Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Issue No. 39 - Evidence - March 28, 2018
OTTAWA, Wednesday, March 28, 2018
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, to which was referred Bill C-45, met this day at 4:15 p.m. to study the subject matter of those elements contained in Parts 1, 2, 8, 9 and 14 of the bill.
Senator Serge Joyal (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Honourable senators, it is my great pleasure this afternoon to welcome the Honourable Jody Wilson-Raybould, P.C., M.P., Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada.
[English]
Welcome, minister. She is accompanied by Ms. Carole Morency, who is a familiar contributor to our work at this committee. We know you are under time constraints so I will invite you to make your short opening statement.
Jody Wilson-Raybould, P.C., M.P., Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada: Thank you, honourable senators. It’s a pleasure for me to be back here before you to assist in your study on the elements contained in Bill C-45, Parts 1, 2, 8, 9 and 14.
As Senator Gold commented at this committee on March 21, Bill C-45 has been crafted to represent our government’s abiding commitment to cooperative and flexible federalism.
The Supreme Court of Canada, in 2011, in Reference re Securities Act, has provided guidance on this point:
It is a fundamental principle of federalism that both federal and provincial powers must be respected, and one power may not be used in a manner that effectively eviscerates another. Rather, federalism demands that a balance be struck, a balance that allows both the federal Parliament and the provincial legislatures to act effectively in their respective spheres.
Bill C-45 strikes this essential balance, one that promotes cooperative and flexible federalism between federal and provincial jurisdictions.
Committee members are well aware that the most frequently used illicit substance by Canadians is cannabis. Canadians continue to consume cannabis despite the serious criminal penalties that apply today and without knowing what this illicit cannabis contains by way of adulterants — be they pesticides, fungicides, herbicides and even other drugs.
Honourable senators, the public health and public safety approach in Bill C-45 will provide Canadians with a legal source of quality-controlled cannabis products sold in a strictly regulated environment.
Bill C-45 will create a strict legal framework for controlling the production, distribution, sale and possession of cannabis in Canada. It would allow for legal access to cannabis when it is provided by or obtained from authorized sources. Beyond that, cannabis will remain a prohibited substance.
My officials who appeared here last week provided the committee with an overview of Bill C-45. I am aware that, during the course of your deliberations, a number of recurring issues have arisen. Therefore, I would like to address three of these, namely, cannabis possession by youth, home cultivation and the ticketing regime.
Let me begin with cannabis possession by youth. I believe that there is still a lack of understanding of this issue, in part because Bill C-45 is viewed in isolation and not through a federalism lens.
Bill C-45 clearly prohibits the sale and distribution of cannabis under any circumstances to a young person. A young person who ultimately comes into possession of cannabis would be dealt with in one of two ways.
First, under Bill C-45, if a young person possesses over 5 grams, this would be a criminal offence and that young person would be dealt with under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, which emphasizes community-based responses, rehabilitation and reintegration.
Second, if the youth possesses a smaller amount, the youth would be dealt with under provincial/territorial legislation that would authorize police to seize the product, as well as to lay relevant provincial offence charges, much as they do with alcohol and tobacco.
For example, legislation in Alberta, Manitoba and Ontario provides that anyone under the minimum age is not allowed to possess any amount of cannabis. All the provinces and territories that have introduced cannabis legislation have included similar youth prohibitions, and, based on the proposed public frameworks of the other jurisdictions, we expect that they will follow suit.
The proposed 5-gram threshold reflects the view that allowing youth to possess 30 grams is too high an amount in the youth context and that youth possession should not be condoned. At the same time, our government is mindful of the negative impact of exposing young persons to criminal liability for possessing very small amounts of cannabis.
In the end, by encouraging provinces and territories to create provincial/territorial offences for possession under 5 grams, I believe that we have struck the right balance and one that allows us to meet our stated objectives, which is to put in place a new control framework that makes it clear that young people should not have access to cannabis.
The second issue that I want to address relates to questions raised about the differences in approach by Bill C-45 and provincial and territorial legislation, specifically, how to address the fact that Bill C-45 proposes to permit — or not criminalize — home cultivation of up to four licit cannabis plants while two provinces, Quebec and Manitoba, are proposing to not allow any home cultivation.
It is clearly stated in Bill C-45 that one of the bill’s purposes is to provide for the licit production of cannabis in order to deter illicit activities. Part of meeting this objective is to enable cultivation of up to four plants in any one dwelling house.
The task force noted that fewer topics of discussion generated stronger views than the question of whether to allow Canadians to grow cannabis in their homes for personal cultivation.
The task force examined arguments on both sides of the debate and noted that those arguments against allowing for personal consumption are largely shaped by current experiences with large-scale grow ops operating in a clandestine fashion. On the other side, proponents submit that large-scale grow ops would be significantly reduced as demand for licitly produced cannabis declines and that personal cultivation can be done safely and responsibly. It is within this context that the task force recommended, and our government agreed, to a limit of personal cultivation to four plants per dwelling house.
Where a province or territory enacts stricter cannabis limits under its jurisdictional authority for possession, age or cultivation, the details of their legislation would not be subject to review or approval at the federal level. If, in a given set of facts, an individual were to challenge a provincial or federal law on cannabis, a court could be expected to look at whether the federal and provincial provisions at issue could coexist.
I want to assure this committee that the federal government continues to work in close collaboration with the provincial and territorial governments to prepare for the implementation of the new framework. Discussions are ongoing, with dedicated federal-provincial-territorial working groups set up to make sure that every jurisdiction has the information they require and that our respective efforts are properly coordinated.
Lastly, I would like to briefly discuss the ticketing scheme proposed in Part 2 of the cannabis act for the prosecution of minor violations of certain criminal offences.
The objective of the proposed ticketing scheme is primarily to provide an alternative to the summary conviction process set out in the Criminal Code for minor cannabis offences. While maintaining the criminal nature of the offence, the ticketing regime is meant to provide a simpler and more efficient process for minor offences, thereby reducing the burden on the criminal justice system associated with summary conviction proceedings. It is also meant to lessen the impact of the conviction on individuals by minimizing access to the judicial record of the conviction.
Despite the objectives of the ticketing regime, we acknowledge that the Council of the Federation, in its report on cannabis legalization and regulation, has noted some unintended administrative and cost impacts of elements of this regime. Our government is continuing discussions with the provinces and territories to address these concerns.
As can be seen, I believe Bill C-45 represents a well thought-out effort by our government to adopt a new approach to cannabis, one that strictly regulates the legal access to cannabis while seriously punishing those who would operate outside this new proposed legislative regime. It is also an approach that represents cooperative and flexible federalism at its best.
Thank you, Mr. Chair and honourable senators. I look forward to your questions.
The Chair: I appreciate the model you have given us by being concise and brief.
Ms. Wilson-Raybould: Was I on time?
The Chair: You were perfectly on time. I will ask for the same cooperation from all the senators around the table, because we have limited time. I know that all of you want to address the minister.
[Translation]
Senator Dupuis: Thank you, Madam Minister, for being here with us today and for having answered two of my questions in your opening statement; I had questions regarding young people’s possession of cannabis, home cultivation, and the fact that you are setting forward a cooperative federalism process where federal and provincial jurisdictions coexist.
My question is about designated producers in the medical cannabis regime. The report of the Task Force on Cannabis Legalization and Regulation recommended that the government review the system of designated producers, that is to say those who may legally grow cannabis for patients for medical purposes. The working group had suggested a review of that system and the elimination of that category of producers. Can you tell us why? Did you have the opportunity to carry out that review in preparing Bill C-45, and if you set it aside, is this something that will eventually be considered?
[English]
Ms. Wilson-Raybould: Thank you, senator, for the questions, and I’m pleased I was able to answer the first two.
In terms of designation, as you are aware, senator, there isn’t the ability to designate an individual to grow in this particular case with respect to Bill C-45. In terms of designations in the medical marijuana context, this is an issue, of course, that is under the purview of my colleague, Minister Ginette Petitpas Taylor.
We did consider the relationship between the medical marijuana regime and Bill C-45, and the designation is going to continue to exist within the medical marijuana regime. We are very aware of it, and I know that there is an opportunity, as we move forward, to potentially reconsider the medical marijuana regime as our legalized and strictly regulated regime unfolds, hopefully, with the passage of Bill C-45.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Welcome, Madam Minister. You already know that in their speeches in the chamber several senators raised concerns regarding several aspects of this bill. I won’t go back over that.
Before the vote at second reading, Senator Dean committed to listen to amendments the Senate and this committee might propose to improve the bill. Our experience with the Department of Justice as to the approval of our amendments has historically been rather negative.
I will give you the example of Bill C-14; the Senate carried out an excellent analysis on the right to medical assistance in dying. I am thinking of Senator Pratte, who was very active in that debate. He made a series of recommendations, but the Department of Justice was not very open to accepting them.
Will Senator Dean’s commitment be accompanied by a more open attitude than the one we came up against in connection with Bill C-14?
[English]
Ms. Wilson-Raybould: I remember very clearly the debates and discussion around Bill C-14 and greatly applaud and appreciate the serious consideration that the honourable senators made with respect to that. As I stated then and will restate now, I am always open to thoughtful amendments coming forward to look towards any potential improvements in legislation. That case still remains. I am very appreciative of this committee for all of its work and its study and will very seriously consider every amendment that comes forward.
Senator Carignan: Did you read the task force report?
Ms. Wilson-Raybould: Yes.
Senator Carignan: In your speech at the House of Commons, you said that, “Our government understands the complexity of legalization of cannabis. That is why we have taken a cautious, evidence-based approach.”
Also, you said, again in the same speech:
Our government believes in evidence-based policy.
Then in a response to a question, you said:
Bill C-45 is an evidence-based piece of legislation that seeks to put in a complex regime to legalize and strictly regulate cannabis in this country.
The task force report, page 12, states:
However, we recognize that cannabis policy, in its many dimensions, lacks comprehensive, high-quality research in many areas. On many issues throughout our discussion and deliberations, we have found that evidence is often non-existent, incomplete or inconclusive.
Being mindful of this limitation is imperative. It is more appropriate to refer to our recommendations as “evidence-informed” rather than “evidence-based,” . . .
The Chair: Question?
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: How can you say that your approach is evidence-based, when the legislation is based on the work of the task force whose report recommends that that type of approach not be used, because there is too much incomplete and incomprehensible information?
[English]
Ms. Wilson-Raybould: Thank you very much for pointing out the substantive work the task force did undertake in engaging with thousands of individuals across the country and looking at the experiences in other jurisdictions in the United States and in Europe. We are a government that is committed to evidence-based decision-making.
I will say at the outset of my answer that the status quo or the reality of cannabis and cannabis use in this country is simply not working. We are committed to putting in place a legalized regime that is strictly regulated, as I’ve said many times, to keep it out of the hands of children and the proceeds out of the hands of criminals. We have benefited greatly from the task force report. We have ongoing working groups and meetings between and among my colleagues in the provinces and territories and again have benefited from the experiences of other jurisdictions.
