April 25th 2018 - Social Affairs Committee - Various Witnesses

Senator Poirier: The first question I have is for Mr. O’Soup. You said that Bill C-45 does not fully recognize the harmful effect of cannabis on the developing brain. We’ve heard different suggestions about how best to mitigate that risk, from raising the minimum age to purchase the cannabis to restricting cannabis qualities and the potency for those aged 25, as you suggested. Can you tell me why limiting the potency of the THC would be preferable to raising the minimum age and how that might work?

Mr. O’Soup: I’m not a doctor so somebody else may be better able to answer, but my understanding is that from the ages of 18 to 25, different potency levels have different effects on the developing brain. I’m speaking about that from what I’ve read but not as an expert at all. That’s why I make that statement and that’s why we make that statement.

Senator Poirier: Is there anyone else who would like to answer?

Ms. Valleriani: I would just like to comment on the THC potency caps. We’re just talking about cannabis varieties, dried cannabis, and restricting access to particular products for young adults. If we don’t give them access to legal, regulated, tested products, where they’re able to know exactly what they’re purchasing, we’re really just pushing them to the illegal market to access the products they want. It’s important to think about that. If you put restrictions on particular products, especially for that 18 to 25 or 19 to 25 age group, they are just able to access them off the illegal market. That’s also important when we’re considering what it means to protect young people. It might be a point of education and harm reduction to talk to them about those products and what their vulnerabilities might be rather than banning them outright.

Senator Poirier: My second question is for Dr. Jenkins. You mentioned — I took note of it and I think I understood correctly — and I assume this is based on research you have done, that young men are more at risk than women are. Could you expand on that a bit?

You also mentioned in your presentation that this research also indicates that the current approach to prevention and education is ineffective. Could you share with us what you recommend would be effective and what could happen that would make it better?

Ms. Jenkins: I’ve been drawing on a recent study published by Leos-Toro and colleagues. It uses data from the 2013 Canadian Tobacco, Alcohol and Drugs Survey, as well as the ASSIST tool for screening for problematic substance use. In their analysis, they break down the various types and forms of harms, whether those are health, social, financial or legal harms. They also separate out whether they’re harms associated with young people and adults feeling the need to cut down or having trouble stopping use. Then they disaggregate by gender. We find that harms are significantly higher in the young men who respond to the survey as opposed to young women. This mirrors evidence from other population-based surveys that show that the harms are concentrated amongst young men predominantly.

The second part of your question was regarding current education programs being ineffective. That’s kind of broadly speaking when they are abstinence-based, which is what the majority of our drug education programs in schools are. Young people find them difficult to believe. They don’t resonate with their own experiences and what they’re seeing. We would advocate for drug education that is more pragmatic, that takes a harm reduction approach and that recognizes that young people are using and is inclusive of that experience as well and how to minimize harms within the context of use.

Another important point that I want to make here is that education is absolutely necessary, but it’s not sufficient in reducing these harms. When we see that the harms are concentrated in these marginalized populations, that begs the questions: Why is that? What can we do to try to promote outcomes for those populations, drawing on a mental health promotion lens and working with communities to build on strengths and to support positive relationships and opportunities for youth?

Many of the youth that we’ve had in our studies describe using cannabis as something to do. It’s simply that they experience a lack of opportunity in their life. They don’t have ways to become meaningfully engaged in their communities, so cannabis is something to do with their time.

Addressing those social and structural conditions that contribute to using is going to be important in addition to a strong harm reduction-based education campaign.

--------

Senator Poirier: Just a follow-up from the first question I had about the education and age, when we had the minister here a while back and we questioned about how we are getting the education and educating the people on cannabis and the pros and cons and importance of it, there was a lot of talk about things being put out on social media. But last weekend when I was back home — I live in a small rural community — I spoke with students around 12 years old, Grade 7, and asked them, just out of curiosity, what do you know about cannabis? Do you know what it is? Do you follow social media? Do they talk about it at school? Is there anything they’re learning about it at school?

To my surprise, they knew it was a drug. They knew some people were out there smoking it. They did not follow social media and Twitter and things like that, and at school the teacher just said, “Don’t take drugs; it’s not good for you.” That’s as much education as they got.

Can you share with us what you think would be an appropriate age that we should start teaching? Right now we are talking about the 12-year-olds, and it’s the 12-year-olds I’m talking to. They can have the 5 grams and that’s where it’s starting. Obviously, in our minds, that means we’re saying there are already children at that young age that are consuming or have it. What would be an age that you would recommend that we should start educating? How can we go about providing the education that we need? If not through the home system, then some way through the parent system or, like you were saying, different organizations, and what age do you think we should start doing that?

Ms. Jenkins: As you’ve mentioned, with the legalization and the 12 years old, the earlier the better. Young people are largely aware of what cannabis is or it being a substance out there that people use. The opportunity to start engaging them as early as possible, in the early primary years, in discussions about this substance is important. It also helps to normalize that discussion and make it a part of normal interactions that a young person has with a parent so they’re comfortable coming to them later on in life about that issue. That would also help to decrease stigma that surrounds that and other mental health and substance-use issues so there is that opportunity to seek help more openly when needed.

Mr. O’Soup: I would say as a teacher, as a parent — and I would liken this to our mental health research on suicides. In our research, we found children as young as six years old dying by suicide. So when is too early? It’s never too early to start having that discussion. Of course, it has to be age-appropriate and at their level of understanding. We have to make sure that it’s not scaring them but educating them.

As young as people are being introduced to it, that’s as young as they should be educated about it. I liken it to the residential school system. Someone asked me one time, “How soon should we be teaching our kids about the residential school system?” I said, “Well, how young were they when they were taken away from their parents?” They were four or five years old. That’s when we can start educating them. I believe this can apply in this area as well.

< Back to: C-45 in Committee