Taking stock of progress on cannabis legalization and regulation in Canada: Summary of responses to online public engagement

On this page

• Executive summary
• Introduction
• About the engagement
• Key takeaways
• Conclusion
• Contact us

Executive summary

The Cannabis Act (the Act) requires that the Minister of Health cause a review of the Act and its administration and operation 3 years after its coming into force. To fulfill these requirements, the Minister of Health and the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions appointed an independent expert panel to lead the legislative review.

In support of the review, on September 22, 2022, Health Canada published the discussion paper Taking stock of progress: Cannabis legalization and regulation in Canada. This paper presented an overview of key features of the legislative framework and outlined national trends and evidence related to the implementation of the Act and the Cannabis Regulations (the Regulations). The paper also asked a series of key questions to solicit feedback from the public, partners and stakeholders. The feedback received on the paper was provided to the independent expert panel to help inform their review of the Act.

Health Canada accepted feedback on the paper between September 22 and November 21, 2022. Canadians and stakeholders were invited to participate by completing an online questionnaire and/or providing written submissions by email or mail. This report is a summary of more than 2,300 responses received through this engagement process. The report is organized by the following themes:

• minimizing harms to protect Canadians
• education and awareness to support informed choices
• progress towards establishing a responsible supply chain
• protecting public safety; access to cannabis for medical purposes
• impact on other governmental priorities

Responses are not attributed to any specific individual or organization.

Among responses, just under one quarter thought the current framework and controls were appropriate to address the public health and public safety risks posed by cannabis. A few responses thought that current controls should be stricter, while a majority of responses felt the framework is too strict. The top issues responses raised included THC limits for edible cannabis products and promotion, packaging and labelling rules.

When asked whether adults have sufficient access to legal cannabis, many responses said yes. Also, while the majority of responses shared that they feel the current public education efforts need improvement, some responses said public education efforts have been successful at protecting and safeguarding Canadian youth.

Introduction

On September 22, 2022, the Minister of Health and Minister of Mental Health and Addictions and Associate Minister of Health announced the launch of the legislative review of the Act. The Act requires that the Minister of Health cause a review of the Act and its administration and operation 3 years after its coming into force and table a report in both Houses of Parliament no later than 18 months after the start of the review.

To fulfill these requirements, the Ministers established an independent expert panel to lead the legislative review. The panel will provide independent, expert advice to both Ministers on progress made towards achieving the Act's objectives and will help identify priority areas for improving the functioning of the legislation.

About the engagement

To assist the expert panel, Health Canada launched an online engagement process, supported by the paper Taking stock of progress: Cannabis legalization and regulation in Canada, to seek feedback from the public about the impacts of the Act.

As such, this report highlights and summarizes some of the detailed findings gathered from Canadians through a public questionnaire as well as email submissions from individuals and stakeholders. Therefore, only some graphs, data and responses are included in this summary report. A full report is available by request.

The online questionnaire generated 2,158 responses. The questionnaire consisted of 17 open- and 11 closed-ended questions, 9 of which were demographic questions.

All 2,158 questionnaire responses were systematically coded using a coding framework. It is worth noting that a single questionnaire response could be coded under multiple codes, depending on whether there were multiple themes or topics mentioned in that response. In cases where a question asked for 2 or more pieces of information, they were treated as separate questions, each with its own set of codes. This is why some of the total percentages of responses in the graphs throughout this report equate to more than 100%.

The demographic questions asked whether respondents were providing input as an individual or an organization and how they self-identified (for example, consumer of cannabis for non-medical purposes, parent or guardian, or academic). Those who identified as individuals were also asked to identify their:

• region
• gender
• age range
• education level
• if they identify as part of an equity group

As this was an open engagement process, the results are not representative of the opinions of the broader Canadian population. Certain subgroups (such as men, those aged 26 to 44 and residents of Ontario) were over-represented in the sample.

While the demographic questions on the public questionnaire were mandatory for respondents, all other questions were voluntary, therefore the sample sizes (n-values) for each question are different based on respondent self-selection.

The majority of questionnaire respondents (86%) were individuals, representing their own view, while 10% were representatives from a group or organization and 5% preferred not to say.

