Bill C-344 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Contraventions Act and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (marihuana)

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

There we go, a governance act and 52 days at committee.

Again, there are all kinds of examples. That's why I'm taking the time to do it, because it supports my motion as to why it's appropriate that we would travel, and why I continue to give examples of where committees have travelled and how that's benefited the committee and the people who had an opportunity to come forward. It's very fortunate that Mr. Martin just sat in beside me now, and actually was at that session and can speak and attest to the importance of giving Canadians their say.

We also had a special committee on the non-medical use of drugs. It was the study of Bill C-344. They held 20 meetings: December 3, 2001, to December 6, 2001; February 18, 2002, to February 21, 2002; April 15, 2002, to April 18, 2002; and May 21, 2002, to May 24, 2002. They went to seven cities. They went to Vancouver and Abbotsford, both in B.C.; Toronto, Ontario; Charlottetown, P.E.I.; Halifax, Nova Scotia; Edmonton, Alberta; and Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.

One gets the impression they really wanted to hear from people.

Points of Order

[John Williams, Canadian Alliance, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, thank you very much for the ruling. I am not challenging the Chair's ruling but I think the Chair missed the point that we have a definite rule that the members shall be called to vote.

The bells rang and we came in and voted on the amendment to Bill C-344. As the Chair and everyone saw, a large number of members left the Chamber. Therefore the Chair had, in my opinion, an obligation to call in the members again and to allow the bells to ring for 30 minutes to summon them back. That did not happen, as the Chair knows.

The members who had left the Chamber did not have an opportunity to return because when they left the Chair had not risen to read the main motion. Therefore it can be said that they did not know a vote was to be held and the bells should have been rung for 30 minutes. Since they were not, the vote was out of order. The proceedings were not out of order but the vote was.

[John Williams, Canadian Alliance, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw to your attention, and I am sure you noticed, that a large number of members walked out after the first vote. When the bells rang, we came in and voted on the amendment on Bill C-344. After that, you saw, and everybody else saw, a large number of members walking out of this place.

You had an obligation, Mr. Speaker, to ring the bells for half an hour and call the members in before you started to read the motion and to vote on the main motion of Bill C-344. Therefore, I would ask that you rule the last vote null and void and out of order.

Contraventions Act

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

It being 5.44 p.m., pursuant to order made on Wednesday, April 10, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the amendment to the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-344 under private members' business.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Contraventions Act and Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (marijuana)

[Keith Martin, Canadian Alliance, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. members who spoke in their eloquent interventions on the bill.

I address my speech not to the House but to the Canadian public. There are two parts to it. Number one is private member's Bill C-344 that seeks to decriminalize simple possession of marijuana. However the much larger issue is the poison pill amendment that the fascist, draconian government has--

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak to the bill. I would like to take a moment to thank the member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca for bringing the bill forth. The bill is extremely timely and important. It is an issue that has been ignored by parliamentarians and parliaments of Canada for far too long. It is time we dealt with in a serious and legitimate manner.

I understand there are other speakers trying to get some time on the floor tonight so it is not my intent to speak for a lengthy period of time. However before speaking to the bill, it is extremely important that we first speak to the amendment. The member of the NDP who spoke before me used the word hijacking of the bill. I would use the word treachery; treachery of another parliamentarian.

Private members' business is the single opportunity for individual members of parliament to bring issues of importance forth on their own. It is so important that we have changed the way we vote in the House when we do private members' business. We vote from the back to the front, so we cannot see how the leaders of the various parties vote first and therefore cower some of their own members into falling the lead of their colleagues who happen to sit in cabinet.

We get five hours a week to deal with private members' business. To put an amendment in that would verily remove this bill from the justice committee and put it over to another committee is absolute treachery on the part of any parliamentarian. I do not care in what party that individual sits. The issue of private members' business and the issue of free votes on private members' business should be sacrosanct at least in this place.

I said upon rising that the issue for the decriminalization of marijuana and an act to amend the Contraventions Act and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, or specifically marijuana, Bill C-344, is a timely bill. It would put this issue to the justice committee and allow for further study. It is the job of every parliamentarian in the House to vote down the amendment and ensure that the process is followed and that the bill actually gets to the justice committee.

Whether or not members support the bill, it is absolutely incumbent upon individual members of parliament to ensure that the process is followed. If we allow this process to be hijacked for nefarious and treacherous means, then the whole point of being a member in the House is in question. The right to be here is already then given up.

We can talk about the dollars that are spent on law enforcement and trying to control marijuana. We can talk about the fact that we have already legalized the medical use of marijuana. It is still extremely hard to access even for medical use. The issue here is simple. The majority of Canadians at some point in their life have broken the law and smoked marijuana or cannabis.

Are we going to continue to have young Canadians and Canadians everywhere hold a criminal record because they were caught with a marijuana cigarette or because they made a mistake in judgment at some time in their life? I do not think so. I think it is up to the Parliament of Canada to deal with this issue in a comprehensive way, and decriminalization is a start.

There are other issues here and those issues should be fleshed out in committee. We should come back here with a package that we can all look at, that we can weigh the pros and cons and make a decision about this substance.

There are other health issues. We have talked about tobacco, and there is a serious health issue with smoking marijuana. There is the definite tar in the substance that will cause the same effect on our lungs as tobacco smoking causes. We know for a fact that it lowers the white blood cell count. Therefore, there are health issues around marijuana.

There is also the fact that with the prohibition on alcohol everyone was drinking. With prohibition Canadians finally came to their senses and said “We cannot control this, so let us legalize it and that will give us some form of control”.

Some kid who is 16 years old who has a criminal record because of being caught with too much marijuana in his or her pocket would not be arrested when crossing the border to the United States. However people might not be 16 when they are arrested. They might be 24. They might have graduated from university and have a job south of the border but find they cannot access the job because of a criminal record.

There are all kinds of issues around this. That is why it is important, whether one supports Bill C-344 or not, that it goes to the justice committee which has an opportunity to study it and bring back legitimate proposals to the House on which we can make clear decisions.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on Bill C-344 and I wish to underline my support for this bill and congratulate the hon. member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca. To me this is a very important piece of legislation. It is long overdue in terms of government action and much needed from all aspects. I wanted to indicate this although it is private members' hour.

My support for this bill is certainly in line with NDP policy and our longstanding position to decriminalize marijuana. There are obvious reasons for our support. They have been enunciated by many members in the House. One is obviously and clearly the whole question of a more appropriate way than is presently the case for dealing with a victimless crime and providing an avenue for dealing with marijuana in a more appropriate non-criminal way.

The second reason, as we have heard so clearly from the Association of Canadian Police Chiefs, is that we are talking about a lot of money and a lot of resources that are tied up in pursuing folks for possession of marijuana.

I understand from the member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca that we are looking at about $400 million a year as a result of the police having to deal with charges for possession and prosecuting those offences. That is a lot of money that could be invested in so many other desperately needed areas of our criminal justice system and in pursuing crime prevention in all aspects of our society.

I also think it is important because right now as we speak we are facing a great deal of concern from Canadians about the government's decision to provide access to marijuana for medical purposes. We know that whole approach is replete with many difficulties. There are many problems in the system. The doctors are concerned. Patients in need of marijuana for medical purposes do not have access to it. It is not clear at this point when that will be sorted out. It probably would make sense at this point, in the context of that issue, to remind the government how useful it would be to move on this long overdue area of decriminalizing marijuana.

That is the essence of our position and why we support Bill C-344.

