Memorandum
Date:
To:
From:
Subject:
August 29, 2016
Task Force on Marijuana Legalization and Regulation
Cannabis Canada Association
Response to Public Consultations: Toward the legalization, regulation and
restriction of access to marijuana
Introduction
The Task Force issued a Discussion Paper to support its consultations on key questions related
to the legalization, regulation and restriction of access to marijuana. In it are set forth the
Government of Canada’s objectives for a new regime for legal access to marijuana, elements of
this regime that the Government considers self-evident, and issues which have been grouped
into five themes upon which the Government is seeking advice and input from experts and
stakeholders:
1. Minimizing harms of use.
2. Establishing a safe and responsible production system.
3. Designing an appropriate distribution system.
4. Enforcing public safety and protection.
5. Accessing marijuana for medical purposes.
Cannabis Canada Association is well-positioned to help. Cannabis Canada represents the
majority of cannabis producers licensed under Health Canada’s Marijuana for Medical Purposes
Regulations (MMPR), which has been recently modified and renamed Access to Cannabis for
Medical Purposes Regulations (ACMPR).
Canada’s Licensed Producers have been effective partners to the Government for the
establishment of a strict, well-regulated Canadian system for the production and distribution of
medical cannabis that is the envy of the world.
August 29, 2016
1|Page
Our submission focusses on the areas where we have unparalleled expertise and practical
experience: how to produce and distribute safe, quality-controlled marijuana, from coast to
coast to coast, and ensure that only those who are eligible can access it – helping the
Government achieve its objectives of keeping the product out of the hands of children and the
proceeds out of the hands of criminals.
We would be pleased to answer questions from the Task Force about our submission at any
time.
Summary
There is no need for a new system – a safe and responsible system already exists
There is no need to try and develop a new production and distribution system for legalized
marijuana, Canada already has a world-leading regulatory environment for safe and responsible
production and distribution of marijuana. Expanding the proven system that exists for medical
cannabis to include non-medical users is the lowest risk, most efficient way for the Government
of Canada to deliver on its promise to legalize marijuana while meeting its public health and
public safety objectives.
All Canadian consumers of marijuana, not just patients, should have access to safe, qualitycontrolled and consistent products.
Under the current system:







Production facilities are state of the art, sanitary, secure and professionally operated.
Products are consistent, high quality and protected from contamination.
Products are packaged and labelled to protect children and ensure that adults have
information to make informed choices.
There is competition, with a wide array of products available at different price points.
There is a proven distribution system that ensures products reach their intended recipients,
with no diversion to the illegal market.
There is no impact on the surrounding communities.
All products are fully traceable.
A phased in approach
A phased-in approach, immediately available, that builds upon the proven distribution system
for medical cannabis by federal secure mail, minimizes the risk of uncontrolled or illegal sales.
August 29, 2016
2|Page
This model aligns with the Government of Canada’s objectives of strict regulation and control
that keeps the product out of the hands of children and the profits out of the hands of
criminals. It guarantees equal access to a full range of products, supporting selection and choice
throughout the country.
Non-medical access can be achieved by amending the access rules to allow for verification and
registration of non-medical clients. This allows for the introduction of a regulatory regime for
the non-medical use of cannabis in a streamlined and efficient manner, with zero impact on
Canadian communities, while the provinces work to establish any additional distribution
channels.
Canada’s Licensed Producers are proven partners, ready to help the Government meet its
public health and public safety objectives
Licensed Producers have been effective partners for the establishment of a strict, wellregulated system for the production and distribution of marijuana.
Today, with over 900 employees across the country and over 1.6 million square feet of
potential growing capacity, Canada’s Licensed Producers are in the best position to produce
high quality, safe, and consistent products in sufficient quantities to meet consumer demand
across Canada.
Licensed Producers are knowledgeable and experienced with regard to the quality, safety and
potency of marijuana, and about how to control production and distribution so that only those
who are eligible can access it. Licensed Producers already have seed-to-sale control measures
in place. They are well-positioned to help the Government establish baseline data and ongoing
surveillance measures to evaluate the impact of its regulatory framework.
Increasing distribution channels – 13 principles
We recognize that provinces may want to establish their own models to complement the
federal, secure mail-order system.
Our association and membership have a channel-agnostic, principle-driven position on
additional distribution channels for non-medical marijuana. We support any distribution
channel that, like ours:
 Is fully legal and compliant with federal, provincial and municipal regulations.
 Provides fresh, high quality, safe and regulated products.
August 29, 2016
3|Page

Allows for a seed-to-sale chain of custody, so that legal product is easily distinguished
from black or grey market product.
 Provides controlled distribution to protect public safety.
 Provides mechanisms to keep product out of children’s hands.
 Has no negative impact on communities and minimizes normalization/exposure to
children.
 Does not sell alcohol, in recognition of the more serious impairment that results from
combined consumption.
 Supports equal access across Canada, including in rural and remote locations.
 Keeps product prices at a level comparable to or below those found on black market.
 Supports consumer selection and choice.
 Provides knowledgeable customer service and support for a new and complex product.
 Includes a post-sale relationship to protect public health (adverse reaction reporting,
product feedback loop, recalls, etc.).
 Supports data collection so as to permit monitoring of the impact of the new
framework.
As other future distribution models are developed, it is imperative that the federal government
work with the provinces and territories to ensure that there are no inter-provincial trade
barriers to the sale of cannabis produced within Canada, providing equal access for all
Canadians and minimizing risks of trafficking or jurisdiction shopping.