We’re proceeding on a basis of substantial information, experiences from other jurisdictions and the reality that we know that young people in this country are, if not the highest, among the highest cannabis users in the world, and we can do better. That is what this comprehensive framework that we’re putting forward in Bill C-45 seeks to do.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you, minister, for coming here today and for your introductory comments.
Minister, you spoke about youth and about the different ways youth could be processed. I’m keen to hear from you as to the diversion process under the Young Offenders Act. I’m concerned that there may be many young people involved in this. Is the government looking at providing further resources to deal with diversion under the Young Offenders Act?
Ms. Wilson-Raybould: Of course, approaching and addressing the challenges of young people and using cannabis too much is one of the major objectives of what we’re trying to do.
In terms of the 5 grams and putting in place the ability for young people to have in their possession up to 5 grams, again, it was a difficult decision to make, but we benefited from lots of experience and input on it to ensure that we take a public safety approach and that we don’t penalize young people with criminal records.
Under the Young Offenders Act, as you know, senator, we’re looking at reintegration into the community and rehabilitation. This is something that we certainly support, in addition to supporting police diversion for young people. In a substantive way, we are investing in public education and communication, specifically in some circumstances targeted at young people, about the negative impacts of cannabis. We are committed to ensuring that we continue to maintain that fine balance of protecting young people. There’s nothing in Bill C-45 that legally enables a young person to possess cannabis, and we are working, again, with the provinces and territories to ensure that we can address the issues that come up with respect to young people.
Senator Jaffer: My second question —
The Chair: I’ll put you on the second round. I’m sorry to interrupt, but we have a short time.
Senator Pratte: I’d like to go back to the home cultivation issue and the potential conflict between provincial law and Bill C-45 in the case of Quebec and Manitoba. I want to make sure I understand the position that you stated in your presentation. Do I understand, therefore, that the Government of Canada would leave it totally to the courts? That is, that the Government of Canada does not have a position on the fact that two provinces have legislated so that there would be no home growth on their territory, and that the Government of Canada would not, if I understand correctly, seek intervenor status or would not intervene in such cases if there were eventually such a case?
Ms. Wilson-Raybould: I hope I understood the question correctly, senator. We have been working closely with the provinces and territories to ensure that we continue to engage and speak clearly about the purposes of Bill C-45. That includes up to a maximum of four plants that individuals can grow in their private dwellings. I understand that there are a number of provinces that have brought forward legislation that proposes zero home cultivation.
I’ve been asked this question before. It is not the intention of the federal government, with respect to home cultivation, to challenge provincial laws. I suspect that there could be a potential for an individual who lives within the jurisdiction where it’s legislated no home cultivation to challenge that law. If that is the case, they would go to court and there would be discussions about the conflict of laws, if there is a conflict of laws between the provincial and the federal law, and if there is a conflict, then the federal law will prevail.
Senator Gold: I want to make sure that I understand the general question. One of the purposes of the bill is to provide for the licit production of cannabis. Is it the position of the government that were a challenge to be made in a regime that had outlawed all home cultivation — though the laws could live together because you can always comply with the provincial one and you’re not violating the federal one — that the purposes of the two laws would be compatible? That is, that the provincial purpose, presumably to protect health or landlords or whatever the variety of purposes, would not frustrate the federal purpose as set out in section 7(c)? And if there’s uncertainty on the part of the government, would you consider an amendment that clarified that, in the case of such a conflict, the government would not consider that the purposes of Bill C-45 would be frustrated by a provincial ban?
Ms. Wilson-Raybould: Again, I would say that we would consider any amendments that come forward. Having said that, I believe that I’ve been clear that we are putting in place a national regime for the legalization of cannabis, and the purposes that are articulated in clause 7 of the legislation are very considered in terms of providing a legalized regime that is strictly regulated and that provides access to individuals right across the country.
I believe that provinces and territories have the opportunity to change some of the requirements and restrictions by lowering the age or the number of plants or, as is the case in Quebec, proposing zero home cultivation.
Again, it’s not the intention of the federal government to challenge a provincial law. We’re working very closely with provinces to continue to have conversations around that. If an individual were to challenge a provincial law on the basis that they wanted to provide a licit home grow in their dwellings, that is their prerogative to do so, and the federal government would take a position at that point.
But in any conflict that is found by a court, the federal law would take over the provincial law.
Senator Sinclair: Madam minister, I, for one, believe in the legalization of possession of small amounts of cannabis, and I supported that. I supported that when I was a judge and continue to support that. But I have concerns about the bill, particularly from the perspective of Indigenous communities.
At present, Indigenous communities have the right, under the Indian Act, to vote themselves dry, and yet there doesn’t seem to be anything in this legislation that gives them the right to vote themselves cannabis-free for purposes of possession or utilization of drugs. It would seem odd to me that a dry reserve would be forced to allow individuals in the community to have possession of cannabis and yet not possession of alcohol. Can you help me with this dilemma and how we might address it?
Ms. Wilson-Raybould: I hope I can help you with the dilemma, senator. This is an ongoing conversation that I know my colleague, the Minister of Health, is having with Indigenous communities. She has provided resources to Indigenous organizations, and they formed a task force to provide us with some feedback about how we can engage appropriately with Indigenous communities.
I really want to try to address your question, senator. We’re putting in place a national regime, and the purposes contained within our bill are to apply across the country. That’s not to say that there aren’t provinces and territories that can amend certain parts of the legislation. Indigenous communities that are under the Indian Act have the ability to put in place bylaws around what’s called “intoxicants” in the Indian Act. There are communities that have done so for alcohol and other drugs. The challenge, as you know, senator, is one of enforcement around bylaws.
But we are in, in my view, a world of cooperative federalism, as I mentioned. Contained within that world of cooperative federalism is the reality of the rebuilding of Indigenous communities who are becoming self-determining and self-governing. There is the authority that exists under the Indian Act. There are also Indigenous communities that are self-governing that have provisions within their self-government agreements that speak to intoxicants, which, in their definition, includes cannabis, or they’re making amendments therein. This is something that is continuing to evolve.
Whether it’s a province, a territory or an Indigenous government, the federal government has put in place in Bill C-45 a regime that has national application. Of course, we will consider the feedback that comes from our ongoing consultations with Indigenous communities and see where we go from there. In terms of dry communities, there are a number of challenges to that, challenges that we’re mindful of and want to address in a very respectful way.
The Chair: Thank you, Madam Minister. I’m sure, senator, this issue will come back around this table.
Senator McIntyre: Minister, my question has to do with the federal government seeking legal action with respect to health care costs arising from the legalization of marijuana. That said, since the federal government may ultimately be held responsible for the legalization of marijuana, has your government sought any legal opinion, or has the Department of Justice provided a legal risk analysis, regarding the risk of potential class action lawsuits against the federal government, provincial governments or marijuana businesses for the production and distribution of marijuana?
If your answer is yes, I’d like to know when the legal opinion was sought, to which ministers of the Crown it was provided and on what date, and whether any legal opinion been shared with the members of the cabinet committee on litigation management? If your answer is no, why has the federal government opted not to seek any legal opinion on this important matter?
The Chair: Did you get all the questions, Madam Minister?
Ms. Wilson-Raybould: I think so, and if I didn’t, then perhaps the honourable senator —
Senator McIntyre: It’s either yes or no, and I’d like to know.
Ms. Wilson-Raybould: In terms of your question about the legal risk to the federal Crown that could arise with the proposed legislation, these risks are assessed by the Department of Justice. Should the proposed bill come into force, implementation of the new legislation would be undertaken by the government in a manner consistent with the provisions and the regulations that are set out in the legislation and other legal authorities.
The Government of Canada and the Department of Justice do provide legal advice and gets legal advice, and that legal advice is subject to solicitor-client privilege.
Senator Batters: Minister, to try to justify pushing through your marijuana legalization bill — not decriminalization, but legalization — the Trudeau government has perpetuated a narrative that now appears to be inaccurate. On June 6, 2017, you said in the House of Commons:
Canada has the highest number of young people smoking cannabis.
Also on that day, you said:
The reality is that, right now, Canada has the highest rates of young people using cannabis . . .
On April 12, 2017, Prime Minister Trudeau said:
There is higher per capita use by underage Canadians than kids in any other country.
And on December 17, 2017, the Prime Minister said:
Right now, Canada has the highest use of marijuana by underage people in the developed world.
This narrative went unchallenged until recently when Conservative senators pushed back. We learned the claims were based on a 2013 UNICEF report that attributed its data to an unnamed 2008 report from your own department, the Department of Justice. But your department confirmed that they had no such data and Statistics Canada said the same thing, so such data. As well, the UNICEF stats are contradicted by numerous other studies that show a steady decline in youth usage over the last decade in Canada, while marijuana remains illegal. So, in fact, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime ranks Canada sixth, not worst.
Given this, minister, will you now agree that the Trudeau government’s push to legalize marijuana was predicated on a false, underlying narrative — a narrative that you have recently started to soften?
Ms. Wilson-Raybould: Senator, I do not agree. We are pushing forward with the legalization of cannabis and the strict regulation of cannabis to achieve the objectives that the Prime Minister and I have articulated, to ensure that we keep cannabis out of the hands of children and the proceeds out of the hands of criminals. I know, senator, that the question that you raised around UNICEF and statistics is one that was raised with my officials last week, and we will be providing that answer to you and the honourable senators forthwith.
Senator Eaton: Thank you for coming back again, minister. It’s always nice to see you.
Proposed in clause 52, Bill C-45 provides that the judicial record of the accused in relation to the offence must be kept separate and apart from other judicial records, and it must not be used for any purpose that would identify the accused as a person who is dealt with under this act. So will that apply to the border? I’m really worried about people who have been ticketed or have incurred a criminal record to do with Bill C-45 who try to cross the American border.
Ms. Wilson-Raybould: What we’ve sought to do by making the provision to keep the judicial records separate is to, as much as possible, prevent individuals from being identified where individuals who have been charged or ticketed for a small possession charge would not be fingerprinted, thereby making their record accessible through CPIC, for example. It wouldn’t come up on the border guards who do the search, and it’s based on fingerprinting.
Senator Eaton: CPIC or NEXUS?
Carole Morency, Director General and Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice Canada: Our colleagues from Canada Border Services Agency might be better placed to say.
Senator Eaton: They couldn’t answer the question.
Ms. Morency: I don’t believe they appeared last week; it was Public Safety. As the minister has said, one of the hallmarks of the bill is not allow fingerprints, and CPIC is very much based on fingerprints. Once a judicial record of conviction is entered, it’s still to be separated and under no circumstances can that record be used to identify that person as having been dealt with under the act.
Senator Eaton: Thank you very much. That’s very reassuring.
Senator Lankin: I have a couple of follow-up questions. With respect to the issue of homegrown, you clearly said that you don’t intend to challenge Quebec, Manitoba or any other province. You didn’t answer the question of, if there were a challenge, whether the federal government would appear and take part. That’s what Senator Pratte was asking. I’m also interested in that whole area, though. If one of the main reasons for bringing about home cultivation has to do with the attempt of undermining the illicit market, how does this action on the part of provinces line up with that? Doesn’t that give us a concern that we won’t be potentially as successful in undermining the illicit market in those jurisdictions?