Between September 22 and November 21, 2022, 211 email and mail submissions were received, 62 (29%) of which were from individuals and 149 (71%) were from stakeholder groups and organizations. Unlike in the public questionnaire, stakeholders were not asked to self-identify and no profiling questions were asked of submission respondents.

Key takeaways

Minimizing harms to protect Canadians

Respondents were asked about their views on the current legislative and regulatory restrictions in place to safeguard public health. Online questionnaire respondents (n=2,016) had divergent opinions with more than one third of online respondents saying that the restrictions were too strict and bureaucratic, while just under one quarter considered the current rules adequate. About 1 in 10 responses thought the current rules were too lenient.

Some respondents who indicated that the current regime is too strict explained that the restrictions make it challenging to compete with the illicit market and that the restrictions should be similar to those that apply to alcohol. Licence holders and consumers of cannabis for non-medical purposes were more likely to view current restrictions as being too strict, while individuals were more likely to agree that the current restrictions are adequate. Conversely, those aged 55 and over and women were more likely to find the current restrictions insufficient (see Figure 1, with responses to the question: What is your view of the current legislative and regulatory restrictions in place to safeguard public health?).

Figure 1 - Text description

Views of current legislative restrictions in place to safeguard public health	Percentage (%) of responses
The current restrictions are too strict and/or bureaucratic	35
The current THC limits are too low	13
The current purchase, possession and cultivation limits are too low	6
The current regulations around branding are too restrictive	6
Excessive restrictions on legal retailers drive illegal market sales	4
The current restrictions are adequate/work well	23
The current restrictions are insufficient	11
Stronger enforcement for the illegal market	3
Reduce prices	5
Better access for medical cannabis	5
Greater public education and awareness	4
Other	8
Don't know	1
Not applicable	1

In a separate question, respondents were asked what regulatory and legislative controls they would like to see changed (n=1,975). Of responses reported that they want to see fewer controls, almost one third (31%) mentioned they would like to see an increase in the tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) limits of cannabis products. Those in younger age groups (between 18-34 years of age) and consumers of cannabis for non-medical purposes were more likely to advocate for an increase in THC limits.

In addition, with respect to lessening controls, some responses suggested to see an increase in current legal possession, purchase and cultivation limits (18%), a reduction in packaging and labelling and promotion restrictions (10%), a reduction in cost and taxes for cannabis products (10%) and more purchasing options (7%).

There were fewer respondents who said they would like to see more controls in place. Of those, only 5% of responses indicated that they wished to see stronger enforcement of current regulations and the illicit market.

In another question, respondents were asked if the current safeguards were adequately restricting access and helping to protect the health of youth (n=756). The majority of responses (51%) noted that the current restrictions adequately protect youth, providing examples of successful measures, such as age restrictions to access cannabis products in retail settings and child-resistant packaging. Of responses that indicated the current safeguards are not adequately restricting access and protecting the health of youth (n=659), 29% noted that cannabis remains available and accessible to youth, with women more likely to report this.

The comments shared in the email submissions echoed many of the themes highlighted in the questionnaire responses. Some industry and academic or research stakeholders felt that promotion restrictions are ineffective at minimizing harm and that more promotion (similar to the alcohol industry) should be permitted to enable consumers to differentiate between products and contribute to decreased consumption of illicit cannabis products. Conversely, some health organizations and other academic or research stakeholders said the promotion of cannabis should continue to be tightly restricted.

Another theme that was emphasized across email submissions was youth access to cannabis, including the need for more protections for youth (for example, targeted education on cannabis-related harms, less appealing products and reducing proximity of cannabis retail locations to schools). Specifically, municipalities, health organizations and health professionals continued to voice their concerns about youth exposure to cannabis, noting negative effects such as:

• overconsumption
• driving under the influence
• the impacts on physical and mental health

Education and awareness to support informed choices

Respondents were asked to what extent public education efforts (impact and content) have delivered the appropriate messages and reached the appropriate audiences. When asked to elaborate (n=1,803), 19% of responses noted that public education efforts have been successful at protecting and safeguarding Canadian youth, whereas 24% indicated that current efforts are ineffective and 12% do not recall having seen any efforts. These submissions highlighted how current messaging could be considered misleading and "fear mongering," for instance, when focusing on the negative impacts of cannabis, especially compared to alcohol.