Ensuring that the framework established does not prevent participation by Licensed
Producers in future retail distribution models developed by the provinces
While some of Canada’s Licensed Producers will prefer to continue to focus mainly on
production, others are prepared to play a part in retail. Indeed, some of our members feel that
their future viability depends on their ability to participate in the eventual retail market.
The regulatory framework should allow for either model, similar to the approach taken in
Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Maryland, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington, D.C., where this type of
vertical integration is neither required nor prohibited.
A producer-run retail model could be phased in, building upon the proven distribution system
for medical cannabis by federal secure mail, adding, as is described in the Discussion Paper, a
legal, regulated retail environment to provide an effective replacement to the current illegal
sellers that exist in many Canadian cities. Such a model would be fully compliant with the 13
principles.
August 29, 2016
4|Page
Bringing Licensed Producers in as part of a retail system engages trusted partners who have
proven themselves effective in establishing a strict, well-regulated system for the production
and distribution of marijuana.
Delivering on a campaign promise and developing a new industry
Expanding the existing world-class medical cannabis system to include non-medical marijuana
protects a new industry in Canada that, while barely beginning to recoup its significant start-up
investments, shows promise of being an engine of development for Canada. Canada’s strictlyregulated industry is attracting attention from around the world. Some Licensed Producers are
already exporting.
Guaranteeing Licensed Producers a place in the new production, distribution and retail system
empowers them to make the business decisions that will ensure that Canada has an adequate
supply of safe, high-quality, legal marijuana for the consumer market. Indeed, a more profitable
industry will attract more entrants, increasing market competition and thus decreasing prices,
and minimizing the appeal of the black market.
Moreover, a stronger industry of licensed producers and sellers will be in a position to
contribute positively to Canada’s economy (more jobs, growth, and exports) and to reinvest (in
research, in communities, in public education and information).
Protecting the rights of patients
The benefits of medical cannabis are well-documented. In addition to the therapeutic benefits
highlighted in the discussion paper -- managing symptoms of illnesses such as multiple sclerosis,
nausea caused by cancer chemotherapy, epilepsy, etc. – recent reports have found other
substantial benefits, especially significant to Canadian policy makers in the face of the current
opioid crisis: states where marijuana has been made legal have experienced what has been
described as a “stunning drop” in the number of painkillers prescribed by physicians, increasing
public safety, decreasing pressures on health care systems and significantly lower state-level
opioid overdose mortality rates.
The existing system for medical cannabis production and distribution is proven, safe and
secure. It must be maintained to allow proper access for Canadian patients. An expansion of the
medical cannabis system to include recreational marijuana is the best way to meet both the
Government’s objective of enabling access to marijuana for those who require it for medical
reasons, and its commitment to put in place a strict regulatory framework for non-medical
August 29, 2016
5|Page
marijuana that keeps the product out of the hands of children and the profits out of the hands
of criminals.
Though available products are the same for medical and non-medical products, medical use
would still need to be overseen and prescribed by health care professionals. Moreover, the
medical cannabis system needs to remain affordable, zero-rated for taxation, accepted by drug
formularies, and accessible to all Canadian patients.
In its announcement of the ACMPR, the Government indicated that Health Canada is
committed to studying other models, including pharmacy distribution, to provide access to
cannabis for medical purposes. While an eventual move to improve retail access is welcome,
pharmacies should not be the only retailer as they are unlikely to be in a position to support
patient choice and selection, in terms of access to the full spectrum of strains and products that
patients need.
The ability of Licensed Producers to address this potential limitation and provide service to
even the most remote areas of the country using the federal mail service are both reasons why
the existing model for the production and distribution of medical cannabis should be an integral
element of any future medical (and adult use/recreational) distribution model.
Home cultivation and designated growing, whether for medical or non-medical marijuana,
need close oversight and regulation to prevent past abuses from reoccurring
Policy-makers must take a thoughtful and careful approach to allowing people to grow at home,
examining whether it adds value to the system in contrast to the risks it presents. Consideration
has to be given to public safety and public security. This includes the protection of minors,
traceable and taxable supply, safe and tested product, no impact to the communities and
security clearances to ensure that home growers have no ties with organized crime.
We support the Government’s attempt to meet the Court’s demands through its recently
announced Access to Cannabis for Medical Purposes Regulations (ACMPR). We also support
increased access to medical cannabis for Canadian patients. However, we are concerned that
this policy will only serve to increase the supply of untested, unregulated product to the illegal
market.
Like the Government, we recognize that home cultivation and designated growing are
complicated and costly to implement and to oversee. Another drawback of home cultivation is
that it does not support the collection of evidence for policy making.
August 29, 2016
6|Page
If the Government were to continue to allow home cultivation, it should be tightly controlled,
with clearly communicated limitations:




Require personal production to take place only within private and primary residences.
Introduce a strict limit on the number of plants per residence.
Require code compliance and notifications to local authorities.
Require security clearance to ensure no ties with organized crime.
If designated growing is allowed at all, it too should be limited and strictly controlled Indeed,
designated growers should be subject to the same regulations that Licensed Producers comply
with, so as to ensure that diversion does not once again become a problem that undermines
the safeguards of the legal system.
The best framework finds the right balance between objectives, while minimizing risk and
guarding against unintended consequences
A minimum age is a sensible way to address objective of keeping marijuana out of the hands of
youth and children, the population at highest risk of harm. However, according to the
Discussion Paper the greatest use of non-medical marijuana is among those under 25, so setting
the minimum age too high, for example 25 and older, might have the unintended consequence
of fuelling the black market, and of exposing a vulnerable group to criminal elements and to
potentially unsafe and unregulated products.
