Skip to content

Client Update: Canada’s Proposed Cannabis Edibles, Extracts and Topicals Regulations Revealed

Kevin Landry

The first look at regulations for cannabis edibles, extracts and topicals has arrived. The Federal Government has opened a 60-day consultation period respecting the strict regulation of additional cannabis products. Notice of the consultation was accompanied by release of a document titled: Proposed Regulations Amending the Cannabis Regulations (New Classes of Cannabis) And Proposed Order Amending Schedules 3 and 4 to the Cannabis Act (“Consultation Paper”).

The Consultation Paper outlines proposed amendments to the Cannabis Regulations and Cannabis Act which would result in the legalization of several new forms of cannabis by October 17, 2019 or sooner:

  • Cannabis edibles: products containing cannabis that are intended to be consumed in the form of food or beverages;
  • Cannabis extracts: derivatives and vaping products that are produced using extraction processing methods or by synthesizing phytocannabinoids; and
  • Cannabis topicals: products intended to be used on external body surfaces (i.e., skin, hair and nails) that include cannabis as an ingredient.

Interested parties have until February 20, 2019 to complete an online questionnaire, or send a written submission to the Cannabis Legalization and Regulation Branch before the final regulations are published in the Canada Gazette Part II.

How will edibles, extracts and topicals be regulated?

Amending Schedule 4 of the Cannabis Act

Schedule 4 of the Cannabis Act outlines types of cannabis that may be sold by licensed parties. The Consultation Paper proposes to amend Schedule 4 of the Cannabis Act by Order in Council to add edibles, extracts and topicals to the list of cannabis types that could be legally sold by federal licence holders and other authorized distributors and retailers.

Transitional provisions in the Consultation Paper would remove cannabis oil from Schedule 4 six months after the amended Cannabis Regulations come into force. Following the six-month transition period, cannabis oil would be still be permitted but would be governed under the newly introduced classes of cannabis.

Processing licenses required

Instead of creating a new license specifically for edibles, extracts and topicals, the Consultation Paper would require manufacturers, and those who package and label edibles, extracts or topicals for sale to consumers, to hold a micro or standard processing license. There are no changes to current Cannabis Act personnel requirements, application process or physical security requirements for processing of edibles, extracts or topicals.

The proposed regulations would require edibles, extracts and topical products to be processed in a separate building from any facility that produces conventional food products.

Adjustments to good production practices

In general, the Consultation Paper proposes requirements consistent with the Safe Food for Canadians Regulations (“SFCR”) particularly with respect to edible products so as to avoid issues with contamination and sanitation. In keeping with the SFCR, the Consultation Paper introduces a requirement for a written Preventive Control Plan (“PCP”) which each licensed processor must implement. The PCP will identify and address any potential hazards or risks to the production of these new classes of cannabis. The licensed processor’s Quality Assurance Person (“QAP”) would be required to verify and approve the PCP prior to its implementation.

Other ancillary amendments will require solvent testing, variability limits, bans on pets in processing facilities, proactive investigation by the QAP into ingredients which may pose a threat to human health, adjustments to licensed processor’s standard operating procedures to include provisions for handling of ingredients and requirements pertaining to the use of potable water in processing activities.

Quality Assurance Person credentials

The skill and experience required of QAPs will change if the proposed regulations are accepted as written. QAPs will require sufficient qualifications to oversee the production of all classes of cannabis the licensed processor is producing. Should current QAPs not have appropriate knowledge, the licensed processor will be expected to retain the services of another individual with skills sufficient to oversee production of these new classes of cannabis.

All license holders to be subject to recall simulations

Current requirements for seed to sale tracking on all cannabis produced is intended to facilitate product recalls. The Consultation Paper builds on those requirements and would force all licence holders to conduct a recall simulation once every year to evaluate the effectiveness of their recall systems and processes and prepare a report outlining how the simulation was conducted and the results.

THC limits

The Consultation Paper proposes limits on the amount of Tetrahydrocannabinol (“THC”) in edibles, extracts and topicals. Limits are placed both on “discrete units” (individual servings) and on the total THC in a single package of any product:

  • Cannabis edibles: limit of 10 milligrams of THC per discrete unit and per package.
  • Cannabis extracts: limit of 10 milligrams of THC per discrete unit and limit of 1,000 milligrams (1 gram) of THC in a single package.
  • Cannabis topicals: limit of 1,000 milligrams (1 gram) of THC in a package.

Restrictions on edibles

All edible cannabis products must be shelf-stable and cannot contain additives like vitamins or mineral nutrients. Given that edibles cannot require refrigeration or freezing, and that meat, poultry and fish ingredients would be prohibited (other than in dried forms) the proposed regulations raise questions about the viability of cannabis-infused items eventually being served in restaurants by chefs and others pursuing that variety of cannabis cuisine.