Overall, respondents felt that current messaging has not had a strong impact on youth and that messaging should be more "accurate," "realistic," evidence-based and developed by experts in the field as well as those with experience in consuming cannabis (see Figure 2, with responses to the question: To what extent have public education efforts delivered the appropriate messages and reached the appropriate audiences, including youth and young adults?).

Figure 2 - Text description

Views of success of public education efforts	Percentage (%) of responses
The current education efforts are ineffective	24
Public education efforts have been successful	19
Insufficient messaging surrounding the potential health and safety risks of cannabis consumptions	18
Do not recall seeing any educational efforts	12
There should be more messaging particularly for youth and young adults	10
Current educational efforts have not done enough to deter people from the illegal market	6
Current efforts further the stigmatization of cannabis	6
Messages are not reaching the intended audiences	5
Education efforts about driving under the influence have been widespread and effective	3
Other	7
Don't know	9
Not applicable	2

In a separate question, respondents were also asked what additional measures or areas of focus could be considered to continue to close the gap between perception of risks and harms and scientific evidence (n=1,765). 26% of responses highlighted the importance of having communications and messaging grounded in scientific evidence, while 25% of responses mentioned the need for additional scientific research into the impacts of cannabis use and 12% indicated the need to advertise the potential health risks of cannabis consumption. Another priority area raised by 16% of responses was having more public education efforts targeted towards youth in schools to help remove the stigma and raise awareness about cannabis and its consumption.

The comments shared in the email submissions echoed many of the themes highlighted in the questionnaire responses. Advocacy groups, youth organizations, academics or researchers, municipalities and health organizations largely raised concerns about insufficient messaging and educational efforts on cannabis use. Many of these stakeholders urged for greater evidence-based messaging around health and safety risks of consumption, such as impaired driving, cannabis use during pregnancy, youth-specific cannabis-related harms and mental health, particularly in schools.

Progress towards establishing a safe and responsible supply chain

Respondents were asked if adult Canadians have sufficient access to a quality-controlled supply of legal cannabis (n=1,312). Of those who said "yes," responses noted that Canadians have sufficient access largely due to the number of cannabis retail stores (29%). A few responses (5%) noted that they felt the retail market is over-saturated (see Figure 3, with responses to the Do adult Canadians have sufficient access to quality-controlled supply of legal cannabis?).

Respondents who self-identified as having disabilities, those aged 26-34 and consumers of cannabis for medical purposes were less likely to feel that they have sufficient access to a quality-controlled supply of legal cannabis.

Some of the issues raised around inadequate access included price and taxes, differing regional availability (urban versus rural), promotion restrictions, quality (for example, the presence of mould or mildew, product impurities and impacts of irradiation), THC limit of cannabis products, purchase and possession limits, lack of information about products and lower accessibility to cannabis for medical purposes (see Figure 4, with responses to the question: Do adult Canadians have sufficient access to quality-controlled supply of legal cannabis?).

Figure 3 - Text description

Views of access to quality-controlled legal cannabis supplies	Percentage (%) of responses
Yes - They have sufficient access to legal cannabis	29
Yes - However there is still room for improvement	16
Yes - The market is over-saturated	5

Figure 4 - Text description

Views of access to quality-controlled legal cannabis supplies	Percentage (%) of responses
No - Quality of product is inadequate	16
No - Cannabis pricing is unaffordable, making it inaccessible	11
No - Legal cannabis products are not readily available/accessible	10
No - There are supply barriers and restrictions on purchasing directly from producers/growers	8
No - The quality and/or price is not competitive with the illegal market	6
No - The THC limit in cannabis products should be increased	6
No - Purchase and/or possession limits are inadequate	3
No - Recreational cannabis is more accessible than medical cannabis	3
No - Not enough information available about cannabis products	3
No - Legal cannabis is more accessible in large cities than rural areas	2
No - Edibles are not as accessible compared to other cannabis products	1
No - The current regulations for packaging are too restrictive	1

When asked in another question about which alternative measures the government could consider to further strengthen and diversify the legal market (n=1,882), 19% of responses noted that provincial oversight should be removed or lessened. Submissions argued that the government should empower small businesses and lower barriers to entry (for example, by providing more licences to small businesses, reducing financial barriers such as fees and licensing costs, and allowing farm gate sales), as well as reduce taxes.