Consistency in age limits and production and distribution models across provinces and
territories provides equal access for all Canadians and minimizes risks of trafficking or
jurisdiction shopping.
There is ample evidence that cannabis is not as harmful as either alcohol or tobacco. The
Discussion Paper underlines that health risks centre on frequency of use, age at which use
begins, contaminated product and individual health status. Therefore, rather than having a goal
of elimination of use, like tobacco, it would be sensible to adopt an approach that, as with
alcohol, seeks to promote responsible use amongst adults, and prohibit use among youth, the
population recognized to be at risk for harm.
While it is true that unbridled advertising and marketing might increase harm, there is a clear
need for information and communication. Marijuana is a new and complex product for most
Canadian consumers, with many different strains, levels of potency, and characteristics
(product form, long acting vs short, fast acting vs slow). Moreover, there is a great deal of
confusion about the legitimacy of players in the current environment. It is essential that
August 29, 2016
7|Page
producers can properly communicate product features to inform both consumer choice and
safe and responsible use to reduce harm.
Advertising regulations similar to the beverage alcohol industry, where advertising within
established parameters is permitted might therefore be appropriate.
Similarly, rather than setting arbitrary limits on product range or potency, which might
inadvertently fuel the black market, the focus should be on public education to inform both
consumer choice and safe and responsible use.
Time is of the essence
In considering ways in which to minimize the harms of use, Government should keep in mind
that acting quickly to establish and enforce a system of strict production, distribution and sales
is part of minimizing harm.
The proliferation of illegal sales online and through store-front “dispensaries” is escalating,
despite recent efforts to clamp down, and an unsafe system that fuels the black market is
becoming ever more entrenched. Moreover, there is a great deal of confusion about the
legitimacy of players in the current environment. Communities are feeling the impact.
The “wild west” environment is creating confusion. Reporters, commentators and activists
make specious distinctions between legal and illegal dispensaries, whereas in fact all
dispensaries that sell marijuana are illegal, since there is no legal way for dispensaries to obtain
marijuana for sale.
The recent explosion of a dispensary on a busy street in Forest Hill highlights the importance of
continuing to forcefully enforce Canada’s laws in the period leading up to legalization.
August 29, 2016
8|Page
Detailed Section-by-Section Response
SECTION I: MINIMIZING HARMS OF USE
Q1 Do you believe that these measures* are appropriate to achieve the overarching
objectives to minimize harms, and in particular to protect children and youth?
*Seven measures are presented in the discussion paper:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Minimum age for legal purchase;
Advertising and marketing restrictions to minimize the profile and attractiveness of products;
Taxation and pricing;
Restrictions on marijuana products (potency);
Restrictions on marijuana products (type of product);
Limitations on quantities for personal possession;
Limitations on where marijuana can be sold
Section I, Question 1.1 Measures to reduce harm: Minimum Age
Cannabis Canada Response
A minimum age is a sensible idea, but setting it too high will likely fuel the black market.
There will need to be carve-outs for young patients who need medical cannabis to manage
their symptoms.
• Canada’s Licensed Producers support measures to minimize harms of use, and agree
based upon their experience, with the notion articulated in the Discussion Paper that
measures in support of this objective must be balanced against the risk of increasing the
appeal of the black market, and thus not meeting the objective of keeping profits out of
the hands of criminals and organized crime.
• A minimum age is a sensible way to address objective of keeping marijuana out of the
hands of youth and children, the population at highest risk of harm.
• Another important objective of is keeping the proceeds out of the hands of criminals.
• Given that according to the Discussion Paper, the greatest use of recreational marijuana
was among those under 25, setting the minimum age too high, for example 25 and
older, would have the unintended consequence of fuelling the black market and
potentially exposing a vulnerable group to criminal elements and to potentially unsafe
and unregulated products.
• Allowing a patchwork of different rules regarding minimum age may also encourage
illicit activity, including diversion across provincial borders.
• There will need to be carve-outs for young patients who need medical cannabis to
manage their symptoms.
• Canada’s Licensed Producers are prepared to continue to play their part to keep
marijuana out of the hands of children.
August 29, 2016
9|Page
Section I, Question 1.2 Measures to reduce harm: Advertising, branding and marketing
Cannabis Canada Response
Canada’s Licensed Producers support measures to control commercialization, but caution
that with a new and complex product (many different strains, levels of potency, and
characteristics), there is a need for branding and advertising, subject to regulation, to ensure
that the objective of ensuring Canadians can make well-informed choices is met.
• There are a wide variety of cannabis strains, with different potencies, effects (according
to their THC and CBD levels), and characteristics (odour, product form, etc.). It is
important that producers can properly communicate the features of each one to inform
both consumer choice and safe and responsible use to reduce potential harm.
Therefore, branding of products in both the medical and non-medical systems must be
allowed to occur. It goes without saying that necessary public policy safeguards would
be in place.
• Moreover, there is a great deal of confusion about the legitimacy of players in the
current environment. Advertising by legitimate players would help to clarify the
situation and shut down the illegal market.
• There is ample evidence that cannabis is not as harmful as either alcohol or tobacco.
The Discussion Paper itself points this out and highlights that health risks centre on
frequency of use, age at which use begins, contaminated product and individual health
status.
• Therefore, rather than having a goal of elimination of use, like tobacco, it would be
sensible to adopt an approach that, as with alcohol, seeks to promote responsible use
amongst adults, and prohibit use among youth, the population recognized to be at risk
for harm.