I want to take one minute though to speak on the process that we are all engaged in and add my voice to those concerned about the hijacking by a Liberal member of this parliament of this private members' hour and the parliamentary process.

It is clear, as others have said, that this has been a poison pill. It has been an attempt to remove our parliamentary rights to pursue business and to promote ideas through private members' hour. Taking away from members the right to put forward an idea and to have members of the House vote on that idea is clearly unconscionable in a democratic process.

We have seen too many times where legitimate private members' business has faced many hurdles along the way, notwithstanding this incredible arbitrary decision on the part of what would appear to be the Liberal government. We have seen so many private members' initiatives actually discussed, debated, voted on and then sent to committee where the government then has used the heavy-hand of the process to shut down a bill, shut down the idea, delay, stall and prevent action on a very important initiative. This is just like the icing on the cake. It is the worst possible scenario we can imagine in terms of private members' work in the House and the whole parliamentary process.

I hope the government will see its way clear to give some direction to its own private members to withdraw this amendment and allow this legitimate and constructive proposal by the member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca to go forward, to be voted on and then proceed to committee. It is much needed, and we appreciate the member for his contribution to the work of the House.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to enter the debate on Bill C-344, a private members' bill put forward by the member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca.

The bill, if enacted, would change the type of proceedings and legal regime governing the offences of possession for the purposes of trafficking in one gram or less of cannabis resin and 30 grams or less of cannabis marijuana. In other words, it would decriminalize the possession of smaller amounts of marijuana.

In thinking through this very important policy issue, I would like to thank my colleagues and friends in Esquimalt and Saanich and the Gulf Islands in the Victoria area for their advice and input. Having said that, the comments which follow are my own.

I support the thrust of what is being proposed for reasons that I am about to elaborate on. The debate, however, should be focused on whether or not the amounts of cannabis proposed are the appropriate levels and also whether or not the bill goes far enough.

In order to create a policy on this, a fine balance must be struck with respect to a number of factors. These include the social and economic costs, the health effects, and the effectiveness and efficiency of various possible strategies.

First I will give some background. After caffeine, alcohol, tobacco and certain prescription medications, cannabis is the most popular psychoactive drug in Canada. It is the most commonly used illicit drug in the country.

In this debate we should not forget that the use of marijuana does have health effects. There is a link between chronic heavy marijuana use and damage to the respiratory system similar to that caused by tobacco. Cannabis impairs co-ordination and may affect memory.

There are other negative effects as well. We know that marijuana is a substance that merits serious attention.

One of the strongest arguments, in my view, to support the decriminalization of marijuana possession arises from the misdirection of significant resources that are focused on the control and enforcement of marijuana possession. These people and budgets could be redeployed to combat the use of more destructive drugs such as cocaine, crack and heroin. Costs of illicit drug enforcement to Canadian police, courts and correctional services according to the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse total more than $400 million per year.

Seventy per cent of all drug offences that occurred in Canada in 1995 were offences involving cannabis. About half of all drug offences were offences for the simple possession of cannabis. Approximately 2,000 Canadians are sent to jail every year for cannabis possession. However the evidence suggests that the control and enforcement measures do not deter the use of marijuana.

The Controlled Drugs and Substances Act provides a maximum sentence of a $1,000 fine and/or six months imprisonment for first time cannabis possession offenders and double the amounts for repeat offenders. Many of these charges lead to jail terms or fines and a stigma of a criminal record. This could mean the death of a job offer to someone otherwise completely qualified and ready to take on a new challenge or career. Despite this, cannabis use remains high and there is no demonstrated relationship between enforcement measures and cannabis use.

It is reported in the Canadian Medical Association Journal that 1.5 million Canadians smoke marijuana for recreational purposes. A large number of Canadians use cannabis for medical reasons. A study in Toronto found 92% of the drug users who were convicted offenders reported continuing use, typically at the same level as when they were convicted.

It is equally problematic to realize how much cannabis users flout the law. Few of us have not walked into a room or passed a spot where there was an overwhelming odour of marijuana.

British Columbia's marijuana industry in the underground economy employs an estimated 150,000 people and earns some $4 billion per year. This certainly does not justify its use or the rationale for its decriminalization but it does give food for thought.

Our government more recently legitimized the medicinal use of marijuana. I applaud this step, but more is needed.

A six month trial that was recently completed in the United Kingdom in Lambeth, South London forcefully makes the point that police efforts could be better directed to hard drugs rather than marijuana. Under the experiment people found in possession of small quantities of cannabis were given a formal warning rather than being arrested and cautioned. The six month initiative is estimated to have saved 2,000 police hours and saved potential court costs of £4 million. In addition, the approach used in the six month trial led to a 19% increase in arrests of cocaine, crack, heroin and other hard drug dealers.

In my riding of Etobicoke North hard drugs are a problem and need to be focused on.

At the same time, the number of arrests of cannabis dealers rose by 11%, suggesting that police officers may have targeted dealers found with larger amounts who were excluded from the warning scheme.

The very significant and positive results of this experiment are being closely reviewed by the city of London's metropolitan police with a view to extending the policy throughout the city.

The question before us today, if one supports some form of marijuana decriminalization, is whether or not Bill C-344 is the appropriate response and instrument to achieve this end. In my view it is not for the following reasons.

A system of fines, while preferred to incarceration, may end up consuming more police and more court resources than the current system. In two jurisdictions in Australia, South Australia and the Australian Capital Territory, where marijuana offences are not criminally prosecuted or penalized but where fines are imposed, approximately 45% failed to pay the fine and eventually ended up before the courts.

The Lambeth, South London experience in my view may be the more appropriate policy model to examine and pursue. In my view, trafficking and possession of cannabis for the purposes of trafficking, even for small amounts, should continue to be viewed as a serious offence. This bill does not appear to do that.

For these reasons I will not be supporting Bill C-344 in its present form. Perhaps a committee of the House, like the special committee on the non-medical use of drugs, could review the subject matter more comprehensively.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in this debate on Bill C-344, an act to amend the Contraventions Act and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

I already had the opportunity to indicate that I would be wholeheartedly supporting my colleague's private member's bill. Why? Let me try to explain myself as clearly as possible.

I believe that the debate our colleague has launched with this bill requires us to ask the following fundamental question: should a person found in possession of less than 30 grams of marihuana be considered a criminal? Should this person be subject to a possible six month prison sentence and, or a fine of $1,000 for being found in possession of the said substance?

It is important to remember that having a criminal record can have a major impact on one's life—problems finding a job, problems travelling outside of Canada's borders and problems reintegrating into the community—all because of being found guilty of simple possession or marihuana, as set out in the criminal code.

Our colleague is encouraging us to give this some thought by suggesting a certain from of decriminalization. The bill proposes a maximum fine of $1,000 or six months' imprisonment. What this boils down to is a form of decriminalization.

As I have already said, I therefore support the very essence of this bill without hesitation. We in the Bloc Quebecois are not the only ones who want to see this decriminalization. I have already said publicly a few months ago that I would like to see a pilot project similar to the one in Belgium introduced in Canada, in other words a form of decriminalization, as long as members of the public do not use it in a socially irresponsible manner.

For example, I feel that it is no more acceptable to drive one's car after using marihuana than it is to drive with a blood alcohol content of more than 0.08% after having consumed some form of alcohol. As long as an individual has less than 30 grams of marihuana in their possession and is not behaving in a socially irresponsible manner, we could consider a form of decriminalization. This concludes my remarks on the substance of the bill.

