Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am not going to keep us long because I know everybody's exhausted. We heard in every community, there were concerns raised about the age of consumption being set at 19 in this bill. The medical evidence does show that brain development of young people can be affected by cannabis consumption up to at least 25 years of age. We had health organizations ask us to raise the age limit for consumption. We heard that in some communities. It is only fair to say that that was not universal. I heard enough evidence that I felt that there needed to be some way to try to send very strong signals to youth that use of cannabis when you're below the age of 25 is not a good thing. I don't think public education is sufficient. We need something more. That is what this motion attempts to do is to set a lower possession limit for people aged between 19 and 25 years of age. In the bill, it would be 30 grams. This amendment would reduce the quantity to 10 grams. It's not ideal, but I think it's a step in the right direction.
I just want to note that for the record, the legal age of consumption for cannabis in the eight US states that have legalized possession is 21 years of age. The evidence that I've been provided by the medical community shows that increasing minimum age of consumption, even for tobacco for 21 years of age, over time decreases adult smoking, smoking-related deaths. It leads to reductions in youth smoking. I understand that that's related to tobacco, but I think the same will apply to cannabis. Any efforts that I think we can make to try to move in that direction, and that's what this amendment is aimed at, I think are in the public interest, and this is not to take away from the needs around public education and making proper curriculum in schools and so on, but I think this is an amendment that addresses a clear public need. Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. Next, we have Mr. Beaulieu.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I will be supporting this motion. Mr. Chairman, we did hear a lot about the development of the youth, the growth of the brain, I think. We had, I think we had a couple of associations, nurses' associations, that came and spoke to us, plus there's research and there's other supporting documentation that the brain continues to develop. The brain continues to grow to the age of 25. A person's physical body gets to grow up in height maybe until they're 18, maybe 19, and so on, but the brain will continue to grow until a person is 25 years old. I guess is the best type of medical research we have.
I, too, wanted to look at ways to reduce the consumption by people between the age of 19 and 25 as much as possible. Initially, I wanted to support that we legalize marijuana at 25 years old, and then, I started talking to some of the people. I talked about my work and so on, and one person came and said, "Don't do it." Don't impose a rule where the minimum age is 25 years old because you're going to create a whole bunch of criminals. People that have never been in trouble with the law that are 19 years old, 20 years old, and they are smoking. They aren't chronic smokers, but if they're not allowed to possess marijuana at all, you could end up being the 21-year-old person that's never been in trouble will all of a sudden end up with a criminal record because they're possessing marijuana, something that they've been smoking for awhile.
I started thinking about this system of having a two-tier possession system where individuals between the age of 19 and 25 would only possess 10 grams as opposed to 30 grams in the overall. That's in the legislation from 19 and up. We knew that wasn't going to prevent people from smoking, but we thought that just to have it against the law for them to have in their possession any more than 10 grams, it's just inconvenient enough that maybe they would smoke less, and it would have less of an impact on their brain development.
I have actually witnessed people younger than 19 years old who have smoked, and I have seen the impacts. I was surprised because, up until I've seen it, until I've seen a 16-year-old boy in action after smoking marijuana, I didn't really believe that it had any impact on the brain development of a young person. Once I learned that, and then when we got to this legislation, and we got witnesses that spoke on it, I thought that this would just be enough of a deterrence to maybe change the habit just a bit, just to lower it just a bit, and it costs really nothing to do. It lowers the amount. It's a bit of a deterrence, and it doesn't really cost us anything. It's not really creating individuals that, maybe people don't want to carry more than 10 grams around anyway, but that's another matter altogether. I will support this motion. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Next, we have Mr. Thompson.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to thank the honourable Member for Frame Lake for bringing this motion forward.
In looking at this, and listening to the data out there, it's 25 and under. If we really want to have an impact on our youth and the brain development, we shouldn't allow it until the age of 25. When we talk about the possession of 10 grams or less, but it doesn't talk about the possession at home. They could have 10 grams in their pocket, and they can still have a whack of it at home. Ten grams is a lot. As we travelled, a gram works out to be about three joints. What's that? I'm getting educated here.
I'm just going by what the federal government task force said a joint weighed, was 0.3 of a gram. Even if it's half a gram per joint, that's still 20 joints on the person's possession. Having it is not going to be a deterrent. To me, having it on your person is not going to stop them. When I talked to the youth, and we had the pleasure of talking to three classes, they're going to get it whenever they want it. Let's be realistic about it. That is what they told us. They told us straight up that if they wanted to find something, they were going to get it.