• Advertising regulations akin to those currently applied to the beverage alcohol industry,
where advertising that does not appeal to children or youth is permitted, within
established parameters, would therefore be appropriate.
• Further, some share of government revenues should be allocated to educational
programs on responsible use of cannabis, and protection of public health and safety.
• Canada’s Licensed Producers would be pleased to put their product knowledge and
expertise at the disposal of the Panel as they further consider this issue.
Section I, Question 1.3 Measures to reduce harm: Taxation and pricing
Cannabis Canada Response
When setting taxes for recreational marijuana, it is important to consider that the black
market is very entrenched and too high a price will fuel it.
Medical cannabis should be zero rated to ensure that the product remains affordable and
accessible to Canadian patients.
• The Discussion Paper points out that, when used appropriately, effective taxation and
price controls can discourage the use of marijuana and provide the government with
August 29, 2016
10 | P a g e
•
•
•
•
•
•
revenues to offset related costs, with the caveat that the use of taxation and pricing
measures must be properly balanced against the need to minimize the attractiveness of
the black market and dissuade illegal production and trafficking.
Canada’s Licensed Producers support measures to minimize harms of use, and agree
based upon their experience, with the notion articulated in the Discussion Paper that
measures in support of this objective must be balanced against the risk of increasing the
appeal of the black market, and thus not meeting the objective of keeping profits out of
the hands of criminals and organized crime.
Decisions in this area and others must be made based on desired outcomes.
With respect to medical cannabis, in order to ensure access, product selection and
choice, it is imperative that cannabis products sold for medical purposes be zero rated in
their GST/HST treatment.
Consideration should also be given to creating a subsidy for low-income patients.
These measures will help ensure that medical cannabis remains affordable and
accessible for lower income patients managing chronic health conditions.
Additionally, effort must continue to have medical cannabis covered by private and
public health insurers.
Section I, Question 1.4 Measures to reduce harm: Restrictions on marijuana products
(potency)
Cannabis Canada Response
Rather than limiting potency to an arbitrary level of THC, the focus should be on public
education.
• While the Government may want to set a maximum threshold for potency of THC in
marijuana destined for the non-medical market, this may have the unintended
consequence of fuelling the black market, especially if levels are set too low.
• Rather than limiting potency to an arbitrary level of THC, the focus should be on public
education.
– A beer and a shot of whiskey have very different potencies, ounce for ounce, yet
both are sold to consumers. It makes more sense to focus on public education
rather than on limiting potency to an arbitrary level of THC.
• To ensure consistency across Canada in product quality and availability, the federal
government should be responsible for determining which cannabis products may be
produced for medical or non-medical purposes.
– Product approval should be conducted through what is currently named “Office
of Medical Cannabis” within Health Canada.
• Canada’s Licensed Producers are prepared to continue to do their part to educate and
inform Canadians.
• In terms of medical marijuana, patients should be able to access the type, amount and
potency of product recommended by their physician.
August 29, 2016
11 | P a g e
Section I, Question 1.5 Measures to reduce harm: Restrictions on marijuana products (type of
product)
Cannabis Canada Response
The ability to offer a range of legal products will more effectively shut out the black market.
That said, no products should be offered that target or appeal to children.
• Production of a variety of products should be allowed in order to more effectively shut
out the black market; these could even be pilot-tested through the medical cannabis
system which would allow for effective data collection to facilitate ongoing research and
evaluation.
• Rather than limiting products to an arbitrary range, the focus should be on public
education.
– Different types of products have different properties that are appropriate for
different circumstances, for example fast or slow acting, long or short lasting.
• Products that target or appeal to children or youth should be prohibited.
• Canada’s Licensed Producers are prepared to continue to do their part to educate and
inform Canadians and keep products out of the hands of children and youth.
• To ensure consistency across Canada in product quality and availability, the federal
government should be responsible for determining which cannabis products may be
produced for medical or non-medical purposes.
– Product approval should be conducted through what is currently named “Office
of Medical Cannabis” within Health Canada.
• In terms of medical marijuana, patients should be able to access the type, amount and
potency of product recommended by their physician.
Section I, Question 1.6 Measures to reduce harm: Limitations on quantities for personal
possession
Cannabis Canada Response
Limiting quantities for personal possession is sensible.
The special needs of patients using medical cannabis must be considered.
• In order to meet the objective of eliminating the black and grey markets for marijuana,
and to limit the potential for diversion, it is sensible to limit the amount that may be
purchased at one time.
• To be able to effectively enforce limits, there must be some kind centralized
data/control across the country.
• Patients should be able to access the amount and potency of product recommended by
their physician.
August 29, 2016
12 | P a g e
Section I, Question 1.7 Measures to reduce harm: Limitation on where marijuana can be sold
Cannabis Canada Response
A phased-in approach, which builds upon the proven distribution system for medical cannabis
by federal secure mail minimizes the risk of uncontrolled or illegal sales.
• Our position on retail distribution is detailed in our response to Section 3.
Section I, Question 2: Are there other actions which the Government should consider
enacting alongside these measures?
Cannabis Canada Response
In considering ways in which to minimize the harms of use, Government should keep in mind
that acting quickly to establish and enforce a system of strict production, distribution and
sales is part of minimizing harm.
• Time is of the essence.
• The proliferation of illegal sales online and through store-front “dispensaries” is
escalating and an unsafe system that fuels the black market is becoming ever more
entrenched. Moreover, there is a great deal of confusion about the legitimacy of players
in the current environment. Communities are feeling the impact.