Today, however, I wish to speak to the motion and to the government's amendment, which would prevent us, as parliamentarians, not only from debating fundamental issues, which is what the public expects of us—and this is another such issue—but also from being able to vote on such an issue.

The government has brought forward an amendment that will mean that the Standing Committee on Justice will not be able to study this bill. Whether one is for or against the bill introduced by the Canadian Alliance member, that is neither here nor there. What the government has done by bringing forward this amendment is to make it impossible for parliamentarians to vote on this fundamental issue, which is what the people of Quebec and of Canada expect of them.

Through this motion, the government has indicated that the member's bill, if passed, cannot be studied in committee. It is as though the government already expected parliamentarians to vote in favour of the bill, and is seeking to avoid further legislative measures and studies in committee.

This is, to our minds, a totally undemocratic approach. It limits the opportunity of citizens, and MPs in particular, to debate an issue and then reach a conclusion on it. We are parliamentarians who represent the people for whom we have a duty to act as legislators. The public expects us to do so as well as possible.

The stalling tactic being used by this government, with the motion from the hon. member for Erie--Lincoln, is totally unacceptable. I am issuing a solemn appeal to all in this House, regardless of which side of the floor they are on, whether Bloc Quebecois, Alliance or Liberal. I invite them to take into consideration the fact that the government's motion and amendment are aimed at preventing parliamentarians from voting on this fundamental issue.

We as parliamentarians, regardless of which side of the floor we are on, have a mandate. The public expects us to enact legislation. The members on the other side there, who believe they hold the true power in this House, must vote down the government's motion.

I realize that others want to speak as well. I trust that the colleagues on the other side who may speak after me will back up our approach, which is that the members of this House must be able to decide on issues and must vote.

For the sake of freedom of expression, for the sake of the freedom of MPs to vote on important issues when a House committee has so decided, for the sake of democracy, my hope is not merely that the government's amendment will be defeated, but that at the end of the day there will be a vote in favour of this matter so that the committee may at last look into it.

[Scott Reid, Canadian Alliance, Lanark—Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, whenever the occasion permits I try in my remarks to the House to develop arguments that form part of a larger, more coherent whole than is permitted by the 10 minute speaking slots that are assigned to us under the Standing Orders.

A larger, more complete picture on an issue under debate in the House can be developed by means of public addresses, published papers, opeds or other media. In this way I try to ensure that my contributions to the debates that take place in the Chamber will become part of what I hope will develop over time into an ever more complete, thoughtful and well reasoned organic whole on whatever subject is under discussion.

Ideally, the longer term result of this approach would be that as time progresses these disparate commentaries could together be taken as part of a coherent and tolerably exhaustive review of the background to a subject as it percolates its way through the realm of public debate. By the time it is ready to be dealt with legislatively I will have completed a thorough review of the subject accompanied where possible by something that amounts to a kind of policy manifesto.

In my remarks today I will be expanding upon a thesis with regard to the subject of banned and illegal substances that I had partly addressed in an essay entitled “Should we end prohibition?” in the October 2001 edition of the journal Policy Options. Today's remarks are given some context by these earlier thoughts. If hon. members find what I say to be of interest I encourage them to seek further information along the same lines by looking at that essay.

Today's debate centres on Bill C-344, an act to amend the Contraventions Act and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (marijuana). Under the bill it would no longer be a criminal offence to possess marijuana for personal use. However, the possession of marijuana would remain a non-criminal offence and persons found to be in possession of the substance would face fines of $200 for a first offence, $500 for a second offence and $1,000 for any subsequent offences.

Currently, the penalties laid out under subsection 462.2(a) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act for a first conviction can include fines as high as $100,000 or six months in prison. The penalties for reoffending range as high as $300,000 and one year's imprisonment.

The present standard for determining whether marijuana is intended for personal use would remain in place under the proposed law. If any person were found to be in possession of amounts in excess of three kilograms this would be regarded as prima facie evidence of an intent to sell some since it is highly unlikely that one person could possibly consume such a large quantity on his or her own.

My inclination is to support the proposed law for reasons that I will explain in a moment. However, if the law makes it through the legislative process and is presented to the House for third reading I will attempt to hold a survey of my constituents as to how to vote and I will respect their wishes even if these wishes do not correspond with my own preferences.

With this caveat in place I would like to state my personal views. I favour the legislation for two reasons, the second of which I will spend more time on than the first.

First, it would greatly reduce the amount of Canada's limited police and law enforcement assets that are being consumed by the enforcement of the current Criminal Code provisions relating to marijuana possession. About $200 million is spent each year in this country on enforcing laws against the simple possession for personal use of all illegal drugs. Of this, $150 million goes to the enforcement of the criminal sanctions against the use of marijuana. This proposed law would therefore save our police departments $150 million each year which could be used instead to deal with the many other urgent issues that face our law enforcement officials.

Second, it would pave the way for marijuana to be used under careful monitoring for medical purposes. The most important of these purposes would be for use as a pain relieving agent. It is to this subject that I wish to focus the remaining portion of my remarks.

Marijuana, whether smoked or ingested in another manner, can provide relief from chronic pain and in some cases from debilitating pain when no other remedy is available. It is for this reason that several American states, including California and Arizona, have legalized the use of marijuana for pain relief.

Those of us who do not suffer chronic pain in our everyday lives have little idea just how devastating it can be. In many cases severe, untreated pain can be so overwhelming that individuals who are not able to find relief, find that the pain outweighs all of life's joys. In extreme cases life ceases to be worth living.

I will give one example among the many from which I could choose. A retired New York state police officer named David Covillion suffered chronic back pain as the result of a traffic accident. He was deprived pain medication in the form of a prescription drug that combines acetaminophen and the narcotic oxycodone after his long term use of the drug raised red flags with medical authorities. When this occurred Mr. Covillion tried to go from one doctor to another seeking narcotic prescriptions. Mr. Covillion described his pain in the following words:

As I ran out of medication, I was confined to my bed totally, because it hurt to move...At times I'd have liked to just take an axe and chop my arm right off, but I would have had to take half my neck with it.

When he had been completely cut off from prescription narcotics Mr. Covillion approached Jack Kevorkian, the famous suicide doctor, to ask how to end his life. Dr. Kevorkian refused to assist Mr. Covillion end his life. He then turned to a group called the National Chronic Pain Outreach Association which for a few months was able to re-establish his access to the pain relievers he needed. During this period his quality of life improved and Mr. Covillion's story came to public light. He conducted a number of interviews including the one from which I have just quoted. However he was cut off again from medical supplies, his pain became too intense to bear, and on September 11, 1996 he killed himself.

In a general sense Mr. Covillion's story draws our attention to the need for more generous rules for the distribution of prescription pain relief. In his case the medication in question was not marijuana. It was a story like this one that caused voters in some parts of the United States to reconsider their harsh rules with regard to all forms of pain relief, including marijuana.

In California, in 1996, the voters chose by means of a binding referendum to change their state's laws to allow the use of marijuana as a means of relieving chronic pain. This change to California's law and the United States federal government's subsequent decision to ignore state law and to continue to prosecute the users of medical marijuana allows us to engage in an interesting experiment in finding out what happens when marijuana is available for the relief of chronic pain and what happens when it is taken away.

I would like to illustrate this story by referring to a specific example. I am referring to a man named Peter McWilliams, the editor of Liberty magazine of which I am also an editor. In 1996 he fell ill with AIDS and with non-Hodgkins lymphoma. Like many people who are afflicted with these illnesses his medication caused him to have severe nausea.