Ms. Wilson-Raybould: In terms of answering the first part of the question that I didn’t answer, if there is a challenge that comes from an individual in a particular jurisdiction, of course we would look at that and decide the manner in which we would proceed, but this is federal legislation, and we fundamentally support our legislation and it would be incumbent upon us to defend it.
Senator Lankin: I assumed that was the answer; I just wanted you to put it on the record.
Ms. Wilson-Raybould: The question that the senator asked is in terms of allowing home cultivation to cut down and prevent the illicit market and would that be propagated more or increased or wouldn’t be prevented in other jurisdictions where they didn’t have home grow. I’m not sure I know an exact and precise answer to that. We want to ensure that we provide individuals who determine that they want to grow safe, licit cannabis in their homes to be able to do so. One of the intents, as you say, was to prevent that illicit market from occurring.
Ms. Morency: The comparison would be, if you look in the United States where one state has legalized cannabis, the risk of diversion from a licit market to an illicit market in the neighbouring states is large. The proposal in Bill C-45 to permit up to four plants and not criminalize that poses quite a different risk in terms of diversion to an illicit market because it will also be available through retail, et cetera.
[Translation]
The Chair: Please, be very brief during the second round; otherwise, it will unfortunately be my duty to cut you off.
Senator Boisvenu: Madam Minister, I will now read a very brief excerpt from the brief of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police:
The CACP strongly recommends against in-home production and recommends that any provisions related to personal cultivation be removed. It is expected that personal cultivation will result in overproduction and the manipulation of growth patterns, thereby placing a greater demand on police resources, including increased calls for service and investigations.
I’d like to hear your point of view on the position of the chiefs of police.
[English]
Ms. Wilson-Raybould: I’m not speaking to my opinion on the police chief’s opinion, but I know this was a conversation around the task force, among ministers, in terms of home cultivation and what is the most appropriate way to move forward. We took the advice of the task force. We took the advice, after having many consultations across the country, to allow individuals to grow up to four plants of cannabis in their home.
Senator Carignan: The task force report noted that consultation participants were much more likely to be male, English-speaking, living outside of Quebec. Page 84. Could you talk to us about the consultation for Aboriginal groups and people? Who was consulted?
Ms. Wilson-Raybould: I know, senator, that the task force did consult with Indigenous communities. I believe we provided a record of the communities that were consulted. I’d be happy to provide that again.
In addition to the consultation that occurred within the task force, the Minister of Health is, on an ongoing basis, continuing to engage with Indigenous communities and has provided, by way of resources, one of the national organizations with resources to form a task force to engage with Indigenous communities across the country. That task force will provide a report to the minister. The consultation with Indigenous communities is ongoing. I would say, with respect to the task force and the report that they did, they consulted with an extraordinary number of individuals, as did we, as have the three ministers and the parliamentary secretaries engaged across the country.
Senator Jaffer: Minister, one of my concerns is for people who were convicted in the past for simple possession. I represented many young people, and they may not be so young now, but my concern is that there isn’t an expunging of their records, like the San Francisco model where their records get expunged. I’m wondering why you didn’t include that in this legislation. We’re looking at simple possession, and yet we have lots of Canadians who would still have convictions of simple possession from the past.
Ms. Wilson-Raybould: I hear what you’re saying, senator. I will say that the issue of expungements or pardons is within the purview of my colleague, the Minister of Public Safety. He is very alive and aware of this issue. We are focused right now on ensuring that we have a legalized and strictly regulated regime in place in the summer, and I know that Minister Goodale is continuing to consider this and will consider the issue you have raised after our regime comes into place.
Senator Gold: I want to go back to the overall purposes of the law, minister, if I might. Clause 7 lists a number of compatible purposes, but there’s one that’s missing and yet it seems to be very much at the heart of the provisions dealing with youth. As I read Bill C-45 — and please correct me if I’m wrong — there’s no right of a young person to possess marijuana. It simply deems it not to be a criminal offence in small amounts. Would you agree that one of the purposes of this act, though not explicitly stated, is to avoid the criminalization of youth for possession of small amounts of cannabis? I ask that because I think it’s important to put it on the record. It becomes relevant in the cases of potential conflict between provincial and federal laws. It jumps out of the act, but it’s actually not explicit. It doesn’t have to be written, but would you agree that’s one of the many purposes underlying Bill C-45?
Ms. Wilson-Raybould: Yes, in conjunction with the necessity of public health and safety. We considered this in terms of the balance to be drawn between that and not overcriminallizing young people who have their futures in front of them. I agree with you.
Senator Gold: The answer is yes?
Ms. Wilson-Raybould: I agree with you.
The Chair: That gives you an idea for an amendment, senator.
Senator Batters: Minister, you spoke in your opening statement today about “cooperative and flexible federalism.” But last month, after the Quebec provincial government indicated that it didn’t want to allow any home-grown marijuana plants, you seemed to be clear in your view that Quebec could not impose that type of restriction. You had said, “There are limits to the restrictions that provinces can impose on home-grown marijuana.” A CBC article quoted you as saying, “Where there are other pieces of legislation or proposed pieces of legislation that would seek to frustrate the purposes of the federal legislation, then there are concerns there.” Last week at committee, I asked your Justice officials about this. I asked: Would Quebec be allowed to prohibit the growing of marijuana plants in each household or not? Your official seemed to back off your stronger media statements of last month with her answers, and now today you also seem to be backpedalling on that particular issue. What changed last month since your comments that you made in the media?
Ms. Wilson-Raybould: Sorry, senator; I disagree with your characterization of my “backing off” comments.
Senator Batters: Were you misquoted?
Ms. Wilson-Raybould: I believe that my comments then and my comments now are entirely consistent in terms of federal legislation that we’re putting in place in Bill C-45 and the purposes contained in this legislation.
We have provided the ability for provinces and territories to put in place their own legislation that seeks to perhaps increase the age or to reduce the number of plants that can be cultivated at home. Quebec and other jurisdictions have chosen to introduce legislation that takes it down to zero. As I said here, it is not the intention of the federal government to challenge the provinces and territories in their legislative abilities. Certainly, there is the potential for an individual to challenge a particular jurisdiction’s legislation around the inability to access or to grow cannabis at home, and it is their prerogative to do that. The courts will provide direction to see whether or not there’s a conflict of laws. If there is a conflict of laws, then the federal law will prevail.
Senator Sinclair: Madam Minister, I have a concern, as others have expressed, about the potential for cannabis to lead to dependency on other drugs by Indigenous youth and, in particular, their enhanced vulnerability to this, for lots of reasons that we have talked about in public. Can you talk about whether or not either the legislation or a commitment is made because of the legislation to provide for additional treatment resources for Indigenous youth in particular or youth generally who may be experiencing greater dependency upon drugs or an addiction to drugs that may come about because of this legislation?
Ms. Wilson-Raybould: Senator, I think this is an incredibly important question. My colleague, the Minister of Health, is very alive to this really important issue. I honestly cannot speak to the potential of cannabis leading to other drugs, but I know that the Minister of Health and our government have invested a significant amount of dollars and resources to ensure a broad, in-depth and detailed public education and communications plan.
I greatly took to heart, as did my ministerial colleagues, the necessity to provide public education and information in Indigenous communities in the language in which they speak and in appropriate ways to address the over-representation of Indigenous peoples that have addiction issues and the impact of remote communities potentially on those addiction issues. I know the Minister of Health is working very diligently to ensure that we are mindful of all the challenges that exist in Indigenous communities and to address them in an appropriate way.
Senator McIntyre: Minister, as we all know, Canada is a signatory to three UN drug control conventions. These conventions were signed in 1961, 1971 and 1988. Assuming Bill C-45 becomes law, Canada will be in violation of those conventions that it is legally obliged to follow. Has your government determined how it will reconcile its international obligations under these drug control treaties with the legalization of cannabis?
Ms. Wilson-Raybould: I’ve had the opportunity to answer this question before and certainly recognize my colleague, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, is very aware of this. I want to reiterate that Canada remains committed to the overarching goals of the international drug conventions. We are actively working and being clear with our partners internationally, through the Minister of Foreign Affairs, of the progress of Bill C-45 and our intentions, objectives and purposes behind the legislation. Minister Goodale is having ongoing, regular conversations with our partners to the south around this. We will continue to be very open with the objectives and why we are moving forward with this. I will add that many of our international partners and allies are paying close attention to how legalization and the strict regulation of cannabis in Canada unfolds.
Senator Lankin: Following on that question, this issue is being examined by the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Senate. One of the suggestions has been that Canada give notice — it would take about a year for it to take effect — that we are withdrawing from those international drug conventions but also at the same time explain, as you are saying, because of the event of legalization, and indicate that we will re-apply the same time that the withdrawal comes into effect with an exception, which would be an expression around cannabis. Is that something that you will give consideration to with your colleagues?
Ms. Wilson-Raybould: I appreciate the question. I will certainly relay the question to my colleague, the Minister of Foreign Affairs. I would not want to provide an answer to that as it should come from her, but I very much appreciate the question and we will relay that to her.
The Chair: In closing, Madam Minister, I want to put my own question to you. The Minister of Canadian Relations from the Government of Quebec, Mr. Jean-Marc Fournier, wrote to you on February 23. We are now March 28. Is it your intention to answer his letter in relation to Bill C-45 in the short future, while this committee is sitting?
Second, in his letter, the minister is raising the issue of money that is from the proceeds of crime being invested potentially in a Canadian company that has applied for a permit to produce cannabis. What is the approach that the Department of Justice has taken to prevent money laundering through fiscal paradise invested in a Canadian production company in relation to the sale eventually of cannabis?
Ms. Wilson-Raybould: I just see the letter; I haven’t had the opportunity to read it, although my officials have. I see that it’s addressed to all of my colleagues.
The Chair: But you’re first, on top.
Ms. Wilson-Raybould: That’s good, right? I will endeavour, senator, to answer that question and will coordinate with my ministerial colleagues on your second question. I’m happy to provide you with an answer to that.
The Chair: Thank you, Madam Minister. We’ll be waiting for that.
Thank you for making yourself available. On behalf of all my colleagues around the table, we very much appreciate your contribution to our reflections. We hope to see you soon on other legislation.
Ms. Wilson-Raybould: Thank you, senators.
The Chair: We will suspend until 5:50, following the vote in the Senate, because we have a second panel of guests. So honourable senators, I hope you’ll be back by 5:50. I will be less harsh on you in questioning then because we will have more time. I apologize for the way I chaired this afternoon because we had limited time with the minister. It’s not my way of doing things.
[Translation]
It is our pleasure this afternoon to welcome our first group of witnesses. I will introduce them in the order in which they appear on the agenda.
[English]
From the Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction, we have Ms. Rebecca Jesseman. Good afternoon, Ms. Jesseman.
And from the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, we have Mr. Benedikt Fischer. Welcome.
[Translation]
We also welcome Professor Serge Brochu, Scientific Director, University Institute on Addictions. Welcome, and thank you for having accepted our invitation.
[English]
We will start with Ms. Jesseman.