• The source of the product sold in these dispensaries is by definition criminal as there is
no legal way for dispensaries to obtain product for sale.
• It is essential to continue to pro-actively enforce Canada’s laws in the period leading up
to legalization.
Section I, Question 3: What are your views on the minimum age for purchasing and
possessing marijuana? Should the minimum age be consistent across Canada, or is it
acceptable that there be variation amongst provinces and territories?
Cannabis Canada Response
A minimum age is a sensible idea, but setting it too high will likely fuel the black market.
Allowing a patchwork of different rules regarding minimum age may also encourage illicit
activity, including diversion across provincial borders. Moreover, it will make meeting
enforcement objectives more difficult.
• Canada’s Licensed Producers support measures to minimize harms of use, and agree
based upon their experience, with the notion articulated in the Discussion Paper that
measures in support of this objective must be balanced against the risk of increasing the
appeal of the black market, and thus not meeting the objective of keeping profits out of
the hands of criminals and organized crime.
• A minimum age is a sensible way to address objective of keeping marijuana out of the
hands of youth and children, the population at highest risk of harm.
• Another important objective of is keeping the proceeds out of the hands of criminals.
August 29, 2016
13 | P a g e
•
•
•
Given that according to the Discussion Paper, the greatest use of recreational marijuana
was among those under 25, setting the minimum age too high, for example 25 and
older, would have the unintended consequence of fuelling the black market and of
exposing a vulnerable group to criminal elements and to potentially unsafe and
unregulated products.
Allowing a patchwork of different rules regarding minimum age may also encourage
illicit activity, including diversion across provincial borders. Moreover, it will make
meeting enforcement objectives more difficult.
Canada’s Licensed Producers are prepared to continue to play their part to keep
marijuana out of the hands of children.
SECTION 2: ESTABLISHING A SAFE AND RESPONSIBLE PRODUCTION SYSTEM
Section II, Question 1: What are your views on the most appropriate production model?
Which production model would best meet consumer demand while ensuring that public
health and safety objectives are achievable? What level and type of regulation is needed for
producers?
Cannabis Canada Response
There is no need to try and develop a new production system, a safe and responsible
production system already exists under the ACMPR. Strict regulation can always be loosened
over time, but the inverse is not easy to do.
• All Canadian consumers of marijuana, not just patients, should have access to safe,
quality-controlled and consistent products.
• Canada’s licensed producers are in the best position to produce high quality, safe, and
consistent products in sufficient quantities to meet consumer demand while ensuring
that the Government’s public health and safety objectives are met.
• To provide for the protection of consumers and neighbourhoods, all marijuana
production, both medical and non-medical, should be governed federally and should
occur pursuant to the established federal regime (ACMPR) to ensure the highest
standards for quality, safety and traceability of all products.
• Under the ACMPR:
– Production facilities are state of the art, sanitary, secure and professionally
operated.
– Products are tested, consistent, high quality and protected from contamination.
– Products are packaged and labelled to protect children and ensure that adults
have information to make informed choices.
– There is zero impact on neighbourhoods.
– There is competition, with a wide array of products available at different price
points.
August 29, 2016
14 | P a g e
•
– Licensed producers have established and refined seed to sale controls that
ensures products reach their intended recipients, with no diversion to the illegal
market.
– All products are fully traceable.
Moreover, this model allows for effective ongoing data collection, to monitor the impact
of the new framework, and to facilitate ongoing research, evaluation and public
education.
Section II, Question 2: To what extent, if any, should home cultivation be allowed in a
legalized system? What, if any, government oversight should be put in place?
Cannabis Canada Response
Home cultivation and designated growing, whether for medical or non-medical marijuana,
need close oversight and regulation to prevent past abuses from reoccurring
 Policy-makers must take a thoughtful and careful approach to allowing people to grow
at home, examining whether it adds value to the system in contrast to the risks it
presents.
 Consideration has to be given to public safety and public security. This includes the
protection of minors, traceable and taxable supply, safe and tested product, no impact
on the communities and security clearances to ensure that home growers have no ties
with organized crime.
 We support the Government’s attempt to meet the Court’s demands through its
recently announced Access to Cannabis for Medical Purposes Regulations (ACMPR). We
also support increased access to medical cannabis for Canadian patients. However, we
are concerned that this policy will only serve to increase the supply of untested,
unregulated product to the illegal market.
 Like the Government, we recognize that home cultivation and designated growing are
complicated and costly to implement and to oversee.
 According to the Government’s own analysis, issues with cultivation at home include
increased risks to the growers and their families from mould, pesticides, fire and home
invasion. Communities too are acknowledged to be at risk, with negative impacts on
neighbours, landlords, local services and law enforcement.
 All of these issues also apply to designated growers; none of them apply to Licensed
Producers.
 Moreover, the Government has also acknowledged that Health Canada inspectors were
unable to provide effective oversight of home cultivation and of designated growers
when the practices were allowed in the past.
 Another drawback of home cultivation is that it does not support the collection of
evidence for policy making.
 If the Government were to continue to allow home cultivation, it should be tightly
controlled, with clearly communicated limitations.
August 29, 2016
15 | P a g e
o Require personal production to take place only within private and primary
residences.
o Introduce a strict limit on the number of plants per residence.
o Require code compliance and notifications to local authorities.
o Require security clearance to ensure no ties with organized crime.


If designated growing is allowed at all, it too should be limited and strictly controlled.