In 1996 it became legal to use marijuana for pain relief and Peter McWilliams began to use it. This allowed him to temporarily conquer his nausea and as a result he was able to keep his symptoms under control. However federal authorities cracked down and seized his marijuana from him. In order for him to be freed from jail where he would not have had access to his medication and to necessary lifesaving treatments he was required to put up as bond his brother's and mother's house. He also had to submit to regular urine testing to confirm that he was not using drugs. As a result his viral load began to soar. He said:

Unable to keep down the life-saving prescription medications, by November 1998, four months after my arrest, my viral load soared to more than 256,000. In 1996 when my viral load was only 12,500, I had already developed an AIDS-related cancer...Even so, the government would not yield. It continued to urine test me. If marijuana were found in my system, my mother and brother would lose their homes and I would be returned to prison.

He stopped using marijuana, and tried to carry on with his medication and the nausea he suffered without the aid of the pain relief drug. On June 14, 1999, his home care nurse arrived at his home to find him dead, having choked on his own vomit.

I suggest that the availability of marijuana for medical use and for pain relief could prevent this sort of tragedy. For this reason the legislation is an excellent measure which the House should consider.

Business of the House

[Aileen Carroll, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There has been consultation among the parties and I believe you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That, following conclusion of tomorrow's debate on Bill C-344, all questions necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill be deemed put, a recorded division demanded and deferred until the end of government orders on Wednesday, April 17.

Request for Emergency Debate

[Carol Skelton, Canadian Alliance, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Mr. Speaker, being very new in my position I hope I have this correct. I would like to defer the vote on Bill C-344.

There have been consultations among the parties and I believe you would find unanimous consent that following the conclusion of tomorrow's debate on Bill C-344 all questions necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill be deemed put, a recorded division demanded and deferred until the end of government orders on Wednesday, April 17, 2002.

Contraventions Act

[Peter Goldring, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton Centre-East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to lessen the lifelong stigma of a criminal code conviction for minor possession of a small amount of marijuana for personal use, but I have difficulty with the method of achieving this goal and with the resulting penalties which appear to be too weak. The arguments for the insulation of our inquisitive youth from a potentially career wrecking criminal record are both laudable and reasonable, however, I remain concerned that there must be significant penal consequences for possession of larger quantities of a hazardous substance.

My first concern relates to the varying and increasing potencies of cannabis resins and marijuana plants generally. Potencies have been increased through cross-germination and plant genetics and are unrecognizable from those of the hippie sixties. The potencies may well be increased manyfold in the future. An illicit drug that is not easily quantifiable as to potency is a hazardous substance that requires control with a very firm hand.

Today, three kilograms of cannabis resin or three kilograms of marijuana have enough potency to impair the residents of a small town, let alone one person striving for a personal recreational high. A person with three kilograms, or seven pounds, of marijuana is not an individual with a personal supply but is instead a bulk grocery store of drugs to be sold to members of our community, including children.

It is important to acknowledge a general consensus that simple possession of a small quantity of marijuana, medicinally prescribed and for medicinal purposes, should be legalized. The current debate on criminalization concerns possession for purely recreational purposes. I am not unfamiliar with the subject matter, particularly as I was a young person in Toronto during the sixties. As I recall, the price at that time was generally $10 per ounce, or a dime bag. Today an ounce might cost $50. Three kilograms or seven pounds of marijuana at $50 per ounce would retail for $5,000. Three kilograms of marijuana is the equivalent of 100 $50 dime bags, enough to seriously intoxicate up to 500 people.

Under the recently debated legislation in the House of Commons, Bill C-344, which has not yet become law, possession of three kilograms of marijuana would warrant no more than a $200 fine to the dealer. Such a penalty would amount to little more than an incidental business cost, more comparable to a traffic ticket than a drug trafficking penalty. A fine for a second offence would be no more $500 and for a third offence no more than $1,000. Again, these are little more than nuisance highway traffic tickets.

Some even believe that no jail time should ever be imposed when sentencing marijuana users or dealers. Before agreeing to such weak sanctions, I believe we should approach matters with a consistent hand and speak to the experts on the front lines, our police officers, and solicit a national consensus. In my opinion, there must still be restrictions and serious punishments associated with all marijuana offences, particularly for those who traffic in this potent mind altering drug. Removing marijuana charges under the criminal code for possession or trafficking in large quantities of the drug is not conducive to law, justice and good civil order. While alcohol induced impairment is readily detected by roadside breath analysis, the more dangerous marijuana induced impairment is not.

Grant Obst, a Saskatoon police officer and president of the Canadian Police Association, recently acknowledged that police across Canada are focusing more on marijuana traffickers than on users. However, the Canadian Police Association opposes general decriminalization of marijuana regardless of enforcement issues that arise in allocating very limited police resources. The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and the national Tory leader, the member for Calgary Centre, both call for looser pot laws. I say we should listen to the police who work on the front lines at street level. They say no.

Variability of potencies of marijuana is a matter of grave concern to the Canadian medical profession, which is now permitted to prescribe the drug for medicinal purposes. The Canadian Medical Protective Association, the primary liability insurer for doctors, is now warning doctors against prescribing marijuana. In the view of the association it is an unacceptable burden to require the doctors to prescribe marijuana unquantifiable as to potencies for medicinal purposes. While pharmaceuticals are subject to rigorous testing, quality control and regulation prior to being available under a doctor's prescription, there are absolutely no standards in place to address consistency in marijuana quality or potency.

In my view, our concern should be more to ensure that those who need marijuana for medicinal purposes are able to obtain a drug that is consistent in quality and potency, like any other approved pharmaceutical. We should not be devoting resources to decriminalizing marijuana generally.

Recently an Edmonton organization stepped forward to help those who need marijuana for medicinal purposes, but it appears to be more concerned with obtaining tax deductible charity status rather than with seeking help from elected officials such as myself who are willing to try to assist.

Last June I introduced a motion in the House of Commons. I am seeking agreement from my colleagues that the government should not legalize marijuana except for medicinally prescribed purposes. This motion has not yet come forward for debate.

The basic point remains. We cannot, as a responsible society, decriminalize a drug with known short term and long term narcotic effects, particularly when potencies and quality vary and the extent of social harm is therefore unpredictable.

[John Maloney, Liberal, Erie—Lincoln, ON]

Mr. Speaker, at first glance the goal of Bill C-344 to decriminalize the possession of small amounts of cannabis would seem a straightforward one.

As hon. members have been told, under Bill C-344 simple possession of cannabis would be dealt with under the Contraventions Act rather than the criminal justice system. The Contraventions Act provides an alternative to the summary conviction process prescribed by the criminal code. It simplifies the process for prosecuting offences against federal statutes and regulations that would otherwise be prosecuted under the criminal code.

Supporters of Bill C-344 believe removing the criminal penalty would ease the burden on Canada's criminal justice system. They maintain that any savings that result could be directed to prosecuting dealers and traffickers of illegal drugs.

Easing the burden on Canada's criminal justice system is an admirable goal. However it is important to note that Bill C-344 would necessitate the creation of a new administrative regime. We need look no further than at one of our closest friends, Australia, to see that such administrative regimes can produce unexpected and often unwelcome results.

Canada can learn from the Australian experience for a number of reasons. The types of drugs and their usage rates are much the same in both countries. We have similar legal and parliamentary systems. If we look closely at the Australian example it becomes clear that decriminalizing cannabis in Canada would not be as simple or straightforward as some have indicated.