Rebecca Jesseman, Policy Director, Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction: Good afternoon Mr. Chair and members of the committee. My name is Rebecca Jesseman, and I am the Director of Policy at the Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction, or CCSA, Canada’s only agency with a legislated national mandate to reduce the harms of alcohol and other drugs on Canadian society.
We welcome the opportunity to speak to you today about Bill C-45. CCSA has demonstrated our subject matter expertise on cannabis through our research publications and our work with national and international partners on the health and social impacts of cannabis use, drug-impaired driving and regulatory options.
I’d like to begin with the objectives of Bill C-45. The objectives of any legislation should drive the way in which it is constructed and how its success is measured and evaluated. The objectives of Bill C-45 are to prevent youth from accessing cannabis, to protect public health and safety through product safety and quality requirements, to deter criminal activity and to reduce the burden on the criminal justice system.
CCSA looks at cannabis regulation from a public health perspective, which seeks to minimize harms, maximize benefits, apply evidence and promote equity. These goals can be achieved by increasing product safety and quality, by decreasing rates of use overall, and rates high-risk use in particular, and by monitoring and evaluating regulatory impact.
Evidence indicates that those who begin using cannabis early and use it frequently or in high doses are at greatest risk for health-related harms such as dependence, cognitive impairment and psychosis. High-risk use also includes use before driving or in the workplace and use in combination with other substances, as well as use by pregnant women and those predisposed to psychosis.
Regulating cannabis requires a combination of both restrictions and incentives.
Minimum legal age is one component of a comprehensive approach to reducing youth cannabis use. A federal minimum age of 18 allows the provinces and territories to establish a higher minimum age and provides the opportunity for administrative rather than criminal sanctions for underage use, therefore satisfying the objective of reduced criminal justice involvement.
Evidence from the regulation of alcohol and tobacco highlights the importance of restrictions on marketing and promotion, such as those included in Bill C-45, to avoid increases in use.
However, we know that restrictions and other forms of deterrence are not the best or only approach. Successful deterrence rests on a number of factors such as perceived risk and profit, personal risk tolerance, previous criminal justice experience and understanding, consistency and timeliness of sanctions. Relying on criminal justice deterrents also risks compromising the government objective of reduced burden on the criminal justice system and the public health objective of ensuring equity.
Incentivizing lower risk use of cannabis includes promoting abstinence and delayed or reduced levels of use, promoting the use of products lower in THC content and promoting the avoidance of use with other psychoactive substances, including alcohol. Effective strategies to support lower risk use include a comprehensive, evidence-informed approach to prevention and public education, minimum unit pricing and volumetric pricing based on THC concentration.
Quality control and product safety also provide incentives for consumers to purchase from the legal rather than the illicit market.
Federal, provincial and territorial regulations will address these details and complement the framework established by Bill C-45.
I would like to close by highlighting four key recommendations to support successful implementation of cannabis regulation: provide proactive and sustained investment in prevention and education efforts, treatment services, research and enforcement and administration and evaluation; develop a comprehensive approach to regulation through effective coordination, communication and funding among all levels of government; take a precautionary approach in recognition that increasing restrictions is more difficult than loosening them following implementation; and finally, expect the unexpected, measure and evaluate impacts and ensure that the regulatory framework has the flexibility to adapt quickly if required.
Thank you. I will be happy to respond to your questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Jesseman.
Benedikt Fischer, Senior Scientist, Institute for Mental Health Policy Research, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and honourable senators. It’s a pleasure to be here. My name is Benedikt Fischer. I’m with the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health and the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Toronto. I have worked on issues of substance use, health and policy for over 20 years, and I’d like to offer you some general comments on Bill C-45.
My organization, CAMH, is overall generally happy with the bill and the bill going forward at this juncture towards the legalization of the non-medical use and supply of cannabis in this country. As you know, CAMH supported the idea of legalization with strict regulation for the benefit of public health even before this became a political initiative, in 2005, and we are supportive, overall, of legalization with strict regulation going forward for the benefit of public health.
There are four things that I’d like to put to your attention as general remarks at this juncture that I think would be important for the committee to further consider in the passage of this particular bill.
First of all, legalization will be a major and unprecedented social and health policy experiment, where the work will not begin once the bill is passed and enacted. As a matter of fact, a lot of different variables will be at play and a lot of the outcomes may be unexpected or surprising. In other words, for at least four to five years after passage, we will need to monitor very closely what happens and probably make a lot of adjustments in the different policy variables. Governments are not very good at adjusting policy after it has been enacted, so active monitoring, potentially even by an outside agency or a monitoring entity, would probably be very good to ensure that this policy is successful in the long run and meets its objectives.
Second, there’s been a lot of recent debate around the overall health risks and potential harms related to cannabis. They definitely exist and there’s been a lot of implicit comment about whether it would not be better and safer if we maybe delayed cannabis, raised the age or did not make legalization happen at all, as the safest possible way going forward.
I want to remind the committee that, of course, the safest way to prevent harms from cannabis is not by using at all — by abstinence. However, the natural alternative exists at this point already. We have extensive use across the population, primarily among young people, and we have flourishing illegal markets. Overall, legalization will and is meant to serve to improve the overall status quo and reduce the harms both for individuals and the public by legalizing and making regulated products available, avoiding undue criminalization and ensuring access to safer products.
A third key concern we still have is around the issue of advertising and promotion. I think the regulations, or the intended reality of restrictions on that front, are variables that we know from alcohol and tobacco increase use and increase harms. If you saw the National Post yesterday, for example, it had a 14-page inlay full of advertisements for cannabis companies presenting themselves, basically, as providing a medical and therapeutic product only. We need to clearly and categorically restrict promotion advertising in order to prevent the risks and harms that are associated with that, as we know clearly from other fields of psychoactive substance use.
Number four — and I’m always a bit hesitant to pour fuel on this very acute issue, as we heard earlier — the current bill includes the provision for home growing, home cultivation, as if this was a necessary endeavour to legalize cannabis and make legal consumption available. We categorically believe that this is a misguided portion or piece of the law. We have extensive regulated ways of retail distribution for cannabis currently in place and proposition in the law. There are several different reasons why home growing and cultivation are really in violation of good principles of public health. You cannot properly regulate the product or enforce it even in private homes. You will expose the approximately 80 per cent of Canadians who are not cannabis users, including many vulnerable young people, to the product, potentially, and it’s a recipe for diversion. Overall consistent public health approach to non-medical cannabis use and supply does not require home growing or cultivation. It’s a misguided element that, in our opinion, should actually be scrapped from the law.
These are my introductory comments. I’m happy to take any questions you may have.
The Chair: Thank you for being so succinct and targeted on your points, Mr. Fischer.
[Translation]
Mr. Brochu, I welcome you to the committee in your capacity as a partner of the University of Montreal University Institute on Addictions.
Serge Brochu, Scientific Director, University Institute on Addictions, Professor Emeritus, University of Montreal, as an individual: Thank you. It is an honour for me to be invited to appear before your committee and to contribute, I hope, to your reflection on Bill C-45. I am the Scientific Director of the University Institute on Addictions, which receives subsidies from the Ministry of Health and Social Services of Quebec. This institute groups 43 university and other institution researchers whose research centres on psychoactive substances and dependencies.
We are very much in favour of the bill. The consumption of a psychoactive substance, be it alcohol, tobacco or cannabis, is not without risks. It is important that it be surrounded by an effective monitoring framework. Unfortunately, the current approach, which precedes Bill C-45, is not very effective in attaining its objective, which is the prohibition of its use. It leaves the quality monitoring of products that are sold on the street in the hands of criminal organizations, and gives the wrong signal as to the importance of complying with the law.
In our opinion, Bill C-45 will allow for better control over the product and better control of access to it. We agree with setting the minimum age at 18, because we know that the age group from 18 to 25 currently constitutes a large part of the illegal cannabis market, that is to say a third. We know that the use of cannabis, particularly by adolescents, is not without risks and that we have to postpone the age of initiation as much as possible. However, forbidding the purchasing of cannabis before the age of 21 or 25 means that you will exclude from the legal market the largest group of consumers.
However, the prohibitive policies of past years have not reduced cannabis consumption among the Canadian population, nor among youth. Prohibiting the use of cannabis by young adults by forbidding them to purchase it may not have any more impact on their consumption than the laws that criminalized it. Moreover, if you limit the purchase of cannabis to adults of more than 21 or 25 years of age, younger people will continue to turn to the black market and to be exposed to the various dangers associated with prohibition, such as unregulated products full of pesticides, dealing with criminal markets, criminalization, prosecution, stigmatization, marginalization and a decrease in access to treatment.
The legalization of cannabis for recreational purposes will probably mean greater accessibility. It may be synonymous with an increase in the prevalence of consumption. However, the current bill does not focus on commercialization, but on public health principles. This can also be seen in the rules regarding labelling, which were published last week.
In addition, we wish to draw your attention to clause 2 of the bill as it stands, because it is important, in our opinion, to forbid advertising and product placement in the various media, as well as to forbid sponsorship and marketing strategies inside or outside points of sale. Recent literature reviews have shown that the promotion of tobacco and alcohol products increases consumption of these substances among the entire population, and even more so among adolescents. The more youth are exposed to publicity and to other promotional activities, the greater the risk that they will begin consuming these substances, or, if they are already using them, that they will increase their consumption. Promotional strategies have an impact on perceptions and beliefs, which increases the acceptability and normalization of the behaviour.
I would also like to emphasize one last point. Bill C-45 gives provinces a great deal of latitude to establish regulatory frameworks. The frameworks which have been released up till now clearly show that distribution in every province will be relatively different. This situation is unique in the world, and this can give us an exceptional opportunity to verify the impact of the various legislative frameworks put in place by the provinces.
However, it is important that we catch the ball. It is therefore the federal government’s responsibility to fund research activities to measure the impacts of these different measures. We commend the initiatives of the federal government, through the various large research funds, which have set up cannabis-related subsidy programs. In my opinion, we have to go a step further and take inspiration from the European countries that finance monitoring centres that can provide factual, objective, reliable and comparable data, to allow for the preparation of action plans that will be adapted to the real needs of Canadian men and women.
Concretely speaking, those monitoring centres gather a set of indicators on usage, dependency and trafficking, in addition to putting in place monitoring activities, and, especially, disseminating the information that is gathered, which activity is adapted to the needs of the organizations they advise. Many people and groups can benefit from the monitoring centres’ production. I’m thinking of decision-makers, scientists and drug specialists, as well as the general public.
Once again, thank you for the time you have given me. I am ready to answer your questions.
Senator Dupuis: Thank you for being with us today. I have a very specific question for you. You spoke of your experience in your respective organizations and of the consumption of cannabis by adults and younger people, which has been going on for years, in a context where the use of cannabis is criminalized. What is your experience regarding the fact that product that was smoked in the 1960s and 1970s had a much lower THC concentration than the product we now find on the market, as it has between 20 per cent and 40 per cent and even up to 90 per cent of this substance in certain synthetic products? What is your experience related either to adults or younger people with regard to the products they consume today? In other words, are they smoking more or less because the product is so much stronger than it used to be, and does that lead them to smoke less? This general question is addressed to all three of you.