Indeed, designated growers should be subject to the same regulations that Licensed
Producers comply with, so as to ensure that diversion does not once again become a
problem that undermines the safeguards of the legal system, and so all Canadian
consumers of marijuana have access to safe, quality-controlled and consistent products.
Rather than allowing home cultivation or designated growing, with all the associated
risks, the Government may wish to consider instead the possibility of providing a
subsidy to low-income patients to increase their access to medical cannabis.
Section II, Question 3: Should a system of licensing or other fees be introduced?
Cannabis Canada Response
Given that the cost of producing safe and high quality marijuana, according to strict
regulations, is already very high, there is a risk that additional fees would form a higher
barrier to entry, thus limiting competition within the industry, and force prices higher,
thus increasing the attractiveness of black market products.
• The costs implicit in meeting the high production standards necessary to protect public
health and safety are already very high.
• Moreover, entering into this industry already requires a very high amount of capital
investment, with a high degree of risk, and no public support.
• If entry to market and operating costs are too high:
– It will limit competition in the marketplace.
– The price of legal products will not be competitive with those offered on the
black market.
• Recovering the cost of oversight of the system, including inspection fees, would be an
appropriate use of tax dollars collected.
Section II, Question 4: The MMPR/ACMPR set out rigorous requirements over the
production, packaging, storage and distribution of marijuana. Are these types of
requirements appropriate for the new system? Are there features that you would add, or
remove?
Cannabis Canada Response
All Canadian consumers of marijuana, not just patients, should have access to safe,
quality-controlled and consistent products.
August 29, 2016
16 | P a g e
•
•
•
•
Canada’s licensed producers are in the best position to produce high quality, safe, and
consistent products to meet consumer demand while ensuring that the Government’s
public health and safety objectives are met.
To provide for the protection of consumers and neighbourhoods, all production, both
medical and non-medical, should be governed federally and should occur pursuant to
the established federal regime (ACMPR) to ensure the highest standards for quality,
safety and traceability for all cannabis.
Under the ACMPR:
– Production facilities are state of the art, sanitary, secure and professionally
operated.
– Products are consistent, high quality and protected from contamination.
– Products are packaged and labelled to protect children and ensure that adults
have information to make informed choices.
– There is competition, with a wide array of products available at different price
points.
– Licensed producers have established and refined a delivery system that ensures
products reach their intended recipients, with no diversion to the illegal market.
– All products are fully traceable.
Moreover, this model allows for effective ongoing data collection, to monitor the impact
of the new framework.
Section II, Question 5: What role, if any, should existing licensed producers under the
MMPR/ACMPR have in the new system (either in the interim or the long-term)?
Cannabis Canada Response
Canada’s Licensed Producers are best placed to help the Government meet its objectives
for legalized marijuana. Expanding the ACMPR to include consumer users is the lowest
risk solution; it guarantees access across the country, with an economic upside for
Canada.
• Expanding the existing, world-leading regulatory environment for production and
distribution that Licensed Producers operate in under the ACMPR is the lowest risk,
most efficient way for the Government of Canada to deliver on its promise to legalize
marijuana while meeting its public health and public safety objectives.
– Guaranteeing Licensed Producers a place in the new system empowers them to
make the business decisions that will ensure that Canada has an adequate supply
of safe, high quality, legal marijuana for the consumer market.
• Expanding the ACMPR to include recreational marijuana protects a new industry in
Canada that, while barely beginning to recoup its significant start-up investments, shows
promise of being an engine of development for Canada, including rural communities.
– Canada’s strictly-regulated industry is attracting attention from around the
world. Some Licensed Producers are already exporting.
• Canada’s Licensed Producers are proven partners, law-abiding (security cleared,
protecting children, no diversion of product) and trustworthy.
August 29, 2016
17 | P a g e
– Licensed Producers have been effective partners for the establishment of a
strict, well-regulated system for the production and distribution of marijuana.
– Licensed Producers are knowledgeable and experienced with regard to the
quality, safety and potency of marijuana, and about how to control production
and distribution so that only those who are eligible can access it.
– Licensed Producers already have seed to sale control measures in place. They are
well-positioned to help the Government establish baseline data and ongoing
surveillance measures to evaluate the impact of the new framework.
SECTION 3: DESIGNING AN APPROPRIATE DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
Section III, Question 1: Which distribution model makes the most sense and why?
Cannabis Canada Response
Canada’s Licensed Producers are best placed to help the Government meet its objectives for
legalized marijuana. Expanding the ACMPR to include non-medical users is the lowest risk
solution, which guarantees access across the country, with an economic upside for Canada.
A phased-in approach, immediately available, that builds upon the proven distribution
system for medical cannabis by federal secure mail minimizes the risk of uncontrolled or
illegal sales.
There are 13 principles that must guide the selection of further distribution channels, if
federal objectives are to be met.




The federal mail order system has been successful under the MMPR/ ACMPR, and must be allowed
to continue for medical patients, and be expanded for the use of the consumer buyer. This model
aligns with the Government of Canada’s objectives of strict regulation and control that keeps the
product out of the hands of children and the profits out of the hands of criminals. It guarantees
equality of access of product selection and choice from coast to coast to coast.
Non-medical access can be achieved by amending the access rules of ACMPR to allow for
verification and registration of non-medical clients. This allows for the introduction of a regulatory
regime for the non-medical use of cannabis in a streamlined and efficient manner, with zero impact
on Canadian communities, while the provinces work to establish any additional distribution
channels.
We recognize that provinces may want to establish their own models to complement the federal,
secure mail-order system.