In addition, 13% of responses wanted higher THC limits in cannabis products, consistent with other sections of the questionnaire, as another measure that the government could take to strengthen and diversify the legal market. Submissions noted that "red tape" and regulatory burden should be reduced, explaining that restrictions should be similar to those that apply to the alcohol industry. Examples provided of areas where regulatory burden reduction should be focused included:

• promotion and packaging restrictions
• cannabis product price, purchase, possession and cultivation limits
• increasing enforcement to eliminate the illicit market
• providing access to a greater variety of legal cannabis products
• more assistance for producers to transition to the legal market

Along with alternative measures to strengthen and diversify the legal market, respondents were asked about possible alternative measures the government could consider to better meet the needs of racialized, under-represented or Indigenous communities within the federal cannabis licensing program (n=1,546). Responses largely emphasized how the current barriers to entry to the legal cannabis market (such as financial barriers such as taxes, upfront licensing costs and fees) should be reduced (20%). Indigenous peoples and those between the ages of 26-34 were more likely to say barriers to entry should be addressed for these groups. Other examples provided included expunging criminal records, helping legacy producers transition to the legal market, reducing regulatory requirements (that is, less "red tape"), allowing Indigenous cannabis businesses to self-regulate, further engagement and collaboration with equity-deserving communities, and more targeted education for these communities.

Respondents were then asked to what extent the current restrictions of 4 plants or less per household have supported the safe and responsible production of cannabis (n=1,731). A dominant theme emerged as 27% of responses reported that the cultivation limit is too restrictive. Consumers of cannabis for non-medical purposes were more likely to find the limit restrictive, while women were less likely to report that the limit should be higher. With respect to the current home cultivation limit, responses also spoke about the lack of enforcement, differences in provincial and territorial laws for home cultivation, and need for differing limits based on the number of adults that live in the household.

The comments shared in the email submissions echoed many of the themes highlighted in the questionnaire responses. Some industry organizations and individual Canadians highlighted how small businesses could be better supported and empowered, particularly through the reduction of barriers to market entry (for example, via reduction of financial and licensing approval barriers). Some municipalities, health organizations, industry organizations and academics or researchers called for benchmarking of legal cannabis product types and prices to the illicit market to ensure a competitive legal market. Some other municipalities and health organizations called for additional restrictions on home cultivation.

Protecting public safety

Respondents were asked about their general impressions of legal retailers' progress to-date in capturing the legal market. Respondents (n=1,109) were divided, with 35% of responses claiming that legal retailers have made good progress, 16% citing moderate progress and 31% citing insufficient progress.

People with disabilities were less likely to say that good progress has been made. Similarly, Indigenous peoples and consumers of cannabis for medical purposes were more likely to say insufficient progress has been made (see Figure 5, with responses to the question: What are your general impressions of legal retailer's progress to capture the legal market? Please explain.).

Figure 5 - Text description

Views of legal retailers' progress in capturing the legal market	Percentage (%) of responses
Good progress	35
Moderate progress	16
Insufficient progress	31
Other	10
Don't know	4
Not applicable	4

When asked separately about why respondents had those general impressions, 37% of responses claimed that the current rules make products in the illicit market more appealing, particularly due to price, THC limits, possession limits and purchase limits. 16% of responses felt that the promotion restrictions are too limiting, noting that the inability of cannabis businesses to promote or differentiate themselves is hindering their success and growth.

The quality of cannabis products emerged as a key factor impacting legal retailers' progress in capturing the legal market. According to 14% of responses, legal retailers are perceived as providing lower quality products, compared to illicit sellers. Among these respondents, the quality of legal products was described as "dry," "poor," "weak," "moldy," "old" and "not fresh."

