non-medical use of marijuana. The law of unintended consequences is with us in so many areas. We now know that states such as Colorado and Washington have essentially legalized marijuana. After a year, have there been increased rates of driving under the influence? Has there been an impact, positive or negative, on youth who consume this drug? What is the reality of that? We need an evidence base.

We have the benefit of seeing whether there have been any unintended consequences. We could now check out that experience, as well as see what has been done in Uruguay or Portugal and other parts of the world. We could see whether or not there are lessons for Canada. That is why this independent commission has to look at what is going on in other countries and see how we can address this issue. There is no doubt that issues with respect to youth have to be addressed first and foremost, so what lessons do we have in that regard? One thing is clear: the Conservatives' “Let's just say no” is not going to work.

Zero tolerance and the war on drugs have been an unmitigated disaster. We can just look at any of the streets of any city in Canada. The question is, what we can do if we are serious about addressing the situation with respect to youth? What are the lessons we learned? That is why this commission ought to be taken very seriously. I remember when Mr. Justice Le Dain led the Le Dain Commission back in the 1970s. We have many insights from that experience, but all that data needs to be updated. One thing that is clear is that this is not a black and white, yes-or-no issue.

Somebody who is often a witness in British Columbia cases involving drug use and addictions is Professor Mark Kleiman, a drug policy expert at the University of California, Los Angeles. As a scientist, he says that, as with any social initiative, there could be negative effects. He advocates close monitoring of excessive use among adolescents. As I said, driving under the influence certainly has to be addressed. With respect to politicians, he says that we need to inform them that they have underestimated the complexity of this problem. It is a complex problem.

That is why these yes-no, on-off solutions, the “thou shalt nots”, just simply do not cut it. We need to hear from experts like Dr. Kleiman going forward. That is why we talk, in the second recommendation, about the need to fund research. We need to know whether this product that is so prevalent can have benefits. We need to know what those benefits are and what the risks are. Everything in life is risk versus benefit.

(1210) We can say that alcohol is a drug, which it is, that is causing harm to many families, has a staggering impact on the workplace, et cetera, but I do not think anybody is recommending a prohibition on that substance, yet we have to figure out ways to address it more effectively. I suggest that marijuana is no different in that regard and requires the kind of multi-faceted solution. As I mentioned, the commission could address it.

The NDP has talked for many years about the idea of decriminalizing and ticketing for small amounts of marijuana, and investing in additional education and programs to reduce marijuana use by young people. I was pleased to hear the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police say that it was open to that suggestion. It wanted an expanded range of enforcement options and so forth. This is a problem among our young people. According to the United Nations Children's Fund, in August 2013, Canadian youth were the top users of marijuana in the developed world. In fact, 28% of our youth were considered in that category.

However, apparently marijuana use among Canadian youth has declined to 20.3% in 2012, according to the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse. Why has that happened? If that statistic is accurate, does it apply across the board to all demographics, all communities, aboriginal, non-aboriginal, visible minority, non-visible minority? What part of the country more or less? I would think that if we had a serious public health problem, we would want to grapple with that very type of question. Maybe a one-size-fits-all regulatory solution does not make sense.

In which case, how will we deal with it in different parts of the country if we do not assume that it is simply a criminal law issue that needs to be addressed through a simple prohibition model? Those are exactly the kinds of things that the independent commission advocated by the New Democratic Party would address to provide guidance on implementing an appropriate regulatory approach, a modernized marijuana legal regime based on evidence and public health principles, seeking to balance prevention, public health and well-being, harm reduction, community safety and public education.

Those are the hallmarks of good public policy. I suggest that addressing the marijuana issue, both recreational and medical, is no different than any other challenge in the sphere, and that evidence-based policies need to be understood on the basis of comparative research and other countries, assessing best practices made available to Canadian legislators so we can come up with a made-in-Canada solution to address it to meet the unique needs of our country and our population.

(1215) Mr. David Wilks (Kootenay—Columbia, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's speech intently. He kept flopping between a regulatory regime versus decriminalization. They are completely different. There is not one iota where one is the same as the other. Could the member explain to me what his definition of decriminalization is? I know what it is. However, I would like to hear from members on the other side what their definition of decriminalization is. Mr. Murray Rankin : Mr. Speaker, the definition of decriminalization, I guess, is relevant and not relevant to the debate before us.

We have talked about an appropriate regulatory regime and in the context of that, I talked about decriminalization. My focus in my remarks was that third recommendation about an appropriate regulatory regime, but decriminalization would allow for a range of options, such as ticketing for small amounts and that sort of thing, as opposed to simply throwing people in jail for small amounts.

We want to take away the sanctions that are in the Criminal Code in the controlled drug substance legislation, move that to a different place, and deal with it in an entirely different way, as a first step in dealing with an appropriate regulatory regime, which would be much more comprehensive in nature. Hon. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague from Victoria . He made some very good points. I hate to say it, but he makes good points in the House quite frequently on a range of issues. He is a pretty smart fellow.

On any criminal justice issue, it is really important to look at examples from other countries. For instance, if we want to talk about things like mandatory minimums, we could look at the U.S. and say that if putting more people in jail for longer periods of time created safer communities, then American cities would be the safest in the world. However, on the decriminalization side of marijuana and some other drugs, if we look at the Portugal example, 12 years ago Portugal decriminalized marijuana and some other drugs.

Since then, the rate of drug abuse and addiction has declined because the government redirected money that it was spending in the past on interdiction, jail and the whole police and judicial system on health promotion. It treated drugs as a medical issue and invested in mental health, addiction treatment and health promotion, telling people the dangers of it. Does the hon. member agree that perhaps things could lead to less drug abuse and addiction if we redirected resources to health promotion, mental health treatment and addiction treatment?

(1220) Mr. Murray Rankin : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend from Kings—Hants for his very supportive comments. I absolutely concur that that is what has happened in Portugal. There has been a reduction in the use of drugs, including marijuana, since the regime was changed 12 years ago. As I said, it was not just legalization in that context, but it also tried to dissuade people using a harm reduction type of approach. I think health promotion would be at the centre of that particular regulatory approach, an approach which we need to study in Canada to come up with the best possible solution.

It is like the anti-tobacco regime. The government has taxed cigarettes very aggressively, but those monies are not necessarily made directly available for prevention programs, as the Canadian Cancer Society reminded me of this morning. We need to tak