Our association and membership have a channel-agnostic, principle-driven position on additional
distribution channels for recreational marijuana. We support any distribution channel that:
– Is fully legal and compliant with federal, provincial and municipal regulations.
– Provides fresh, high quality, safe and regulated products.
August 29, 2016
18 | P a g e
– Allows for a seed-to-sale chain of custody, so that legal product is easily
distinguished from black or grey market product.
– Provides controlled distribution to protect public safety.
– Provides mechanisms to keep product out of children’s hands.
– Has no negative impact on communities and minimizes normalization/exposure to
children.
– Does not sell alcohol, in recognition of the more serious impairment which
results from combined consumption.
– Supports equal access across Canada, including in rural and remote locations.
– Keeps product prices at a level comparable to or below those found on black
market.
– Supports consumer selection and choice.
– Provides knowledgeable customer service and support for a new and complex
product.
– Includes a post-sale relationship to protect public health (adverse reaction reporting,
product feedback loop, recalls, etc.).
– Supports data collection so as to permit monitoring of the impact of the new
framework.

As other future distribution models are developed, it is imperative that the federal government
work with the provinces and territories to ensure that there are no inter-provincial trade barriers to
the sale of cannabis produced within Canada, providing equal access for all Canadians and minimizes
risks of trafficking or jurisdiction shopping.
Section III, Question 2: To what extent is variation across provinces and territories in terms of
distribution models acceptable?
Cannabis Canada Response
Consistency in distribution models is essential.
 Consistency in distribution models across provinces and territories provides equal access for
all Canadians and minimizes risks of trafficking or jurisdiction shopping.
 As future distribution models are developed, it is imperative that the federal government
work with the provinces and territories to ensure that there are no inter-provincial trade
barriers to the sale of cannabis produced within Canada.
 Our association and membership have a channel-agnostic, principle-driven position on
additional distribution channels for non-medical marijuana. We support any distribution
channel that meets the 13 principles outlined above.
August 29, 2016
19 | P a g e
Section III, Question 3: Are there other models worthy of consideration?
Cannabis Canada Response
Canada’s Licensed Producers would be pleased to be part of a retail solution under the
oversight of the federal or provincial governments.
It will be important to ensure that the framework established does not prevent participation
by Licensed Producers in future retail distribution models developed by the provinces and
territories.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
While some of Canada’s Licensed Producers will prefer to continue to focus mainly on
production, others are prepared to play a part in retail.
Indeed, some of our members feel that their future viability depends on their ability to
participate in the eventual retail market.
The regulatory framework should allow for either model, similar to the approach in Alaska,
Arizona, Colorado, Maryland, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington, D.C., where this type of
vertical integration is neither required nor prohibited.
Producer-run retail models could be phased in, building upon the proven distribution
system for medical cannabis by federal secure mail, adding -- as is described in the
Discussion Paper -- a legal, regulated retail environment to provide an effective
replacement to the current illegal sellers that exist in many Canadian cities.
Producer-run retail would be fully compliant with the 13 principles (see above).
Licensed Producers have unparalleled knowledge and expertise to advise on the reasonable
use of their products.
Bringing Licensed Producers in as partners in a retail system:
– Empowers them to make the business decisions that will ensure that Canada has an
adequate supply of safe, high quality, legal marijuana for the consumer market.
– Protects a new industry in Canada that, while barely beginning to recoup its
significant start-up investments, shows promise of being an engine of development
for Canada, including its rural communities.
– Engages trusted partners who have proven themselves effective in establishing a
strict, well-regulated system for the production and distribution of marijuana.
– Facilitates law enforcement and oversight since Licensed Producers already have a
seed to sale chain of custody and a recall mechanism.
A stronger industry of licensed producers and sellers will be in a position to contribute
positively to Canada’s economy (jobs, growth, exports) and to reinvest (in research, in
communities, in public education and information).
A more profitable industry will attract more entrants, increasing market
competition/decreasing prices and thus minimizing the appeal of the black market.
In its announcement of the ACMPR, the Government indicated that Health Canada is
committed to studying other models, including pharmacy distribution, to provide access to
cannabis for medical purposes. While an eventual move to improve retail access is
August 29, 2016
20 | P a g e
•
welcome, pharmacies should not be the only retailer as they are unlikely to be in a position
to support patient choice and selection, in terms of access to the full spectrum of strains
and products that patients need.
The ability of Licensed Producers to address this potential limitation and provide service to
even the most remote areas of the country using the federal mail service are both reasons
why the existing model for the production and distribution of medical cannabis should be
an integral element of any future medical (and adult use/recreational) distribution model.
SECTION 4: ENFORCING PUBLIC SAFETY AND PROTECTION
Section IV, Question 1: How should governments approach designing laws that will reduce,
eliminate and punish those who operate outside the boundaries of the new legal system for
marijuana?
Cannabis Canada Response
Canada’s Licensed Producers are prepared to continue to play their part to support public
safety and protection.
Time is of the essence.
• The proliferation of illegal sales online and through store-front “dispensaries” is escalating
and an unsafe system that fuels the black market is becoming ever more entrenched.
Moreover, there is a great deal of confusion about the legitimacy of players in the current
environment. Communities are feeling the impact.
• The source of the product sold in these dispensaries is by definition criminal as there is no
legal way for dispensaries to obtain product for sale.
• It is essential to continue to pro-actively enforce Canada’s laws in the period leading up to
legalization.
Section IV, Question 2: What specific tools, training and guidelines will be most effective in
supporting enforcement measures to protect public health and safety, particularly for
impaired driving?