Two Australian states, South Australia and the Australian Capital Territory, have converted the simple possession of cannabis into a civil offence through what is called a cannabis expiation notice system. In both states the possession of small amounts of cannabis for personal use is a non-criminal process. Offenders may be fined up to $150. If they fail to pay within 60 days they are required to go to court.

While there has been no evidence of any dramatic increase in cannabis use in the two states since they introduced the expiation system in the early 1990s, officials have encountered unanticipated results regarding enforcement practices. For example, despite the fact that cannabis use remained at relatively stable levels after the expiation system was introduced, the number of offences rose disproportionately. The increase came about largely because it had become procedurally easier for authorities to fine rather than arrest.

The focus of enforcement also became an issue. Males, often of lower socio-economic status or aboriginal origin, were being charged more frequently than others. The expiation system had widened the net and increased representation of marginalized groups. The trend was disturbing for a number of reasons. Most noticeable was that the majority of the males lacked the financial means to pay their fines within the 60 day period. Almost half those who received expiation notices failed to pay their fines within the required 60 days. As a result they found themselves before the courts anyway, in danger of acquiring the very criminal record decriminalization was designed to eliminate.

Both states have been forced to take action to address the situation. In Western Australia payment options have been introduced. Clearer and more detailed information is now available so people receiving expiation notices are fully aware of the process and its consequences.

I believe hon. members will agree that it is clear Canada will face similar risks unless we insist on an informed and prepared approach to the issues. Both Australian territories had relatively sophisticated mechanisms to help them identify potential problems in the expiation system. We lack similar data in Canada. We would need to develop means to disseminate information on any new system we might introduce. We would need to find a reasonable alternative to the use of fines. This alone should encourage us to proceed cautiously and allow the parliamentary committees examining the issue to complete their valuable work.

There is another area in which Bill C-344 may be insufficient. It would maintain the link between consumers of cannabis and suppliers of cannabis, suppliers such as organized crime. Australian legislators addressed this important issue by decriminalizing the personal cultivation of small numbers of plants.

Hundreds of thousands of Canadians may be making an informed decision to smoke cannabis. If we decriminalized cannabis would we provide a decriminalized supply as they do in Australia or would we continue to drive cannabis consumers into the arms of organized crime? Put another way, would we allow organized crime to continue to profit from trafficking in marijuana or would we make a serious attempt to diminish its profits?

There is also a more practical difficulty with Bill C-344. That is the fact that some provinces have not yet agreed on a memorandum of understanding with the federal government concerning the Contraventions Act. Furthermore, we need to know about our options regarding decriminalization and legalization. A wide range of responses is possible, including maintaining the current situation of criminalizing possession only, without jail. In this regard the findings of the parliamentary committees now examining these issues promise to be very helpful. Finally, we need more information, relevant information, in a number of areas: for example, information about the number and demographics of cannabis users in Canada. This kind of baseline data is essential in evaluating any new system or designing any effective prevention efforts.

Surely all these factors make it clear that Canada needs to acquire more information and be more prepared before we can seriously consider the decriminalization of cannabis.

Even as we go about gathering that information we should not lose sight of the fact that decriminalization is merely a tool, not an end in itself. For example, the health and social problems related to cannabis use will not go away by simply reducing the penalty for possession. The truth is that issues such as driving while impaired and poly-substance abuse such as cannabis and alcohol will remain with us. This was a concern of the justice committee during our review of the impaired driving legislation. Surely it is clear to all members that we must consider the implications of decriminalization and be fully prepared to address these implications before we move ahead with the decriminalization process.

As a consequence and in light of my comments, I would propose the following motion. I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words above the word that and by substituting therefor the following:

That Bill C-344, An Act to amend the Contraventions Act and Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (marihuana), be not now read a second time, that the order for second reading be discharged, the bill withdrawn from the Order Paper and the subject matter be referred to the Special Committee on Non-medical Use of Drugs.

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill currently before the House which was proposed by my colleague from Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca.

We are debating Bill C-344 as a private member's bill. Although I am the member of parliament for Burnaby--Douglas I speak in this debate as a private member as do all members. I do not purport to speak on behalf of my caucus colleagues. There are a range of views in my caucus on the issue. However it is fair to say that on the issue of decriminalization and the medical use of marijuana the New Democratic Party strongly supports the changes being proposed.

Bill C-344 is an important step but does not go far enough. We should recognize that the issue of drug use should be dealt with as a health issue and not a criminal issue.

Our present approach to the issue of marijuana is steeped in hypocrisy. I cannot tell the House how many times I have spoken with young people who say the most destructive drugs in our society are alcohol and tobacco. Yet those drugs are entirely legal. This does not mean by any stretch of the imagination that we should encourage the use of marijuana. It means we should recognize that the so-called war on drugs has been an abject failure in every sense of the word. Many have come to that conclusion.

A number of decades ago the Le Dain commission recommended decriminalization of marijuana yet there has been effectively no change whatsoever. Last year a committee of the European parliament adopted a report on drug use that came to the blunt conclusion that “legal sanctions against drug possession and use appear to have no effect whatsoever”. The report recommended European nations press ahead in the direction many have already taken: that treating drug use is a matter for health professionals and not police officers. This means making the use and possession of small amounts of drugs de facto legal while concentrating resources on health and social programs to reduce the harms of drug abuse.

If we legalized the possession of drugs for personal use one might ask whether it would not encourage their use. Would it not encourage more young people to use drugs and thus have a negative impact on their health? The answer is no.

At a conference last year in Stockholm the World Health Organization released a major international survey of drug use by teenagers. The results were revealing. The survey found that 41% of American teens had used marijuana or hashish compared with 16% of European teens. It found that 16% of American teens had used amphetamines and 10% had used LSD compared with 6% of European teens who had used illegal drugs aside from marijuana. This is the latest evidence which indicates that the United States, which has the highest spending and most punitive drug laws in the world, also has the highest rates of teenage drug use.

The war on drugs is not working. There are a half million people in American jails as a result of the unfair and destructive war on drugs. I hope we in Canada can join with a number of other jurisdictions in recognizing that this is a health issue.

Unfortunately there is tremendous pressure from the American government. The International Narcotics Control Board is a 13 member United Nations body set up to monitor compliance with international treaties banning drugs. It is effectively run and dominated by the United States. It recently attacked Canada by saying we were not cracking down hard enough on marijuana use.

What was the response of the Liberal Minister of Justice? She said it was clear we could do more and that we must do more. She said the government was seized with the issue and that we would put more resources toward it.

This approach is madness. It is not working. It is breeding contempt for an unfair, unjust and hypocritical law. While I support the bill of the hon. member as a step in the right direction, we should be going further. We should recognize that the answer is not just decriminalization but ending criminal sanctions and ensuring we put resources into education, awareness and prevention.

We must recognize that the war on drugs takes a terrible human toll. Drug users are in many cases forced to obtain their supplies from the black market. What does this mean? It means more crime. Prices become so high that addicts who finance their habit by committing crimes must commit more crimes to purchase them than if the drugs were legally available.

Drug users, particularly hard drug users, are pulled into a world of filthy needles, poisoned drugs, and pushers bent on selling them more addictive and dangerous fixes. They have no access to basic information such as the strength of the drug in question, the recommended maximum dosage for first time users, or the effect of mixing with other drugs such as alcohol.