Mr. Brochu, I have a question about the monitoring centre. I noted that certain countries are much more proactive and transparent regarding the data. If I understand correctly, there is a shortage of information. Several organizations have pointed this out in Canada. We could in fact have benefited from a monitoring centre several years ago here.
Mr. Brochu: As opposed to prohibition, where the black market distributes a drug that contains higher and higher THC concentrations, the legal market will be able to offer a variety of products, which is not necessarily the case at this time.
In addition, when you deal with an illicit market, the person who sells you the product tends to try to sell you more, and perhaps to initiate you to other products, whereas the sales advisor in a legal business will, I hope, be able to do some prevention, and also mention the other possible products. However, the other possible products will not be amphetamines or opioids, as is the case currently, or even cocaine, for that matter.
[English]
Mr. Fischer: There is what we call an iron law of prohibition, which basically suggests that, in an illegal market, pretty much every product gets maximized to its maximum impact. In this case, it is psychoactive substances in terms of potency and psychoactive impact. This is what’s been happening in the area of cannabis. There are enormously potent and harmful versions out there right now. Part of the rationale of legalization is that we regulate the product with health principles and objectives in mind and therefore make safer or less harmful products available.
At the same time, I want to use this question to point out the fact that we will have legalization maximally from age 18 on upward. We have a lot of use currently in younger people, who will continue by law to be at risk and to be exposed to those illegal and harmful products that are out there because the law dictates so and does not allow them access. This is one of the things we have to keep in mind, namely that those harmful products will continue to be out there and will put a lot of young people at great risk.
Ms. Jesseman: Briefly, in the Netherlands, they monitor the average THC levels of cannabis sold in the coffee shops. There was quite an increase seen for some time, but there was actually a slight decline between 2005 and 2015, so there was a bit of a levelling effect there, which was interesting.
In terms of one of your other questions, which I believe was around do people consume less if they’re using a stronger product, that has been looked at. There’s limited evidence that seems to indicate there is some titration of dose, but generally among only more experienced users and at a fairly limited rate. That’s an interesting argument that has been put forward and it is definitely worthy of more study, but there’s not strong evidence for it right now.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Mr. Brochu, I am very pleased with your reasoning. According to a survey carried out recently in Canada, legalization would lead to an increase of about 20 per cent in consumption among those of 18 to 34, which means that the current consumption rate of 30 per cent would rise to 40 per cent. In Norway, for instance, the consumption rate is around 3 per cent, so 10 times lower than in Canada; Canada is thus the cannabis consumption champion. When I hear a minister talk about the legalization of cannabis because a lot of people smoke it, and when we ask a parliamentary assistant what Canada’s consumption target should be, and his answer is zero, this leads me to wonder where this reasoning comes from; what is the rationale behind stating that, because young people smoke it, we should legalize cannabis rather than simply decriminalizing it, and this is a major constraint.
Do you not think that when 30 per cent of young people smoke cannabis, and we expect this to rise to 40 per cent among that group, the fundamental issue for society should not be to legalize cannabis, but rather to try to understand the causes of that excessive consumption? You know that this causes enormous problems in indigenous communities and in high school dropout rates. The social cost is enormous for young people.
This bill will allow young people from 12 to 17 years of age to possess and distribute 25 grams of wet-trimmed marijuana; what surprises me is that you are welcoming this legalization as though it were some kind of national holiday. Should our country not have tried to find the reasons behind this overconsumption, rather than say that since young people smoke cannabis, let’s legalize it?
Mr. Brochu: I agree with you. We have to look for the causes of excessive consumption, but recreational consumption is not necessarily a problem as such; the illegality of that consumption is.
Allow me to quote a study carried out by the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction. You probably know that in Europe the laws were more restrictive in some countries and less restrictive in others. The European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction followed the prevalence and increase or decrease in consumption in countries where there was an increase in restrictions, and in the countries where laws were more liberal. Their conclusion, of course, was that unfortunately policies did not have much impact on consumption and the prevalence of consumption.
However, what does have an impact — and we see this in Colorado and in the state of Washington — is legalization-related commercialization and marketing. If you have visited Colorado or the state of Washington, you know that there is very aggressive marketing there, which is indeed associated with an increase in cannabis consumption. That is why I welcome Bill C-45, which contains an important restriction in clause 2.
Senator Boisvenu: You were saying that since young people purchase the product on the street, there is a tendency to overconsumption. However, if we authorize those same young people of 18 to own four cannabis plants in their homes, is that not also an incentive to consume?
Mr. Brochu: It is true that accessibility can indeed influence consumption.
Senator Boisvenu: The problem is not related to legalization; on this, the government has entire legitimacy to act. The problem lies in how this is being done.
What surprises me in your brief is that you have not raised any shortcomings in the bill.
Mr. Brochu: Regarding clause 2 of the bill, my impression is that the product could be promoted, particularly in retail outlets where cannabis will be sold. In my opinion, we should restrict such promotion as much as possible. I would tend toward prohibiting promotion, even within the locations where we sell cannabis.
[English]
Senator McIntyre: Thank you all for your presentations.
Ms. Jesseman, your speaking notes address the issue of regulatory considerations such as pricing and legal age of access. I understand that in addition to these regulatory considerations, there’s also a need for a comprehensive, evidence-informed approach to prevention and public education. Mr. Fischer, I also understand that your centre views legalization as an opportunity for evidence-based regulation.
Bearing those remarks in mind, during his appearance before the House committee on Bill C-45, Mark Weir, Vice-Chair of the Task Force on Cannabis Legalization and Regulation, noted that the recommendations made by the task force were “evidence-informed” rather than “evidence-based” due to the lack of comprehensive, high-quality research related to cannabis. Is this a fair statement on the part of the vice-chair?
Ms. Jesseman: If you’re asking if there is more research needed on cannabis and the impacts of different regulatory —
Senator McIntyre: Evidence-based research, not just evidence-informed.
Ms. Jesseman: Unfortunately, you’re asking a researcher if we need to do more research. The answer is definitely “yes.” Is there a knowledge base that we can draw upon to inform the regulatory decisions that we’re making? I think there is.
In terms of the difference between evidence-based and evidence-informed, I have to admit I’m not sure where that line lies exactly and to what level of conclusiveness you would accept that evidence, but there is a lot we can draw on from what we know from regulating alcohol. There are a lot of lessons learned there — a lot of things we have done well and things we have not done well. The pricing policy is really the root of a lot of the recommendations my organization would make in that area.
In terms of prevention and education, there is strong evidence in terms of what works, and it doesn’t have to be looking specifically at cannabis. When we speak to reducing cannabis use among youth, it’s really about upstream prevention, early intervention, looking at the social determinants of health and having cannabis be part of a comprehensive approach rather than an exclusive focus. It’s about starting very early in childhood and focusing on protective factors like coping strategies and having positive adult role models.
There is a lot of strong evidence we can draw on. In terms of evidence-based versus evidence-informed, we’re in a situation where we’re drawing on what’s available, to the best of our ability.
Mr. Fischer: I have a couple of points. Regardless of the semantic differences between “evidence-based” and “evidence-informed,” it’s fair to say that, first of all, we do not know exactly all the details of what’s going to happen under legalization. This remains an evidence-based or evidence-informed experiment. There are a lot of things we will only find out when they happen.
However, we have made the argument for legalization with strict regulation based on two sets of evidence. One of them is the adverse consequences of prohibition, primarily for young people, and the evidence regarding adverse consequences is massive. Second, we’ve drawn on a lot of evidence related to tobacco and alcohol regulation, plus experiences with other drugs. Putting all those things together, it is fair to assume that legalization with strict regulation will serve the public’s health better than the current status quo. There’s a lot we still need to understand, but putting those things together, this is the most promising way forward at this point.
When the reference has been made to evidence-based regulations and interventions, we’re talking about using the best evidence for prevention, providing treatment to the people who will develop problems — and there are and will be people who will develop problems with regard to cannabis — and do the best you can on prevention related to acute public health outcomes and harms like cannabis-impaired driving, prevention and roadside detection. In other words, use the best evidence-informed toolbox to intervene with the people who make the decision to use cannabis, and reduce the risks and harms. That’s basically where legalization needs to go. If it succeeds in that regard, then it will hopefully reduce the overall negative impact burden on public health.
Senator McIntyre: I think you’ll both agree with me that this is a strong statement on the part of the vice-chair of the task force. In reading that statement, I’m left with the impression that Bill C-45 contains a lack of comprehensive, high-quality research relating to cannabis legalization. That’s the impression I’m left with. Maybe I’m wrong.
Mr. Fischer: I would not fully endorse that. There are clearly knowledge gaps, as there are, for example, on substances like alcohol and tobacco. If the measuring stick is that we should only have a legal product available if we have every piece of scientific evidence available, those two products wouldn’t be legal today either. There’s a fair amount of knowledge now to guide us in the general direction of where we should go in terms of what types of cannabis are less and more preferable, where we need to be careful and what interventions we need to provide, but overall there’s a sufficient scientific evidence base — and I say that as a scientist — to carefully go forward with the experiment of legalization with strict regulation for public health, granted that outcomes and developments are strictly monitored, evaluated and, if necessary, adjusted.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: I have two questions for you. The first is addressed to Mr. Fischer. I agree with several of the points you raised as to the need for strict regulation, particularly with regard to home cultivation. Could you make some clarifications? You had very little time for your introduction. Why is the home cultivation of cannabis not desirable, in your opinion?
[English]
Mr. Fischer: As I said, there are several reasons why this is undesirable from a public health point of view.
First of all, once you allow home growing or cultivation, you basically can’t effectively regulate or enforce what really goes on in the home. In order to do that, you would need to send inspectors or law enforcement into private homes, which we only do for the rarest of exceptional circumstances. Once the door is opened for people to do that, we don’t know really anymore what goes on in private homes.
Second, the vast majority of Canadians do not live in multi-room mansions where they will have a cannabis wing that is separated from the main residential quarters and where most people co-live with children, spouses and other people who will be exposed to the growing of cannabis. For environmental health and other reasons, that’s just not a very healthy thing to do. We would not do that for other products either. We have something like home brewing as an exception for alcohol, which people do in their garages, basements or whatever, but we would not produce pharmaceuticals in our home. In a public health framework, this is something that’s done by regulated experts in industry.
Third, it is just too ripe and ready an opportunity for diversion. Cannabis doesn’t really need a great deal of refinement, production or interventions for the final product. It’s a ripe-and-ready recipe for pretty wide-scale diversion, which we also want to avoid.
In other words, it’s really not a great idea at all. We should utilize the retail systems that are currently designed. In fact, I already have substantial concerns about the online availability, where you don’t have an interface between a retailer and a consumer. I appreciate why it’s there; we have a lot of remote communities or retail demand outside of urban centres where people can’t get ready access to the product.
But overall, for several reasons, home cultivation within a strictly regulated public health framework is a false romanticization of an idea of what cannabis production and growing should look like and is misguided from a public health point of view.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: Do you think THC levels should be limited?