Additionally, 12% of responses noted that the legal market is over-saturated with retail locations, which can make it more challenging for retailers to achieve profitability. It was suggested the number of cannabis stores should be proportional to local population.

In another question, respondents were asked about possible additional steps or measures the government should consider to combat the illicit cannabis market (n=1,891). When asked, competitive pricing (21%) emerged again as a dominant theme. Other themes included reducing taxation, including lessening or eliminating the excise tax and increasing the THC limit for edible cannabis products. Additionally, responses felt that other measures that could help combat the illicit cannabis market were reducing the number of restrictions on legal sellers, reducing barriers to entry for producers (such as licensing fees and overhead costs), permitting cannabis consumption sites, increasing purchase, possession and cultivation limits, ensuring that high-quality products are sold by legal retailers and encouraging an easier transition into the legal market for producers.

Among the email submissions on this topic, individual and industry submissions pointed to the persistence of illicit activities surrounding cannabis. Individual submissions argued that high prices and inconsistent products remain major issues for the legal market and suggested that easing packaging, labelling and promotion restrictions might help. Submissions from government and industry discussed how strict regulations (for example, THC limits), financial burdens (for example, taxes and other fees) and a lack of transition support are barriers for parties to enter the market. To address these challenges, respondents recommended removing excise taxes, streamlining reporting processes and providing better support for craft and small growers.

Some submissions from government, industry and public health organizations and health professionals explained challenges municipalities face around enforcing licensing and compliance with property standards. These stakeholders expressed the necessity for enforcement of illicit personal and designated production operations. Finally, some submissions from industry and academics or researchers focused on the challenges individuals with cannabis-related criminal sentences are facing and suggested expunging all convictions for cannabis use and possession. Some submissions from government, patients and patient groups, public health organizations and health professionals advocated for research on racial disparities in cannabis-related criminal charges and demographic data surrounding whether legalization has been experienced equitably among Canadians.

Access to cannabis for medical purposes in an era of cannabis legalization

Respondents were asked to share their views on the current medical access program for cannabis (n=1,847). Close to one third (30%) of responses said the program is "insufficient" or "requires improvement," with consumers of cannabis for medical purposes, people with disabilities and cannabis licence holders more likely to hold this view.

Responses provided various reasons why they felt the medical access program is not meeting needs. Many responses explained that they feel that the non-medical market has taken precedence over the medical market to the detriment of patients. Several respondents also discussed the barriers that they experience related to accessing medical cannabis, including: challenges in securing authorizations from healthcare providers, administrative burdens (for example, registration renewals), limited access points, inadequate support from healthcare professionals, inferior quality or diversity of products compared to the non-medical market and cost.

On the topic of cost, 14% of responses claimed that cannabis products for medical purposes are too expensive, especially compared to non-medical and illicit products. Consumers of cannabis for medical purposes and people with disabilities were more likely to note the costliness of products. Some responses offered insights on how issues surrounding cost could be remedied, including reducing or eliminating excise taxes on cannabis for medical purposes, ensuring that health insurance plans cover these products, offering compassionate pricing for marginalized groups and covering ancillary costs (such as shipping).

Some responses noted issues with the personal and designated production component of the medical access program. For example, these responses felt that the amounts of cannabis that can be grown is excessive, that it is too easy to gain an authorization to access cannabis for medical purposes and that a lack of oversight has contributed to the illicit market.

Conversely, 22% of responses indicated that the program is "sufficient" and meets the needs of its users. These respondents shared the benefits of cannabis for medical purposes and how it has improved their lives (see Figure 6, with responses to the question: What are your views on the current medical access program for cannabis?).

Figure 6 - Text description

Views on the current medical access program for cannabis	Percentage (%) of responses
The program is not good and/or requires improvement	30
Cannabis for medical use is too expensive	14
Better training and education needed on medical use	10
Medical cannabis needs to be easier to access	8
Need for less stigma around medical use	3
The program is good	22
The program is not needed/unnecessary	6
Other	6
Don't know	4
Not applicable	9

When asked separately about whether a distinct medical access program is necessary to provide individuals with reasonable access to cannabis for medical purposes or whether access needs can be met through the non-medical framework, responses were divided (n=1,098), with 34% indicating that a medical framework is necessary and 30% indicating that it is not. Consumers of cannabis for medical purposes and people with disabilities were more likely to agree that a medical framework is needed.