I want to support this. If it was zero to the age of 25, and then having it say that it's not a criminal charge, maybe a fine, but the other challenge I have, though, is the ages of 19 to 25. That's our students going off to school. They're going to go off to school in other jurisdictions. The other jurisdictions say 30 grams. They're going to have that possession. They come back home without really thinking about it. I'll use an example of hockey players, beers in the hockey bag. You go into a dry community, and you open your bag, and what is that? A beer. Uh-oh. I mean, R.C. would never, ever say he would do that, but I've done it. I'm not supposed to say names. I apologize to the Minister, but I've seen it happen. I've seen it happen.
I do not want to put our youth into a situation where they're going to end up with a criminal record. Criminal records carry on, even so minor of a possession charge. We're seeing that right now in the mines, where people aren't able to work because of criminal records with drugs, just possession, and there are people not working.
I know people that were 18 years old, did something silly, crossed the border, and they can't cross that border anymore. I don't want to see us putting it in there and giving the youth an opportunity to have a criminal record. As much as I understand what the honourable Member is trying to do, I wish I could support it, but I just can't. If it was 25 and there was no possession, I would jump all over that. That, to me, is a deterrent, and I would have loved to have seen that motion.
I know the honourable Member from Frame Lake is trying to comprise and come up with a solution that works for everybody, but unfortunately, I can't support it. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Thompson. Next, we have Mr. Simpson.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I won't be supporting this motion, although I do agree with much of what has been said. One of my professors once said that the development of a 19yearold to a 25yearold's brain is like turning a dirt road into a superhighway. It is true that a lot of development happens during that stage, but reducing the possession limit, in my opinion, won't do anything to curb consumption.
When I see people coming out of the liquor store, 19to25yearolds, they're not carrying Texas mickeys; they're carrying bottles. They're not going to go in there and buy as much cannabis as they can. By allowing them to only buy less isn't going to make a difference. People go in there, they get what they need, and 10 grams is still a lot. It is a lot of cannabis to have. I mean, that's not a night's worth. That's going to last you for a long time. It's not going to be that inconvenient that it's going to be a big deterrent to you.
I do appreciate what the Member is doing. Like I said before, people are very concerned about the youth, and it's education. I disagree with the Member from Frame Lake in that sense. Education is the way to deal with this issue, just like smoking cigarettes. We have seen a massive decrease over the past few decades, and that is because of education.
I don't want to make this change, and the government says, "Look, we're doing something. We've reduced the possession limit for people under 25." Well, that's not doing something that's education. I don't want them to be able to use that as an excuse. For those reasons, I won't be supporting this. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Simpson. Next, we have Ms. Green.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, I am in support of this motion. I was in support of it even before the debacle of the last motion on colocation, where the government demonstrated irrevocably that they are not interested in harm reduction. I will continue to argue in favour of harm reduction, and I believe that this motion presents that possibility.
The intent of this motion is not to make life difficult for the casual user. It is to try and prevent casual users from becoming chronic users. It is aimed at presenting a level of deterrents to stop youth from becoming chronic users. The casual users are not our audience here. It's the chronic user who is going to jeopardize his or her brain development between the ages of 19 and 25, and what we are proposing here is a means of harm reduction. It is not the be-all and end-all. It needs to be done in conjunction with education, and it needs to be done in conjunction with support from the schools, educating youth about the risks of consuming cannabis, both casually and chronically.
There are a number of approaches that could be taken, but this motion, in my mind, leads the way to acknowledging what we heard in the southern tour about the need to help young people manage the risks to brain development by consuming cannabis, and it also responds to fears that parents have about their children becoming chronic users of cannabis.
It presents, I believe, harm reduction without a lot of effort on anyone's part. It is my understanding that enforcement of this entire act will be complaintsbased, so I don't perceive that having another enforcement tool would be onerous. It would, in fact, accomplish safety for our youth, and in the end, this bill is really about them. I would like to see a recorded vote on this. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Green. Next, we have Mr. Testart.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. This was not one of the committee motions, but I am glad the mover has brought this forward because it is an important issue, and we did hear a lot about the age limit. Many Members spoke to the minimum age for consumption. I know that this motion does not change that or propose to change that.