[English]
Mr. Fischer: I’ll quickly respond. This is one of those tricky questions. We know from the evidence that higher-THC products are more likely to lead to acute or long-term problems in users, potentially, more so than low-THC products. Ideally, we would bring people to using lower-risk products, which are those with lower-THC content.
At the same time — and this applies as an answer to many other things that are being debated here — if we overregulate, remember what I said in my introductory remarks. The alternative illegal markets for many of those things exist already. If we over-regulate, we may just force people into the illegal, unregulated markets, which would be an undesirable, adverse consequence of over-regulation.
We need to find the right balance where we try and inform people and restrict as much as possible so they stay away from the hazardous things, but without overshooting and forcing people back into the illegal black market where those things are amply and readily available.
Ms. Jesseman: I would essentially echo that. That’s one of the areas of evidence that we can draw on from alcohol. We can look at volumetric or minimum unit pricing where there are higher taxation levels, for example, on spirits than on beer. Using those sort of market levers to incentivize the use of lower-risk products is something to be looked at, again, to help strike that balance between recognizing that where there is a market demand that is not filled by regulated markets subject to quality control, that there will be an illegal market ready to fill that demand.
Senator Carignan: I understand that we could have a limit, but we need to find a good balance.
Ms. Jesseman: It’s finding the balance. Looking at how the regulations are being introduced — for example, a limit of 1 gram per serving of dried material in pre-rolls, 10 milligrams THC for any product and 30 milligrams per millimetre of oil — and looking at it on a product-by-product basis, what is reasonable for the products is a reasonable way to move forward on that. As the regulations develop and as more products are potentially introduced over time, we need to look at what is reasonable, based on the products being offered, from a quality control and consumer safety perspective.
Senator Pratte: Mr. Fischer, a couple of times you used the term “experiment” for Bill C-45. I must say this term makes me a bit uncomfortable. I would hope the government is not carrying out a giant experiment with the people of Canada. Do you really see this as a giant experiment? I see that prohibition is not working and that legalization has probable advantages. That’s the way I see it. Would you care to comment on that? Why do you use the term “experiment?”
Mr. Fischer: I’m not a politician, so I can do that sincerely and honestly. I really believe that it is an experiment. I’m using that term not in a negative sense at all, actually. I think it’s an experiment that is undertaken for good reason. However, it has not occurred and happened in the Canadian context or in any comparable context, and it includes a lot of variables, as my colleague Dr. Brochu outlined, in terms of the variables in Canada that are untried and untested. We’re putting our best knowledge and our best evidence and formed thoughts together. However, what will happen overall and how this will unfold is unprecedented, and there is no evidence for the outcomes. That’s why I call it, in the best scientific tradition, an experiment with the major implication that, as I said earlier, going forward we will monitor strictly and evaluate what happens on different ends and how the different variables of the law, the regulations and consumer behaviour influence those outcomes.
I firmly believe we will have to inevitably adjust many of the levers that are influencing the outcomes. I’ll give you one example. As a researcher, I watch very closely what’s going on around the regulation of retail distribution. In some places, I think there may be overregulation of some of the things that may keep a lot of people away from the legal retail outlets and the legal distribution, which would be fatally problematic for the prospects and the success of legalization because people would just remain accessing illegal cannabis in the black markets where we don’t want them to buy their cannabis. It may be that happens because of overregulation in a good spirit. We need to monitor those things, understand empirically what happens and why, and we may go back to the experiment and adjust the experiment.
Please do not read the term in a negative way. It’s an overall positive term. It is an experiment nonetheless.
Senator Pratte: Ms. Jesseman, in one of your recommendations, you suggest that we should take a precautionary approach in recognition that increasing restrictions is more difficult than loosening them following implementation. Could you elaborate on what you mean in the context of Bill C-45 specifically?
Ms. Jesseman: In the context of Bill C-45, the best example that comes to mind is around the marketing and labelling and being quite restrictive in terms of what we’re allowing for marketing and branding of packaging and advertising, again because of the association between levels of use and degree of commercialization. That’s evidence that we have taken away from Colorado very clearly.
There is an excellent example also from Colorado in terms of the difficulty in introducing restrictions after the fact. When they first introduced their edibles, there was a limit on the quantity of THC per dose but there was no limit to the packaging size, so you could have a single brownie with 10 doses that you were supposed to cut into 10 pieces. That was recognized as a challenge, but then the process of changing the regulations in order to have more reasonable dose sizes introduced actually took two years and quite a lot of legal action between the government and the producers because of the costs inherent in changing production.
Senator Batters: Mr. Fischer, I appreciate your comments and your opening statement about how you, on behalf CAMH, believe that the federal government’s provision in this bill to allow four marijuana plants per household in Canada should be removed from the bill. I certainly concur with that recommendation. To me, allowing four marijuana plants in every household and then having the federal government claim that they are trying to protect children seems incongruent.
I also note that it was a bit bizarre that when the House of Commons studied this particular bill, the major amendment that they made on that particular provision was to simply remove the height requirements from the plants. It didn’t really seem to accomplish anything very meaningful or helpful for kids, in my view.
I’m very concerned, Mr. Fischer, that throughout this government’s push to legalize marijuana, many youth in Canada, in the absence of a proper public education campaign, are starting to view marijuana as relatively harmless. We’ve had medical marijuana. We’ve had a federal government that is going to actually legalize it. Our Prime Minister has even admitted to smoking marijuana while he was a member of Parliament.
I would like you, Mr. Fischer, to use this opportunity to tell Canadians about the dangers of marijuana use, which you have properly called a psychotropic drug. I’m concerned about all of this normalization. Many Canadians youth don’t even believe that can you become addicted to marijuana. I’d like to you tell Canadians about the risk of dependency, about the high number of marijuana treatment admissions and about marijuana-related hospitalizations, which are becoming now all too frequent.
Mr. Fischer: It is very well documented that cannabis comes with risk for acute and long-term health outcomes. There’s a variety of those. I will not repeat them. Those risks definitely exist.
At the same time, I want to emphasize that, first, the risks for harms with cannabis use depend a great deal on who uses, where, when and what. There’s an enormous opportunity to properly educate people about risks and harms that users themselves can influence. We have done that, for example, with the science-based low-risk cannabis use guidelines that have been launched and are being implemented across the country. Honest and direct education needs to happen.
Second, to your point about the misperceptions about risks related to cannabis or normalization of cannabis, I actually think we’re at a point where most of that has happened already to a point where it can’t happen any further. I think it’s partly an effect of prohibition, and there has been mis-messaging that has occurred about cannabis, primarily to young people, many of whom have realized that there’s been a lot of over-dramatization of the relative risks and harms of cannabis, which they decided were not scientifically or objectively warranted, and they counteracted against that mis-messaging. I think that’s where a lot of the misperceptions about the risks and harms actually come from today under the context of prohibition.
The third point is, of course, relative to alcohol and tobacco or other legal substances, including prescription medications. There is also an enormous need and demand for realistic information vis-à-vis those substances. If we had the similar measuring sticks for alcohol and tobacco today, especially vis-à-vis the risks to young people, we probably wouldn’t make any of those drugs legally available either.
I think we need, in a public health framework, to see the risks and harms of those psychoactive substances in a realistic, comprehensive framework. They all come with risks and harms. A lot of them can be influenced by user choices, products and regulations. I think in a comprehensive public health approach to psychoactive substances, we need to do the best we can about prevention education, restrict and regulate —
Senator Batters: I want to get you to a point where you do actually use this opportunity to tell Canadian youth that this is potentially a very addictive drug. It’s something that has significant harms. I’m serious. I don’t think they’re getting that message. Maybe you think that it’s gone too far and that’s why they’re not getting the message, but they’re not getting the message. We’re not seeing a public education campaign. I would like you to tell people, through this committee today, about the risks of becoming dependent on marijuana, about the potential of marijuana treatment admissions and hospital admissions and that sort of thing.
Mr. Fischer: I’m generally happy to do that. Cannabis is a psychoactive substance that comes with risks for acute and chronic health harms, and so do alcohol and tobacco. Ideally, people would abstain from all of these substances or delay use until as late as possible in life, but it also greatly depends on who uses, how you use and what products you use to mitigate those risks. Ideally, young people will get honest information about all those things in a systematic and comprehensive way.
Senator Sinclair: This is an open question, so any one of you who wants to jump on it, please feel free to do so. It has to do with the overall objectives of the legislation. Are you able to comment on the evidence-informed or evidence-based information that you have at your disposal as to whether the harms and impacts of prosecuting young people for simple possession are greater or less than the harms and impacts to legalize cannabis in Canada? Do you have an opinion or comment on that?
[Translation]
Mr. Brochu: A criminal record is definitely a very bad start for a cannabis user. According to scientific thought, a cannabis user is usually not a criminal. Of course, control is needed, but penal control does not seem to be adequate for ordinary consumers. I did say “ordinary users.” We are not talking about dealers. Bill C-45 has provisions that focus on dealers and will remain in the legislation. But I don’t think an ordinary drug user is an offender. At worst, they are sick individuals because they are addicted, but whether for recreation or sickness, penal control is not adequate.
[English]
Mr. Fischer: I’ll add a general point. Any kind of substance use should not be dealt with as a criminal matter. If it’s about use and possession, it should really be dealt with as a health matter, whether it’s with prevention or treatment or other kinds of interventions. That point is even more amplified for young people where the cycle of deviance or stigmatization and criminalization with secondary deviance can, at the end of the day, and does in many instances, create a lot more harm than what’s really at stake from the substance use itself. I think we need to accept the point that criminal interventions or punitive controls with regard to substance use are not in keeping with any kind of public health or prevention-oriented intervention and are highly dangerous or potentially harmful, particularly for young people.
I will add to this comment my concern about what will actually happen to people under the age of 18 where we still have high rates of cannabis use. In the current provisions that I’ve seen for Ontario, the language wasn’t exactly clear. Yes, we have the 5 gram possession, but then there also seems to still be law enforcement and police involvement in terms of diversion or education. We know that those things, especially with discretion that rests with law enforcement, can also often lead into the loops and cycles that bring people in contact or get them involved with the criminal justice system.
Regardless of the legal provisions for legal cannabis, we must, even for people underage when they are involved with cannabis, not expose them or take any risks to get them involved with the criminal justice system, but keep this primarily, first and foremost, a social and health matter and let those agencies deal with this and not maintain this as a police matter, even if it’s friendly or clothing it under a veil of friendlier interventions.
Ms. Jesseman: I would add to what my colleagues have said the importance of making sure that we are recognizing that for youth who are using cannabis in a harmful way, there are often other factors associated with that use and that we take that opportunity to address those other risk factors and to build protective factors. We need to recognize that there are gaps in the system right now that make it difficult to do that. There are various components, and, in particular, gaps for Indigenous youth, of which I’m sure you’re familiar, and gaps for youth who are of transitional age, for example, transitioning from child protection services or from youth into adult services. Those are two points that I know are particular challenges. We must also have the resources to recognize youth who are at risk and to intervene at a young age when we still have the greatest potential for preventing further harms.