I received correspondence from Alan Randel of Victoria, British Columbia who wrote to me about how his youngest son Peter died in February 1993 after ingesting heroin with friends. Only Peter died. Of course, too many have died.

My colleague from Vancouver East has been eloquent on the issue. She has spoken out about the terrible toll the futile and destructive war on drugs has taken in her constituency. One need only go to Main and Hastings to see the impact of it.

The young brother of a close friend of mine, Tim Pelzer, died of an overdose of drugs. Todd Pelzer should not have died. He got caught up in the vicious and destructive cycle of that element. It took his life. It is taking too many lives. It is taking the lives of street people in Vancouver East. It is taking the lives of people across Canada. It must stop. The destructive and futile war must stop. That is why I support Bill C-344 as a step in the right direction. However it does not go far enough.

Canadians asked themselves what on earth was going on when Ross Rebagliati, the world champion snowboarder, was initially barred from the United States. Why was he barred? He admitted to having smoked a few joints in the past. That is not acceptable.

We have an opportunity to change the laws. A committee of the House is examining the current drug legislation. I urge its members to be bold and recommend major changes to the laws. The Senate has a committee chaired by Senator Nolin which is making similar recommendations.

Much more can and should be done in this area. Yes, of course there are health concerns. However a number of studies have indicated marijuana may not be as serious as tobacco or alcohol. Smoking marijuana does not seem to cause lung cancer, emphysema or birth anomalies in fetuses, according to John P. Morgan of the City University of New York Medical School. Yes, there are symptoms of lung damage but not the life threatening conditions seen among tobacco smokers.

Mr. Morgan appeared as a witness before the Senate committee. He pointed out that while cannabis contains as many harmful compounds and irritants as tobacco, even heavy marijuana smokers do not smoke nearly as much as tobacco smokers. As he points out, the critical issue is the amount of smoke inhaled.

We must recognize that much more must be done in terms of ending the drug war. I just returned from Colombia where $500 worth of cocaine can bring as much as $100,000 on the streets of an American city. Colombian politicians tell us that if they are to be able to deal with the epidemic of the drug trade and the corruption it brings, we must take action here.

While Bill C-344 is an important step it does not go as far as it should in recognizing human, medical, criminal and health realities. I hope the bill will be referred to committee. I hope the committee will have an opportunity to bring the laws of Canada into conformity with justice and humanity.

[Chuck Strahl, Canadian Alliance, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, many people want to read a lot of things into Bill C-344 today. Some have decided that since the word marijuana is in the document it gives them a free reign to talk about the use of medicinal marijuana or the addictive quality of drugs in general or even whether or not this is within provincial or federal jurisdiction. Some have even wondered whether we should be discussing it at all.

Debate arises about whether marijuana is a gateway drug or a problem made worse when teenagers are involved. It is open season on marijuana issues and the reason is clear. The federal government refused to deal with this issue in a serious way.

It has been left to an opposition MP, the member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca, to broach the subject and get the House involved, as it should be. We need to have this debate and we should be involved.

The situation in Canada right now is approaching untenable. While there are laws on the books regarding the possession of marijuana, a first time conviction for simple possession seldom means very much in a financial or punitive sense.

A convicted person typically faces only a $50 fine. It is not much of a preventive measure. The most serious part about the whole conviction is the criminal conviction itself. Every person convicted under the current law faces a lifetime with a criminal record. It seems to me that the essence of the argument revolves around whether a person should face sanctions for a lifetime for the possession of marijuana.

The bill proposes changes that would increase the average fine for possession of marijuana to $250 for first time offenders; $500 for a second offence and $1,000 for the third offence. The difference is that the offence becomes a summary conviction, not a criminal offence. It would be more like a traffic violation, still illegal and frowned upon. An individual would still be pulled over by the police. However the individual would not necessarily end up in court.

Nothing changes the criminal offence of trafficking or selling to minors. In fact, because possession would become a summary conviction, the number of tickets written by police would likely increase dramatically since it would be easier for police to write it out than to press for a court case and all the expense and so on that goes with that.

Fines and possible deterrents would be higher under the bill than the current status quo. It would mean that some people, such as those who belong to the Marijuana Party for example, would not support the bill because they would say it is too punitive.

Let me run through the arguments in favour of the bill. Currently police catch a lot of people with a joint or two of marijuana, however only a few cases are taken to court. Why is that? It is because it does not have the time or resources to push each case to the limit. This means there is a huge amount of discretion placed in the hands of police, not because it wants to convict some and let others off the hook, but because the police and the courts would simply be overwhelmed if each case was pushed to the limit.

What then happens is that users, police and the courts soon recognize that the law is not being applied evenly and becomes something everyone tries to work around instead of applying evenhandedly and without prejudice. Once the law is flouted this much it becomes a mockery to everyone involved.

The second reason to be in favour of the bill is that the price paid for simple possession is not reasonable in a free, just and open society. I am not talking about fines but about the criminal record itself. If someone has a record the effect on his or her life is truly life changing. That individual cannot get a passport nor travel to certain countries, including the U.S.A.

It is highly unlikely that a person with a record would get a job where a criminal record check is important, including many public service jobs, security roles, working in a bank, in securities, selling real estate and so on. Today, young kids, perhaps in their only foray into the drug world, would receive a conviction that would dog them for the rest of their days.

The third argument runs like this. Alcohol and cigarettes, both legal drugs made available through the aegis of the government, cause tens of thousands of deaths and cause society billions of dollars each year in health and societal costs, yet there is no equivalent sanction for them. In fact the government delights in the tax dollars brought in each year with these mind and health altering drugs. They are as addictive and possibly more destructive than marijuana.

Why the double standard? What about the hypocrisy involved? North American leaders like Bill, I smoke but I did not inhale Clinton, and our own former prime minister Kim Campbell have admitted trying marijuana. How can these same lawmakers then throw the book at those who are doing the same thing?

Of course there are counter arguments. The active ingredient in marijuana today is many times stronger than it was when the flower children were using it in the sixties and seventies? For those out there who used the stuff when they were younger and think it is no big deal, I believe they need to realize that the stuff they used is unlike anything today. In fact, what is readily available to youngsters is almost a different drug in its potency. It is in a different league and the effects on the body and the mind are considerably different.

I am sorry to disagree with those who say it is just another herb and we should not worry about it because it is a potent drug. There is a body of evidence that suggests that kids who start experimenting with drugs at a young age will get hooked on them if for no other reason than that they simply do not have the discretion or willpower to just say no.

Why do tobacco companies target their efforts on young smokers? It is because if they can get people experimenting with tobacco before they are 18 or 19 years of age, they might become hooked. The number of people who start smoking after 20 years of age is negligible. The younger they can target people and get them started, the easier it is to get them hooked.

It is the same thing with alcohol. If we watch sporting events on TV, we would swear that it is almost impossible to have fun without a case of beer under our arms. These messages work their way into the minds of young children and before we know it they are looking for miniature Stanley cups in a 12 pack instead of a corn flakes box. These companies know how to get young impressionable people to try their products.

By taking some of the sanctions off of marijuana use we risk the possibility of some people interpreting that to mean it is all right to get into the drug scene.

There is contradictory evidence about whether or not marijuana is a drug that would lead to experimentation with other drugs. Those who treat cocaine addicts note that addicts are 84 times as likely to have had a marijuana problem along the way than those who have no addictions at all.