Respondents who were not in favor of a distinct cannabis for medical purposes framework provided various reasons for their position, including redundancy and complexity. Conversely, respondents were also asked about their positions on the necessity of a distinct cannabis for medical purposes framework (n=788). When asked, responses cited better patient care, quality and supply, and the value of the support and monitoring provided by healthcare professionals. One quarter (25%) of responses suggested a medical framework is needed for affordability purposes, noting the current cost of cannabis is too expensive when accessed through non-medical sources.

When asked in another question for recommendations on specific reforms for cannabis for medical purposes (n=1,649), 14% of responses wished to see an increase in THC limits. The majority of respondents called for an increase above 10 milligrams of THC in edible cannabis products. Some respondents recommended that the limit per package be increased up to 1000 milligrams, with the option for patients to select higher or lower amounts based on their needs. Respondents noted that the current limits do not meet the needs of patients and may result in them resorting to the illicit market.

Additionally, 14% of responses sought reform to the excise tax imposed on cannabis for medical purposes and suggested models such as imposing it on a percentage of wholesale prices or as a flat fee per gram with an imposed maximum. A few responses suggested the tax be removed on specific products, such as vaping cartridges.

Lastly, 11% of responses requested that restrictions be reduced or removed to improve access for consumers of cannabis for medical purposes. Examples included regulating cannabis more like alcohol, permitting cannabis to be consumed in indoor or designated areas, reduced requirements to obtain and maintain authorizations, and increased purchase, possession and cultivation limits for cannabis for medical purposes.

The comments shared in the email submissions on medical cannabis echoed many of the themes highlighted in the questionnaire responses. Submissions from some individuals, academics or researchers, patients and patient groups and public health organizations and health professionals depicted access to cannabis for medical purposes as a human right. Many government stakeholders, academics or researchers, patients and patient groups and public health organizations and health professionals argued that a distinct cannabis for medical purposes framework is needed, arguing that it would ensure adequate access, oversight and support for patients. Some industry and patients and patient groups also suggested that a medical framework could prevent the risks of self-medicating and address the high costs associated with purchasing other medical products.

All stakeholder groups recommended various reforms that they felt would help to increase access to cannabis for medical purposes, including higher THC limits, increased diversity of products, removal of excise and sales taxes, researching and establishing a drug identification number (DIN), allowing coverage by public and private insurance programs, allowing dispensing through existing pharmacy infrastructures, allowing a wider range of health professionals to have the ability to authorize and conducting more research on the uses, benefits and risks of cannabis for medical purposes.

Another set of stakeholders, mainly individuals, government and others, raised the concern of the lack of enforcement and exploitation of personal and designated production registrations, which they felt is contributing to the illicit market. All of these stakeholder groups called for better communication between all parties involved and stronger monitoring, compliance and enforcement measures, including tighter controls on issuing authorizations for personal and designated production. Some government and other stakeholders suggested that personal and designated production registrations be prohibited.

How the legalization of cannabis intersects with the government's key priorities

Respondents were asked about their views on the impacts of cannabis legalization on the environment, small businesses and social and economic impacts on diverse groups of Canadians in accordance with the Government of Canada's commitment to implementing Sex- and Gender-Based Analysis Plus (SGBA Plus) (n=1,477). Many responses noted that legalization has been positive for the economy, environment and inclusivity, with those self-identifying as individuals more likely to report this.

23% of responses highlighted that the legalization of cannabis has been positive for the economy, especially in the context of COVID-19, by providing new job opportunities, small business opportunities and sources of tax revenue. Many respondents also emphasized that the legal cannabis industry provides many equal opportunities for diverse Canadians, most notably, Indigenous communities and marginalized groups.