[Translation]
Senator Dupuis: I would like to put a question to you in response to what you just said. The message regarding promotion is very important, but it is also important to ensure prevention. People are presenting legalization as a future monster. What is striking to me is the fact that young people — people you see or treat — who consume in the context of criminalization are unaware. They don’t even know it is dangerous. A survey conducted by a federal organization indicated that young people are saying they are drawn to smoking because they want to be like their friends and their family. They receive a very bad awareness-raising message from their peers, their friends and perhaps their family. There seems to be a lot of complacency so far from schools and parents in the absence of education and awareness-raising on dangers, and we are suddenly telling ourselves that, if we start talking about it, it will become a real problem. I would like to know what you think about this situation.
[English]
Ms. Jesseman: It’s certainly something that we have heard in consultations with youth. They want to have these discussions with adults and they want to receive information that is accurate, but they are often faced with lectures and judgment that turn them off the messages they’re hearing, or they’re hearing scare tactics that don’t resonate with them and what they’re seeing among their friends. So they’re going to the Internet and Googling to get their information.
That told us that we need to, for one thing, help youth with critical analysis skills. If they’re getting information from the Internet, how do they appraise that information in terms of its validity? Also, we need to provide what we’re terming youth allies — parents, teachers, coaches, physicians — with the tools they need to have those open, non-biased, factual conversations with youth. We know they don’t have a lot of resources to support them in doing that, but I’m very pleased to say that my organization, CCSA, is working on the development of such a toolkit, and we hope to release that in the near future.
[Translation]
Mr. Brochu: I do think it is very important. Discussions have to be held with young people and, as my colleague just said, not in any which way. The U.S. has had programs involving fearmongering and saying no to drugs. Research is very clear: that does not work. The message must be credible, and the consequences must not be exaggerated. The consequences are there and are fairly significant. So it’s a matter of not fearmongering and trying to delay the age of initiation as much as possible. People who develop the most problems are those who consume at a very young age and consume a lot. So the two prevention targets are trying to delay as much as possible the age of initiation and reducing by as much as possible the frequency of consumption.
[English]
Mr. Fischer: Just to add to that point, in many ways, education under prohibition was its own worst enemy — or young people’s worst enemy — because it presented exaggerated or misleading information. There’s definitely a substantial need for realistic, fact-based information about risks and harms for young people for primary prevention.
At the same time, the good thing about legalization is that, to a certain extent, it will take the handcuffs off major educators in terms of informing and educating young people who make the choice to use cannabis how to do so more safely or reduce some of the risks. It’s a little bit like sex education in school. Ideally, we have young people stay away from this stuff and the risks as long as possible, but it’s a reality, and it will remain a reality in young people’s behaviour and culture. We need educators, peers and parents to be able to provide realistic, objective information about the risks and harms without fear of repercussions, and also what you can do to reduce your risks from harms if you decide to go down that route and try cannabis or use cannabis.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: I want to thank our three witnesses for still being here at 6:55 p.m. Your comments are very relevant, and we are thankful for everything you are doing for the committee. I consider the three of you experts. You are listening to young people’s concerns, especially in terms of prevention.
The bill on the legalization of marijuana must place major emphasis on young people. As you said, Mr. Brochu, the earlier people start, the more habitual their use becomes, and the higher the risk of disease. Reports published in Quebec indicate that the risks are there.
I would like to propose to you three amendments that could be made to the bill, and I would like to see whether you would support them unanimously. First, the cultivation of cannabis plants at home should be prohibited. It has been noted that this practice had an impact on young people’s consumption. Second, possession of marijuana — 25 grams of dried marijuana — by young people aged 12 to 17 should be prohibited. Third, the money collected through all the fines should be used to create a fund dedicated to prevention and detox. That’s a big bill for families that have to send their marijuana-impaired 16 or 17-year-old to a detox centre. That costs thousands of dollars, and the state often cannot cover those treatments. So there you have my three recommendations: prohibition on possession at home, prohibition on young people possessing marijuana —
The Chair: You said possession, but we are talking about growing the plants.
Senator Boisvenu: Yes, the third recommendation is to make sure that money collected through fines is sent to a national education and detox program. Would the three of you support those three measures?
[English]
Mr. Fischer: Number one, I’d endorse. Number three, I would endorse as well, but I wish you good luck, because politicians typically do not like to designate revenues for specific causes. I think it would be for the right causes.
Senator Boisvenu: We’re doing that for criminal crime. When we have infractions, a part of the infraction goes to the victim of crime.
Mr. Fischer: It happens in gambling and some areas where it happens. If it happens, this would be very good.
If I understood you correctly on number two, you want to prohibit possession for young people entirely?
Senator Boisvenu: Like it is today — under 18.
Mr. Fischer: That’s where I would disagree with you. As a matter of fact, I would advocate for the opposite. Even with legalization, it will remain most likely — and here I’m addressing a little bit what I think was a bit of a misguided promise from the political side; namely, that legalization would basically eliminate cannabis use among young people. It’s a completely unrealistic promise. Why would it happen?
We will likely have fairly high cannabis use rates among young people, even after legalization. These are the most vulnerable people. It is part of their subculture. It will continue to be the case. As I said earlier also, using the criminal law and criminal penalties, especially for those young, vulnerable people, to deal with matters of substance use is not just ineffective but is enormously extensive in undesired collateral harms in terms criminalizing and stigmatizing.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: I would not criminalize it. There would be a more penal approach.
[English]
Mr. Fischer: But what would you do with them?
Senator Boisvenu: You seize the pot. But the young people will arrive in school and say, “Well, I can because the bill told me that I can have 5 grams.”
Mr. Fischer: Yes, but it depends a great deal on what is being done. If it’s just taken away from them, it’s one thing, but if the police come, names are recorded, there’s maybe diversion or other kinds of involvement —
Senator Boisvenu: It’s a matter of having a strong message that, for kids, it’s a drug.
Mr. Fischer: Yes, but it’s more than a message when you basically pull people into the legal system with punishment. For young people, the collateral, unintended, adverse effects of that can be enormous. They can, in many instances, outweigh the actual risks and harms they face from the substance use itself. With that group, we need to strongly rely on prevention and education and not any form of criminal-justice-driven interventions.
[Translation]
Mr. Brochu: Mr. Fischer did a good job of answering the question. I would highlight prevention and information messages. The government should currently do more in terms of prevention and information campaigns. Young people must be told that we are not legalizing cannabis because consuming it is good, but because we think this is the best way to control the product. The product still has potentially harmful effects, especially for young people. That information must be communicated, and I don’t think it is being done enough. We are talking a lot about legalization. Young people may think that, since legalization is coming, the product is good. No, that’s not the case. We are legalizing cannabis to ensure better control. That should be said and repeated, and I don’t think we are currently doing it enough.
[English]
The Chair: That’s the conundrum of this bill because, as you know, the government has proposed it on the basis that it is recreational use. The word “recreation” means there’s no harm. It’s recreation. It’s fun. It’s just entertaining. It’s relaxing. It plays exactly contrary to what you say we should be hammering, which is that this is a dangerous product. But it’s for recreation. That’s where I feel there’s a contradiction in the message. We’re trying to sell the bill while at the same saying, “We’ll sell it to you, but don’t buy it.” That’s essentially what it is. We give on the one hand and take it back in the other. That’s why I feel there is a kind of schizophrenic approach to this legislation.
[Translation]
Mr. Brochu: But, at the same time, I think it is clear that legalization is less problematic than the criminalization of ordinary users. It is also a fact that the vast majority of cannabis users are not developing an addiction. It should also be kept in mind that cannabis can be consumed recreationally and experimentally, and that its consumption will not lead to the consumption of other substances.
[English]
The Chair: Yes, provided you are not 12 years old. I’m not an expert, but from what I’ve seen in my family circle, if you start smoking at age 15 or 16 and there is no control on the THC level and you’re smoking 70 per cent THC, the risk is that brain damage might come quickly. That will impact your capacity to concentrate at school. If you’re in a school where you’re left on the side because you’re slower to learn, at one point you will no longer go to school. The school will not want to have you because you are a bullet for the rest of the class. So you’re marginalized. And then you try something else. That leads you where? To a major social problem for the whole of your life. This is not not serious.
[Translation]
Mr. Brochu: It is very serious. Fortunately, only a small proportion of consumers are in that state. However, it is important to provide preventive messages.
[English]
The Chair: I will come back after, as I have three quick questions.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: This is a public health approach. I believe in the precautionary principle. So when it comes to public health, once the toothpaste is out of the tube, it is difficult to put it back. I am more for a step-by-step approach. Should we not decriminalize simple possession as a first step, and then go ahead with all the prevention, investment, promotion and care messages? Legalization is not consistent with prevention efforts. Energy can be invested into prevention without legalization. So should we not first decriminalize simple possession and invest significant amounts of money in prevention, treatment and awareness-raising, and then observe the effects?
Our positions on legalization are opposite. I am against it and you are for it. If you realize you were wrong in five years, how will we go back in time? If I am wrong, we could move toward legalization and say that Mr. Brochu was right. However, in five years’ time, if I was right, we won’t be able to go back. Don’t you think we should move in stages?
Mr. Brochu: A number of European countries have made the decision to decriminalize marijuana possession. Portugal even decriminalized all drugs, not only cannabis. That’s their choice. Legalization is more the choice of some states in the U.S. and in Uruguay. Now, that concerns us. The major problem with decriminalization according to some is that, since consumption is legal, people will consume it. However, who gets the profits of that consumption? It’s still organized crime. There is no more control of product quality, so people can use pesticides as much as they want to make the plant grow more quickly. The cannabis market is not being separated from other illicit markets, and organized crime is pocketing the profits. So there are still limitations to decriminalization.
Senator Carignan: What about Norway?
Mr. Brochu: What is the question?
Senator Carignan: Norway has the lowest usage rate among young people.
Mr. Brochu: Yes. Prevalence rates are often very contextual, and Mr. Fischer talked to us about that. I talked about it when I mentioned the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, which was saying that policies have very little impact on prevalence. There are many other factors, and we would like to have an impact on prevalence, but too many factors are involved. So we cannot say that we will use Norway’s model and apply it here to find an answer to all our questions.
Senator Carignan: No, but without copy/pasting, there is still a way to find inspiration in policies that have worked. That is what they did in Iceland. I understand that it is a smaller country, but they went from 25 per cent to 4 per cent or 5 per cent, like Norway, by investing in prevention at schools and in sports and cultural activities. Young people are provided with guidance and taken care of, which is important. That is not currently being done.
Mr. Brochu: I certainly cannot disagree with that suggestion. More prevention is necessary, but research must also be conducted on what is being done. Mr. Fischer mentioned that there are not many cannabis legalization models.
Senator Carignan: We will be the laboratory. I heard the minister say that other countries are watching us. I understand that we will be the laboratory.
Senator Boisvenu: I echo the comments of my colleague Senator Carignan with regard to public health. You must have read the report by the Association des médecins psychiatres du Québec, which is fairly alarming when it comes to marijuana use. I invite you to read it. Senator Carignan is entirely right. What is being observed in Colorado, which is celebrating its fifth year of legalization, when we look at the impact on high school students — young people aged 12 to 18 — is that violence among those who smoke marijuana has increased by 35 per cent.