At the public meeting I held last week on this subject, one addiction counsellor suggested that 100% of the people he treated for cocaine and heroin addiction started their drug experimentation with marijuana. Of course everyone at the meeting, including the experts I brought in, agreed that the majority of people who use marijuana recreationally will never move on to hard drugs and likely will never be addicted to anything in their lives. However, for others the path is not a pretty one. Many of them curse the day when they decided to try the bud for the first time.

There is an argument, again brought up at the public meeting I had last week, that some societies which put an extreme sanction on the possession of marijuana are successful in reducing the number of people who actually ever try it. The example used was Japan where possession of marijuana and drugs is generally treated as a very harsh offence. Japan has a very low level of drug use, perhaps because its society is of a different make up than ours. That is in part the case. Also in part it treats drug possession of any kind very seriously and the message it sends to young and old is that drug possession is not only unwise, but it is a criminal offence that will get a person thrown in the slammer.

I was asked if I ever tried marijuana when I was young? The answer is, no I did not. When I was a young impressionable youth marijuana use was a criminal activity. That did dissuade me from trying it. Whereas I may have had a drink of alcohol because alcohol was a legal substance, even if it was not legal for a minor. The fact that using marijuana was a criminal offence made a difference to me. I did not try it. Once I became 19 or 20 I frankly was not interested in it. Age does make a difference in some cases.

What became apparent at the public meeting and in other discussions I have had is that no one should underestimate both the societal and family examples that we all portray, especially to young people, about whether or not it is a good idea to try marijuana. There are all kinds of legal and illegal drugs out there. We can name it and it is available to us. However the longer we can get young people to put off their drug experimentation, the more balance their approach will be to it. I worry that the youngsters of 10 and 12 years of age who are trying marijuana for the first time do not have the discretion necessary to make a wise decision.

I did a survey on the topic that I sent out in my householder last month. I have had over a thousand responses to date. The results are fairly evenly split. Some 56% of the people in my riding have said they want to legalize or decriminalize the use of marijuana. Some 44% have said they want to maintain the status quo where we throw the book at people for simple possession. Other surveys show that 90% of people endorse the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes only. The debate seems to be over in my riding at least.

I will be coming to a conclusion by the time we vote on the way the issue should be handled. I support the gist of the bill that marijuana should be decriminalized. The House should consider doing so at this time. We should get the bill into committee and get the rest of the details figured out.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-344 presented by my colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.

As far as the Bloc Quebecois and myself are concerned, unlike his Alliance colleague, we have no hesitations concerning this bill, and this is a bit of a paradox. A colleague of the member presenting the bill is not sure about supporting it. I wish to state that we will be in favour of Bill C-344 , an act to amend the Contraventions Act.

The purpose of amending the Contraventions Act is to decriminalize marijuana use. Under the current legislation, a person guilty of simple possession, that is of having in his or her possession less than 30 grams of marijuana, has a criminal record, is liable to imprisonment for six months and a $1,000 fine. This bill would impose only a fine. For a first offence, the amount of the fine would be $200; for the second, $500; for any subsequent offence, $1,000.

This is an important debate, and we must remember to make the distinction between what we are calling the decriminalization of marijuana for medical purposes, and the decriminalization of marijuana for other uses. The House adopted a motion, Motion No. 381, an initiative of the Bloc Quebecois that I moved. This motion was adopted by more than 88% of the members present in the House of Commons.

This motion called on the federal government to legalize the use of marijuana for medical purposes. This motion was adopted on May 25, 1999. We in the Bloc Quebecois believed, and still believe, that this is about compassion. How can we set up legal and political restrictions on the use of marijuana by someone who is in the terminal stages of a disease? Whether they have AIDS, multiple sclerosis or cancer, people may want to purchase and use a substance that, for them, is a medication. Of the members present in the House at the time, 88% supported this motion.

The issue raised by our colleague from the Alliance today is part of a larger debate on the decriminalization of marijuana. The debate has reached a whole new level in fact. There are all kinds of questions to be asked before voting. On the one hand, we have to remember that the World Health Organization, the WHO, in an significant and exhaustive report, concluded that marijuana was less harmful than alcohol and tobacco. The WHO is not some group of novice doctors. It is a solid organization, a credible organization, that demonstrated that the ill effects of marijuana are less harmful than either alcohol or tobacco.

Our colleague is asking us to reflect on a different issue. Should someone in possession of 30 grams or less of marijuana be considered a criminal? Should this person—as is the case under the existing legislation—be subject to a $1,000 fine and six months in jail for having possession of less than 30 grams of marijuana?

And more important, should he have a criminal record? Should his future be ruined? For it must not be forgotten that when we have a criminal record for possession of marijuana, our whole future may be ruined. This debate is therefore a healthy one and I think that parliament should give its speedy attention to this.

The member who introduced this bill is not the only one who thinks that marijuana should be decriminalized. Those responsible for enforcing the legislation, including chiefs of police and the RCMP, have indicated that marijuana needs to be decriminalized, and soon.

Naturally, the associations I have just mentioned are not completely in favour of the bill introduced by the Canadian Alliance member, because they feel that the fines are a little lower than those provided for in the legislation. They think, however, that a major step towards decriminalization must be taken.

I am also thinking of the Canadian Medical Association, which has already indicated its unqualified support for decriminalizing marijuana in its monthly journal. In addition, the latest most up to date poll shows that 22% of Canadians feel that someone with less than 30 grams of marijuana in their possession should be considered a criminal. Only 22% of Canadians feel that someone should have a criminal record and be liable to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine, compared to 40% in 1985.

There has therefore been an important shift in Canadian public opinion, which we, as parliamentarians, who represent this public opinion, should be listening to and taking into consideration.

The senate committee on drugs, chaired by Senator Nolin, has already examined this issue. In addition, I would remind the House that, following an opposition motion, we struck a committee chaired by a Liberal member, which is now examining the issue of drugs. This committee will be in Toronto in a few weeks to take a closer look at the situation. So we are already looking at this issue.

Different avenues are being considered, including decriminalization. We must wait for the report, but it is clear that an issue such as this must be debated and those actually affected taken into consideration.

A recent federal report said that $150 million would be saved if we were not as tough on small users. We must go after the source, and not individual citizens who, sometimes, perhaps in an ill-considered moment, decide to have in their possession less than 30 grams of marijuana.

On January 21, 2001, I proposed that Canada pass a bill patterned on the model developed by the Belgians, in other words, that marijuana be decriminalized, but that we be able to identify those members of the public who use it in a socially irresponsible manner. For instance, it is no more acceptable for someone to decide to drink alcohol and drive than it is for someone else to use marijuana and do the same.

There is therefore no doubt that the member's bill must be amended, but it provides a good point of departure for debate.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, over the course of the last decade cannabis use has been the subject of discussion in several fora.

Today we are being asked to examine a proposed amendment to the Contraventions Act and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act regarding cannabis.

In considering a legislative amendment, we must take into account our international obligations as a country and consider international experiences with regard to cannabis possession. As well we must also consider the need for further information in areas where our current knowledge does not suffice. While we may believe that the basis of information exists, we must not make a premature decision on this issue. Together we must identify where further data is needed and must consider the important work already in progress.

A special committee of the Senate is currently studying Canada's drug legislation and policies, particularly with respect to marijuana. The committee is already hearing from some very informed witnesses on the subject. As well a Canadian Alliance motion debated on May 17 in the House of Commons dealt with the non-medical use of drugs. As a result a special committee of the House has been set up to consider factors underlying or relating to the non-medical use of drugs. It will be tabling its report in November 2002.