Cannabis Canada Response
Education on product choices and product forms is essential for the public and for law
enforcement.
Canada’s Licensed Producers would be pleased to contribute their product knowledge and
expertise to the development of guidelines, tools or training
• Marijuana for consumer use is a new and complex product. There are a wide variety of
cannabis strains, with different potencies, effects (according to their THC and CBD levels),
and characteristics (odour, product form, fast or slow acting, long or short lasting, etc.).
• Education on product choices and forms is essential for the public and for law enforcement.
August 29, 2016
21 | P a g e
•
Canada’s Licensed Producers would be pleased to contribute their product knowledge and
expertise to the development of guidelines, tools or training to educate and inform law
enforcement personnel and the broader Canadian public.
Section IV, Question 3: Should consumption of marijuana be allowed in any publiclyaccessible spaces outside the home? Under what conditions and circumstances?
Cannabis Canada Response
Canada’s Licensed Producers are prepared to play their part to support enforcing public
safety and protection. Our perspective on consumption of marijuana in public spaces is
shaped by understanding the needs of the patients served, and by awareness that cannabis,
in non-smoked forms, poses limited risks to non-users, other than the issue of impaired
driving.
Patients who require regular dosing throughout the day to keep their symptoms under
control must be allowed to use non-smoked forms of medical cannabis in publicly-accessible
spaces.
•
•
•
•
Patients must be allowed to use their prescribed medical cannabis in publicly accessible
places. They should be allowed to use their medication in the form that suits them, except
smoked forms in locations where the smoking of tobacco is prohibited. In these locations
vaporized cannabis should be allowed.
Vaporization of medical cannabis is in no way comparable to the smoking of tobacco
products. Vaporizers do not burn cannabis; no burnt plant material or hazardous particulate
matter escapes into the air. What the patient exhales into the air is a small amount of vapor
-- there is no ‘second-hand smoke.’
Patients use vaporized medical cannabis to help manage symptoms of illnesses such as
multiple sclerosis, nausea caused by cancer chemotherapy, epilepsy, certain anxiety
disorders, chronic pain and other conditions. Some patients require regular dosing
throughout the day in order to keep their symptoms under control.
Any regulation that does not allow the use of their prescribed medical cannabis in hospitals
or on hospital grounds, at their workplaces, inside buildings, etc. means that patients will
not be able to effectively access their treatment.
August 29, 2016
22 | P a g e
SECTION 5: ACCESSING MARIJUANA FOR MEDICAL PURPOSES
Section V, Question 1: What factors should the government consider in determining if
appropriate access to medically authorized persons is provided once a system for legal access
to marijuana is in place?
Cannabis Canada Response
The existing system for medical cannabis production and distribution is proven, safe and
secure. It must be maintained.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The benefits of medical cannabis are well-documented. In addition to the therapeutic
benefits highlighted in the discussion paper -- managing symptoms of illnesses such as
multiple sclerosis, nausea caused by cancer chemotherapy, epilepsy, etc. – recent reports
have found other substantial benefit, especially significant to Canadian policy makers in the
face of the current opioid crisis: states where marijuana has been made legal have
experienced what has been described as a “stunning drop” in the number of painkillers
prescribed by physicians, increasing public safety, decreasing pressures on health care
systems and significantly lower state-level opioid overdose mortality rates.
The existing system for medical cannabis production and distribution is proven, safe and
secure. It must be maintained to allow proper access for Canadian patients.
An expansion of the medical cannabis system to include recreational marijuana is the best
way to meet both the Government’s objective of enabling access to marijuana for those
who require it for medical reasons, and its commitment to put in place a strict regulatory
framework for non-medical marijuana that keeps the product out of the hands of children
and the profits out of the hands of criminals.
Though available products are the same for medical and non-medical reasons, medical use
would still need to be overseen and prescribed by health care professionals.
The medical cannabis system needs to remain affordable, zero-rated for taxation and
accepted by drug formularies.
Patients must have access to the strain and potency that their health care professional
prescribes.
In its announcement of the ACMPR, the Government indicated that Health Canada is
committed to studying other models, including pharmacy distribution, to provide access to
cannabis for medical purposes. While an eventual move to improve retail access is
welcome, pharmacies should not be the only retailer as they are unlikely to be in a position
to support patient choice and selection, in terms of access to the full spectrum of strains
and products that patients need.
August 29, 2016
23 | P a g e
•
The ability of Licensed Producers to address this potential limitation and provide service to
even the most remote areas of the country using the federal mail service are both reasons
why the existing model for the production and distribution of medical cannabis should be
an integral element of any future medical (and adult use/recreational) distribution model.
About Cannabis Canada Association
Cannabis Canada is the leading organization of Canada’s Licensed Producers of Medical
Cannabis under Health Canada’s Marijuana for Medical Purposes Regulations (MMPR), which
has been recently modified and renamed Access to Cannabis for Medical Purposes Regulations
(ACMPR).
The Association’s mission is to act as the national voice for our members in their promotion of
industry standards, and to support the development, growth and integrity of the regulated
cannabis industry. The Association serves as a trusted resource on issues related to the safe and
responsible use of cannabis for medical and non-medical purposes.
Members of Cannabis Canada share a philosophy of both patient-centric care and improved
public health, and are committed to product safety and quality, secure and reliable access and
the promotion of the safe and effective use of cannabis. www.cann-can.ca
Further information:
Colette Rivet
Executive Director
Cannabis Canada Association
[email protected]
613.407.1080
August 29, 2016
24 | P a g e