Some responses also emphasized the need to reduce regulations (10%) to ensure the legal market is competitive with the illicit market, with organizations more likely to hold this view. Several respondents noted the importance of making the legal cannabis industry more economically sustainable to allow the legal market to become more competitive with the illicit market. Submissions outlined several recommendations to achieve this, including increasing the THC limit in edible cannabis products, creating areas for safe consumption, expanding the number of retail licensees and cannabis businesses and enforcing regulations to reduce illicit activities.

Another major theme was that of environmental concerns related to cannabis product packaging. Responses explained that the growth of the cannabis industry has resulted in an increasingly negative environmental impact (14%), with those between the ages of 26-34 more likely to report this. Several responses claimed that the cannabis industry produces excessive waste due to the single-use plastic packaging that is widely used to package cannabis products.

Some responses also argued that different excise stamps for each province and territory, extensive labelling requirements and plain packaging requirements also make it difficult for producers to use smaller packaging, encourage recycling and reuse, and lower their environmental impact. To remedy some of these issues, respondents suggested reducing packaging and labelling requirements, restricting the use of single-use packaging and implementing a net-zero framework (see Figure 7, with responses to the question: What are your views on the impacts of legalization of cannabis on the environment, small businesses and social and economic impacts on diverse groups of Canadians, in accordance with the Government of Canada's commitment to implementing SGBA Plus?).

Figure 7 - Text description

Views on the impacts of legalization on the environment and small businesses, and social and economic impacts on diverse groups	Percentage (%) of responses
The legalization of cannabis has been positive for the economy, environment, and inclusivity	23
It is not environmentally friendly due to excessive plastic packaging	14
There needs to be further reductions of regulations	10
Lower barriers to entry for racialized, underrepresented, or Indigenous groups/communities	7
SGBA has nothing to do with the cannabis industry	7
It is difficult for small cannabis businesses to compete with larger companies	6
It is not environmentally friendly due to the resources required to grow cannabis	5
Cannabis can lead to addictive behavior and legalization has resulted in increased negative effects	4
The legalization of cannabis is good for economic growth	4
The legalization of cannabis has had no impact on the economy, environment, and inclusivity	3
Other	6
Don't know	14
Not applicable	7

The email submissions offered limited commentary on how the legalization of cannabis intersects with the government's key priorities in the areas of inclusiveness, economic growth and environmental sustainability. In terms of inclusiveness, submissions discussed the barriers equity-deserving groups, such as women and racialized communities, face when entering the cannabis market, noting challenges relating to underrepresentation, accessing funding and lack of presence in leadership positions. Stakeholders offered recommendations to mitigate these concerns, such as targeted education and consultations, and specific programs for equity-deserving groups wishing to enter the cannabis market.

In terms of impacts of legalization on small businesses, individual and stakeholder submissions illustrated the range of barriers to licensing, financing, distribution and promotion experienced by small cannabis growers. Some submissions from industry and government explained how these barriers may discourage small growers from entering the regulated market.

Some stakeholder submissions from industry, municipal governments and academics or researchers highlighted the environmental impacts of legalization. These submissions focused on the excess waste produced by cannabis product packaging and recommended that packaging be made environmentally friendly.

Conclusion

Health Canada would like to thank individuals and stakeholders for their input. Results from the online questionnaire and email submissions demonstrate that, although many respondents felt that the controls in the Cannabis Act and its regulations are effective in protecting the public health and public safety of Canadians, some respondents had concerns about select restrictions. The predominant issues that respondents raised were around:

• low THC limits for cannabis products (specifically, edible cannabis products)
• low purchase, possession and cultivation limits
• barriers to entry for small cannabis businesses (for example, financial barriers)
• high taxes (for example, excise tax) and their impact on the prices of legal cannabis products
• restrictive promotion, packaging and labelling rules

Contact us

To request the full report, please contact Health Canada by e-mail: cannabis@hc-sc.gc.ca.

Any questions or comments on this What We Heard Report can be submitted to: cannabis@hc-sc.gc.ca.

Further information about the Expert Panel's engagement process and mandate can be found on the Cannabis Act legislative review webpage.

Any questions or comments related to the independent legislative review can be submitted to:
Cannabis Act Legislative Review Secretariat
Health Canada
Address locator 0302I
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0K9
Email: legreview-examenleg@hc-sc.gc.ca