That is one of the only situations where violence in schools has increased. Students who have been expelled from school account for more than 71 per cent. How could that be managed? My comments echo those of Senator Carignan. Decriminalization would have made it possible to reduce impacts on individuals throughout life in terms of consumption and, over the medium term, to find out about issues related to overconsumption.
At 30 per cent, we are marijuana consumption champions. We are first in that category. However, as far as our school system goes, especially in Quebec, we are last. Even if marijuana was decriminalized and was sold illegally, the increase would have been controlled. With legalization, an increase will occur everywhere, as what has been seen in Colorado.
Mr. Brochu: I hope we will use Colorado’s experience to avoid the mistakes made there. The same thing is happening in the state of Washington, where over-commercialization has occurred. I had an opportunity to visit Colorado, and I saw the advertising there. The advertising is very attractive to young adults, but also to adolescents who are not allowed to buy cannabis before the age of 21. It still makes people want to consume marijuana. I reiterate what I said in my opening statement: the promotion of cannabis outside and inside points of sale must absolutely be limited, even prohibited. I think associating marijuana use with activities, as is being done in Colorado, is harmful. I think that we have a solution here.
Senator Boisvenu: The right to possession by young people aged 12 to 17 is a form of promotion.
[English]
The Chair: I will rephrase your comments. Is there any evidence base, to use your own term, that in any American state where cannabis has been legalized, there has been a reduction of consumption by various age groups? In other words, has the impact of reducing the harm of cannabis been concluded positively that it is a way to improve health?
Mr. Fischer: I will respond to this by pointing out that the challenge is in the detail of what you’re looking at. From a public health perspective, use is actually not a harm. You need to look at what the actual tangible harm outcomes are. The evidence scientifically is quite clearly that, in U.S. jurisdictions where cannabis is legal, whether through medical regimes or through non-medical regimes, use levels are typically higher than in other jurisdictions. That’s what the science clearly says. However, the important thing is what happens related to the concrete harms, whether it’s —
The Chair: Drug driving, for instance.
Mr. Fischer: Whether it’s impaired driving, mental health outcomes, hospitalizations. Around those things, in those American constellations, which are, as Dr. Brochu pointed out, very different from our frameworks here, the evidence is quite mixed on those harm indicators to date. There are some things that are getting a little worse; there are some things that are getting a little better. We have no way right now of telling whether legalization in U.S. jurisdictions is actually good for public health or not. It’s way too early.
I say this with two qualifications relevant for the Canadian situation. Our framework is very different. It’s much more restrictive, much more regulated, much more public health-oriented. That’s why, for me, evidence from the U.S. is actually really only of rather restricted relevance or implications for projections on what we’re doing here.
Second, we need to give legalization at least a five-year window to make it beyond the straw-fire effects that will likely unfold. We will probably have a lot of people who will be curious. Cannabis becomes legal and they will go and try it or experiment or buy something new. There will be all sorts of things that will happen in the first two or three years that are not really predictive of what will happen in the long run.
Also, as I said earlier, there are a lot of details we will need to adjust. We need to give this enough time, monitor and adjust, but also really allow this — and I use the term consciously again. We need to let this experiment, in its unique Canadian parameters, play out, monitor and adjust to see what really happens in the very specific Canadian context and in our public health-oriented approach, to give this a fair chance and see what happens.
If, on the basis of clear evidence, in five years’ time, this is really impacting public health in a negative term, I’ll be the first one to come to this table and say to shut it down and go back to the alternatives in five years. How? You’ll just change the law the way it’s proposed to be changed right now.
Senator Boisvenu: What will be the cost?
Mr. Fischer: It’s business.
The Chair: Let’s keep the format of our exchange.
The other point I want to raise is about the advertising that you’ve made one of your essential recommendations. I have seen the proposal of packaging that was released two weeks ago by the Department of Health, and I still have some reservations about the fact that what you say about the level of THC is not visible enough when the product becomes more dangerous. All the scientific information we have is that, at a level of 70 per cent, you start lighting the red lights. You have to know that you are ingesting something really dangerous.
I wonder if you can comment to us your reaction to the fact that the level of THC should be very visibly available over a certain level that the science determines is really the dangerous level. That seems to me to be something we do with some products. There are products that are dangerous by themselves, and you see it on the package. Even when you open it, you wash your hands after because you have touched something that is dangerous, contaminating and whatnot. That’s my personal reaction; that’s why I ask yours. The level of THC, especially over a certain level, should be quite visible and the danger signalling should be quite clear. What is your reaction to that recommendation?
Ms. Jesseman: I completely agree that the level of THC, and other cannabinoids, so CBD as well, should be clearly indicated on the packaging. We have to be cognizant that some people will seek out higher THC products. Think of some of the concerns around, for example, the high alcohol, highly sugar-caffeinated beverages now have labels that really glorify the intoxicating effect and the danger that they pose. At a certain level, we need to be careful we are not glorifying the potency of the product and are presenting things in an informative way.
The Chair: I’m not talking about that. I’m not talking about adding some chromatic colour over 70 per cent so you are attracted to consume it. I’m trying to inform the customer or the user that they have in their hands a 5 per cent cannabis product and a 70 per cent and they should be made aware that from 5 to 70 there’s a margin of risk that is much higher.
Ms. Jesseman: Absolutely. I think clearly demarcating the health impacts.
The Chair: That seems to me to be common sense.
Mr. Fischer: I generally agree with you that it’s good to do that and to put clear warning labels on especially high-potency products. At the same time, please do not overestimate the effect of warning labels. We know they have limitations. We know that from alcohol and tobacco. The marginal benefit or effects of that are limited.
What’s equally important is that we do not, for example, create retail environments where, for example, in the LCBO in Ontario, you have a publicly regulated retail environment, but where the entire environment is designed for you to buy as much product as possible on your own, put it in the basket and walk out with it, but rather that you have an environment where there’s some interaction, for example, over a counter and there’s some information about risk potential and how to reduce risks even if you decide to consume.
Your comments also point to the fact that we need to pay close attention to, for example, online distribution.
The Chair: That was my next question.
Mr. Fischer: Or, again, the home cultivation where all of those provisions and regulations fly out of the window when people are basically growing their own high-potency product without warning labels anywhere.
The Chair: Especially, as I say, the online. You have just touched on it, but you have not expanded on the online market. My perception, and again I submit to you what I sense, is that there is a growing trend in any commercial business these days to buy online. That is what the new generation of business is about. Look at what’s going on in the retail business generally in Canada. We know it. So it’s going to be increasing, not going down.
To me, the approach of putting that in the liquor board store in a small town somewhere, and there are all those villages 30 or 40 kilometres away, do you think they will spend an hour in the car to go and buy a joint? They will buy online and it will be at their door the next day.
The government is creating its own competition in the business because it’s the online businesses that will thrive through the years, not the liquor store business where you will be retailing cannabis. To me, there’s something there. There’s somebody that evaluated the market in the old traditional approach of the liquor board. The liquor board is a different thing to send by mail. But cannabis, as you know, is already in the mail all over the place, and nobody controls anything of what is sent by the mail.
It seems to me, as Senator Carignan mentioned, we are well-intentioned, but, in my perception, there is a way to approach the marketing and accessibility of it online that will jeopardize or sabotage the overall approach that we want to have traditional marketing along the lines of what we have been living with through the years where we’ve gone to the store at the corner to buy the liquor, wine or beer.
So there is something in the experience, as you said in your opening remarks, whereby there is an unknown quantity, which is how the objective of the legislation will be thwarted by the online access of the product. I think that will be a major factor that could sabotage the objective of the bill.
Ms. Jesseman: I would note that several of the provinces, in their regulations, have introduced the intention for mandatory point-of-sale training, so any employee will be trained in messaging, for example, on how to educate clients about the harms associated with their purchase. Seeing how that translates into an online setting will be very interesting.
An additional concern I would flag in terms of online is the regulation of social media and other online sources of promotion. We know that is already a significant challenge for our regulators in general for media, for example, policing Canadian content regulations, let alone the promotion of controlled substances. That’s something to be aware of.
The Chair: I know that we have gone over our time, so I will finish with the last question. I get frustrated and I share my passion for this subject with you around the table. I listen to all my colleagues asking questions, and here I’m in the chair boiling about wanting to ask my own questions. I’ll finish and I’ll feel happy with that and be ready for the break.
Do you know how much it cost to fight the tobacco companies to have advertising control over the package? It took 10 years and it cost millions and millions of dollars to bring the tobacco companies to packaging that is respectful or cognizant of the danger of tobacco products.
Do you think that all those Canadian companies that are financed by billions of dollars on the stock market will easily accept that the government will come after them and say, “No, no advertising. You will be hidden in the back with no publicity, no nothing”? We could run the risk of a major lawsuit against the government on the basis of the tobacco experience. I talk about the tobacco experience because when it happened, I followed how many cases ended up in the Supreme Court in relation to the tobacco companies on the basis of freedom of expression.
I think this is directly related to the recommendation that you made to us today, which I totally agree with, which is to ban advertising. But, as I say, there’s a risk that there will be a major lawsuit against the government in relation to that.
Mr. Fischer: I think part of the difficulty with the tobacco industry and packaging was that the government had to roll back something that was in existence for a long time. We are now at a place where we’re creating a completely new regulatory scheme of legalization for cannabis, and now is the time to put the restrictions in place. As was said earlier, if you start loose and then try to roll it back, that’s when it will be difficult. Now is the time to put the right restrictions in place in a categorical and principled way.
At the same time, yes, the government may run some risks for legal challenges. This is a powerful industry. At the same time, we have clear constitutional principles that put enshrined principles of health and public health in constitutional terms. I think it’s fair game, if there is a challenge, to say that we know very clearly from the experiences with alcohol and tobacco that advertising and promotion increase risks for use and harm, especially to vulnerable people, and therefore those things should be restricted.
There’s clearly a powerful lobby at work, but I want to reiterate our points that this is one of the fronts where we know that advertising and promotion, including indirectly, through social media, electronic, cultural sponsorships and all those sneaky, creative ways that industry comes up with, promote use and therefore harms, especially among vulnerable people. Now is the time to categorically restrict those things and make sure those factors are not in play in promoting use and harms.
I personally am quite concerned about a lot of what happens already in that arena and the lobby activities by the industry that are ongoing. I really implore the governmental decision makers to stand firmly on those fronts and categorically restrict advertising and promotion in direct and indirect ways in the interest of public health.
The Chair: You certainly have listening ears around the table this afternoon. I want to thank you and excuse ourselves for having kept you at the table for so long. But, as you know, it’s not the interest that is not there. On the contrary; we are very mindful of what you said at the beginning. It is an experience, and what makes us uncomfortable is that there is an unknown quantity there that, if not properly monitored, can be very damaging for individual Canadians. That’s why we are very attentive to your statement and comments, and we’re very grateful that you accepted our invitation and shared your knowledge and experience. Thank you very much. We’ll be watching for the other publication that you will release along the lines.
Mr. Fischer: Feel free to follow up or invite your colleagues to follow up on specific questions if there’s any benefit in doing so.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
(The committee adjourned.)