The mover also spoke about the jurisdictions of the states with a minimum age of 21. They also have a minimum age of 21 for the consumption of alcohol. In the European countries that have legalized cannabis, their ages are much lower, lower than what is being proposed: 18 in the Netherlands, just to use two examples, and 18 in Portugal. Portugal, in particular, has been very successful at curbing underage use of cannabis and did not require a higher age to do it.
I think, if the intention here is to increase the age because of the concerns about brain development, the motion should read that way. I don't think that establishing a limit, a twotiered system of possession, is going to be effective.
Chronic cannabis users can easily smoke 10 grams a day and be satisfied, I believe, and this doesn't change that. Consumption patterns are quite different in cannabis consumption than alcohol consumption. While I could see a better rationale if this was an alcohol limit, which would limit how many bottles you can buy or how much beer you could buy, dried cannabis is consumed very differently and has very different effects, and 10 grams is a lot of cannabis. It's not as much as 30, but it's still enough to get intoxicated off of.
I don't think this will have a huge difference, other than potentially putting someone between the age of 19 and 25 in criminal jeopardy should they go over that limit and be charged under the criminal code, and I think that is a significant concern for people aged 19 to 25. At this point, you're old enough to vote, you're most likely headed off to university if that's your choice, we're expecting you to be an adult, and, at this point, if public education has been put in place, you should be old enough to make responsible decisions, including how to responsibly use cannabis, and be very aware of the potentially hazardous effects it has on young brain development.
I should caution about the medical evidence we have on cannabis usage. It's not complete. It's an illegal substance, and, I've said this many times before, we haven't been able to study it as fully as tobacco or alcohol because it's been an illegal substance. The medical community is cautioning us with the best available evidence they have, and I'm not questioning that evidence, but what I'm saying is we don't know all the facts yet because we simply do not have enough evidence.
I don't think this is going to have an effect on cannabis consumption for those under the age of 25, and I think it does unduly create criminal jeopardy. Again, we should be using public education to support responsible cannabis usage and not heavy-handed measures like possession limits and Criminal Code charges. So I won't be supporting this amendment, thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Testart. Next, we have Mr. Nadli.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, I, too, will not be supporting this motion. I think colleagues have noted that there is a need for public education. I think it was resounding in our travels in communities that people wanted to know more about cannabis, or marijuana, as a product and, in some respects, its different forms and for its different purposes.
I think what should be known, too, and I think should be strongly stated by the House is that the best approach to dealing with marijuana, or cannabis, is that simple abstinence, trying to live a clean and healthy lifestyle, that means you don't need drugs, you don't need alcohol, and life is good. I think that's what we should be promoting and standing on that. That's a very simple message, but I think people need to hear that you can actually live without the use of alcohol or drugs and be on a natural high.
On record, too, I did, among my colleagues, propose the idea of increasing the age limit for the legalization of marijuana so that people have to be 21 to be able to access marijuana, but I don't think that had any traction at that time. Therefore, I won't be supporting this motion. Mahsi.
Thank you, Mr. Nadli. Next on the list, we have Minister Sebert.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I understand the legitimate concerns that have led to the bringing forth of this motion. There are concerns about heavy use of cannabis in this age group, I think that harm can best be reduced by public education. No other jurisdiction has set an age limit above 19. Ours is, of course, 19. Generally, jurisdictions have based their age on the same age as liquor. I also don't think that this would be particularly effective. This two-tiered system would be rather complicated, unique in Canada, as I said, and the harm we wish to reduce, I think, can be best accomplished through awareness. For those reasons, we won't be supporting this motion. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister Sebert. To the motion.
Question.
The Member for Frame Lake, the Member for Yellowknife Centre, the Member for Tu Nedhe-Wiilideh.
All those opposed, please rise.
The Member for Deh Cho, the Member for Nunakput, the Member for Inuvik Boot Lake, the Member for Range Lake, the Member for Great Slave, the Member for Yellowknife South, the Member for Hay River South, the Member for Inuvik Twin Lakes, the Member for Thebacha, the Member for Hay River North, the Member for Sahtu, the Member for Yellowknife North, the Member for Kam Lake, the Member for Nahendeh.
All those abstaining, please rise. Three in favour, 13 opposed. The motion is defeated.