0.03 grams (3 milligrams), of caffeine per package will be permitted in edible cannabis products but the presence of caffeine is limited to caffeine present in edible products through the use of ingredients containing naturally occurring caffeine.

Restrictions on extracts

Because 0.025 grams of cannabis extract are deemed the equivalent of 1 gram of dried cannabis, and because no person may possess more than 30 grams of dried cannabis (or equivalent) a maximum package size of 7.5 grams will be imposed for cannabis extracts.

Restrictions on packaging and labels

The Consultation Paper introduces several amendments to packaging and labeling requirements:

  • Terms such as “beer” or “wine” and elements associated with alcoholic beverages or brands would not be permitted on cannabis products.
  • Representations regarding health benefits such as “a healthy diet low in saturated and trans fat may reduce the risk of heart disease”, or “oat fibre helps lower cholesterol” will be prohibited for cannabis products.
  • Representations regarding cosmetic benefits, such as “reduces the appearance of wrinkles” or “softens skin” will be prohibited for cannabis products.
  • Packages too small to hold Health Canada warning labels and messaging will be permitted fold out panels on packaging to ensure they display required information.
  • A 90 millilitre size limit will be imposed on all liquid cannabis extracts.

This update is intended for general information only. If you have questions about the above, please contact a member of our Cannabis group.

SHARE

Archive

Search Archive


 
 

Client Update: “Lien”-ing Towards Efficiency: Upcoming Amendments to the Builders’ Lien Act

June 29, 2017

By Brian Tabor, QC and Colin Piercey Bill 81 and Bill 15, receiving Royal Assent in 2013 and 2014 respectively, are due to take effect this month. On June 30, 2017, amendments to the Builders’…

Read More

Weeding Through New Brunswick’s Latest Cannabis Recommendations

June 26, 2017

New Brunswick continues to be a thought leader in the field of regulation of recreational cannabis and provides us with a first look at what the provincial regulation of recreational cannabis might look like. New…

Read More

Client Update: Elk Valley Decision – SCC Finds that Enforcement of “No Free Accident” Rule in Workplace Drug and Alcohol Policy Does Not Violate Human Rights Legislation

June 23, 2017

Rick Dunlop and Richard Jordan In Stewart v. Elk Valley Coal Corporation, 2017 SCC 30, a six-judge majority of the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) confirmed a Tribunal decision which concluded that the dismissal of an…

Read More

Client Update: The Grass is Always Greener in the Other Jurisdiction – Provincial Acts and Regulations under the Cannabis Act

June 22, 2017

By Kevin Landry New Brunswick’s Working Group on the Legalization of Cannabis released an interim report on June 20, 2017. It is a huge step forward in the legalization process and the first official look at how legalization…

Read More

Client Update: Cannabis Act regulations – now we are really getting into the weeds!

June 15, 2017

Rick Dunlop and Kevin Landry As we explained in The Cannabis Act- Getting into the Weeds, the Cannabis Act introduces a regulatory regime for recreational marijuana in Canada. The regime promises to be complex. The details of legalization will be…

Read More

Client Update: Requirement to register as a lobbyist in New Brunswick

June 15, 2017

On April 1, 2017, the New Brunswick Lobbyists’ Registration Act was proclaimed into force (the “Act”), requiring active professional consultant or in-house lobbyists to register and file returns with the Office of the Integrity Commissioner of New…

Read More

How much is too much?: Disclosure in multiple accident litigation in English v House, 2017 NLTD(G) 93

June 14, 2017

Joe Thorne and Jessica Habet How far can an insurer dig into the Plaintiff’s history to defend a claim? And how much information is an insurer entitled to have in order to do so? In English v.…

Read More

Client Update: Court of Appeal confirms accounting firms may take on multiple mandates for the same company

June 14, 2017

Neil Jacobs, QC, Joe Thorne and Meaghan McCaw The Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal recently confirmed that accounting/auditing firms may take on several mandates in respect of companies that may or do become insolvent in Wabush Hotel Limited…

Read More

Negligence claims in paper-only independent medical examinations: Rubens v Sansome, 2017 NLCA 32

June 13, 2017

Joe Thorne and Brandon Gillespie An independent medical examination (“IME”) is a useful tool for insurers. An IME is an objective assessment of the claimant’s condition for the purpose of evaluating coverage and compensation. Where a…

Read More

Client Update: Mental injury? Expert diagnosis not required

June 12, 2017

On June 2, 2017 the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Saadati v. Moorhead, 2017 SCC 28, clarifying the evidence needed to establish mental injury. Neither expert evidence nor a diagnosed psychiatric illness…

Read More

Search Archive


Scroll To Top