---Defeated
Clause 11. Does the committee agree?
Agreed.
Agreed, thank you. Clauses 12 to 18. Does the committee agree?
Agreed.
Thank you. Clause 19. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I move that Schedule 8 of Bill 6 be amended by adding the following after Section 19:
19.1(1) In this section, "voter" means in relation to a community, a person who is on the list of voters prepared under the Local Authorities Elections Act for the most recent community election;
(2) If that's at least 20 per cent of the voters of a community in which a cannabis store has been in operation for two or more years, petition the Minister to hold a plebiscite. The Minister may order that a plebiscite be held to determine whether the voters of that community wish to establish a restricted-quantity system as described in paragraph 12(2)(b)(3). Sections 15 to 19 apply with any necessary modifications to a plebiscite ordered under Subsection 2.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. The motion has been made. The motion is being distributed. The motion is in order. To the motion, Mr. O'Reilly.
The purpose of this motion is to ensure that communities have one more tool to look at the effects of cannabis in their communities, and, if they're not happy with what's happening, then they would have the ability to hold a plebiscite for a restricted-quantity system, even if there's an operating store. That could only take place, though, two years after a store opens and if 20 per cent of voters in the community prepare a petition and only after the Minister allows for a plebiscite to go ahead.
Just to refresh people's minds, a restricted-quantity system is one of the three options that are open to communities, as set out in Section 12(2) of the bill. The three approaches are: an unrestricted system, the second is a restricted system, and the last is a prohibition system. I'm not talking about a prohibition system, this is not about prohibiting cannabis in a community where there is a store. This is about bringing in a plebiscite for a restricted-quantity system, "a restricted-quantity system where the quantity, or type of cannabis that persons may possess, purchase, transport, or bring into the community is limited."
It's not about prohibiting cannabis but if, after a store has been operating for a couple of years, the community would like to have some kind of restrictions placed on possession limits, what's sold through the store, that kind of thing, they would at least have the ability to petition for a plebiscite, and the plebiscite would only be held if the Minister agrees. So this is to give communities one more tool to express their views about cannabis, even if there's an operating store. Under the current bill, once the store opens, the community cannot have a plebiscite for prohibition, cannot have a plebiscite for a restricted quantity system; that door's closed. This would open the door to allow for a community to express its views.
The last thing I guess I want to say about this is that this is no different than the authority of the Minister. The Minister can set terms and conditions for cannabis sale in a store through the agreement that's negotiated with a vendor. The Minister also has authority under Section 71 to set the terms and condition of sales through the store. What this does is allow the community to have some authority, a tool to express its views once a store has been opened. So that's what this is about, is providing communities with one more tool. So I hope that Members would support it. Thanks, Mr. Chair
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. Next on the list, we have Mr. Simpson.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Briefly, I appreciate the Member's intent to give communities more tools; however, I can't support a motion that sets up another hurdle for small business in this territory, and if utilized, would have the effect of just simply shifting sales from the legal to the illegal. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Simpson. Mr. Thompson.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. After listening to Mr. O'Reilly with his motion and thinking about it long and hard, in one of the communities I represent we have a rationing system in place right now. So I thought about it and I think I'm going to support this. I understand the challenges there right now, but I think this gives the communities a chance to look at it after a twoyear period of time to see if this is what they want to do. This is a tool, and I thank him very much for bringing forward this motion, and I will be supporting it. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Thompson. To the motion.
Question.
Question has been called. All those in favour. Mr. Testart.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to call for a recorded vote.
The Member for Frame Lake, the Member for Nahendeh.
All those opposed, please rise.
The Member for Yellowknife Centre, the Member for Deh Cho, the Member for Nunakput, the Member for Inuvik Boot Lake, the Member for Range Lake, the Member for Great Slave, the Member for Inuvik Twin Lakes, the Member for Hay River South, the Member for Thebacha, the Member for Hay River North, the Member for Sahtu, the Member for Yellowknife North, the Member for Kam Lake.
All those abstaining, please rise.
The Member for Tu NedheWiilideh.
Two in favour, 13 opposed, one abstention. The motion is defeated.
---Defeated
Clause 19. Does committee agree?
Agreed.
Agreed. Thank you. Clauses 20 to 37. Does committee agree?
Agreed.
Agreed. Next, we have clause 38 to clause 60. Does committee agree?