I must say that I find it odd that the House is now debating Bill C-344 when it is clearly within the scope of the special committee.

In making a decision on Canada's policy, whether it is to introduce changes to the legislation or to maintain the status quo, we should do it in an informed manner and in a way that does not duplicate the valuable work of these committees. We believe that the work of these committees will bring important current views of Canadians to the fore for consideration.

This is an important issue. We will all await the results of the Senate committee and the House committee before we move forward to make any further changes.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member from British Columbia who brought this matter forward. I commend all members who have taken part in this debate. It is a very timely and very helpful process we are engaging in at this moment.

Looking at the substance of Bill C-344 which calls for the decriminalization of marijuana, there is an important distinction that cannot be repeated often enough. There is a huge difference between decriminalizing marijuana and legalizing marijuana. I think there is often a great deal of confusion over this particular issue.

The private member's bill calls for enactments within the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and the Contraventions Act which would essentially put the possession, trafficking and use of marijuana into the category of a summary offence ticket, that is, a speeding ticket or a motor vehicle type offence, that would result in potential fines and potential incarceration.

The penalties are really not the question. It becomes a much broader debate when we engage in discussing the effects of such a change. Essentially it would lead potentially to expanded use of marijuana for very casual social purposes which is occurring now in this country. There is a realization behind the bill that a disproportionate amount of criminal justice machinery is trying to deal with this problem right now, while at the same time dealing with what I would fairly call proportionately larger problems in the country.

The issue is one which deserves debate. It is one that is currently being debated in the House of Commons committee that it has been referred to. It has also been taken up by the Senate and the hon. Pierre Claude Nolin, a Conservative senator in the other place. They are delving into the very pith and substance of what we are discussing here today in this private member's bill.

The hon. member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca has displayed a great deal of courage and diligence in ensuring that this matter comes forward. I am quick to acknowledge that other members of the House have a great deal of experience because of the predominance of this problem in their ridings.

It is a problem on a number of levels. There is a reliance by many in society on drugs far more damaging and with much higher addictive qualities than marijuana. My colleague from Quebec raised an important issue, the distinction between whether it includes marijuana or hash and hash oil. That to me is not clear in the bill.

Neither legalization nor increased criminal sanctions will fully address some of these complexities. There has to be a full and public debate. There has to be a great deal of attention placed on the health aspects.

My colleague from the New Democratic Party has quite correctly pointed out that the evidence is not clear. There is a fair bit of conflicting medical research that speaks of the addictive qualities of marijuana and hashish, that speaks of the harm that can result from direct inhalation of marijuana.

There is also the real effect that it has on a person's mental capacity, decision making, and physical dexterity in the operation of machinery or a motor vehicle. These are considerations that have to be brought into the debate.

The problems require a variety of measures to seek out a solution. They include education, treatment and rehabilitation and government regulation in areas that may not result in criminal sanctions.

All of this is to say that in the context of the debate, it is not a simple one. It is not just a matter of saying we are going to remove the penalties from the criminal code and put them into the context of something that is deemed less serious with less detrimental effect on a person's future. By that I mean obviously there are those in the past who have been unfairly punished or felt disproportionate results coming from the fact that they may have been arrested for possession of marijuana or have engaged in the use of marijuana.

We have seen a greater openness to acknowledge the medicinal benefits of marijuana in the control of pain, glaucoma and other medical afflictions in recent years. We have come a long way. I acknowledge that the legislation in this area has not changed for many years. There have been previous studies, but there is an intense and removed attitude to re-examine the issue.

The leader of the Progressive Conservative/Democratic Representative coalition, the right hon. member for Calgary Centre, has openly supported the spirit and intent behind the legislation. In May of this year he called upon the government to decriminalize marijuana. He stated that it was not fair for a young person to face a lifelong criminal record for possession of the drug. He made the distinction between criminalization and legalization. He also noted, as I will note, that it was a personal opinion.

I am obliged to say that within the coalition we will be having a free vote on this issue. There is a difference of opinion in our coalition and in other parties. That is healthy. Canadians openly embrace the reality that people have very different backgrounds, experiences and strongly held beliefs about the issue.

The hon. member for Saint John who was referred to in the debate holds very personal strong beliefs about this. I understand and respect the position of my leader. Yet, even the Minister of Justice signalled that she would be open to a debate on the decriminalization of marijuana. Many Canadians are still uncomfortable with the amount of evidence that is before them, particularly on the health aspects.

A survey last May suggested Canadians were almost evenly split on the issue of legalization: 47% in support compared to 26% in 1975. There is an apparent shift in public attitudes.

I certainly support further study. I support and commend the effort being put forward by members of parliament and the Senate. I must be honest, however. I am not there yet. I do not feel comfortable with going down the road of decriminalization at this point.

We are engaged in a healthy debate. The issue has been before the country. There was reference to the Le Dain commission. The medical community is more engaged in bringing forward hard facts about the effects of marijuana use. The mover of this bill is a medical practitioner and that further legitimizes and crystallizes his commitment to this issue. Changing attitudes toward the medical use of marijuana, combined with increasing demands on the law enforcement community, have also necessitated this closer examination.

There was reference earlier that the law enforcement community is stretched to the extreme in trying to enforce all sorts of laws that proportionately require greater attention. I do not want to draw too close an analogy, but having law enforcement officers engaged in the enforcement of a gun registry, for example, highlights the ludicrous nature of giving officers too much to do without enough financial resources or enough person power to commit the task that is before them.

This bill calls for changing the way in which we set up the fine structure. There is a great deal of concern on my part for people who suffer the inability to travel or to gain full employment in an area for which they are qualified for the reason they may have a criminal record for simple possession. That can change by having a criminal record expunged.

The bill does not go as far as to legalize the use of marijuana. I commend the hon. member for bringing this matter to the House for debate.

I referred to the debate within the policing community. The chiefs of police seem to support the hon. member's initiative and yet frontline police officers feel that this is not the road to go at this time.

I believe there is a danger that those who are under the influence of marijuana suffer from a decreased drive and initiative.

It is still a mind-altering substance, something that can affect in a criminal way the operation of a motor vehicle or at times the intent that may be involved in a criminal act.

Again this issue is something that will be with us, I hope not for the same amount of time since the last time it came before the House. I look forward to the outcome of the Senate report and the House of Commons committee report and the further debate that will take place on the floor of the House of Commons.

[Keith Martin, Canadian Alliance, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

moved that Bill C-344, an act to amend the Contraventions Act and the Controlled Drug Substances Act (marijuana), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Kootenay—Okanagan Boundary for seconding Bill C-344. Today I am going to give a discourse on how we can decrease and prevent drug use here in Canada, in North America and around the world.

The bill deals with the decriminalization of simple marijuana possession in contrast to legalization which I am opposed to. It is part of a three pronged approach. The first is decriminalization.

The second is a four point motion that deals with the international drug trade. I would like to thank the Secretary of State for Latin America and Africa for allowing me to accompany him on a very informative trip to Colombia to meet President Pastrana. Out of that came a motion which I will discuss later.

The last part is how we prevent drug use. This involves the head start program. The House chose to pass my private member's motion on that issue in 1998. The program strengthens the parent-child bond and has been profoundly effective in decreasing drug use in children, not to mention a 60% reduction in youth crime. I will get back to that later.

Bill C-344 calls for the decriminalization of simple possession of marijuana. A person found to be in possession of marijuana would receive a fine of $200, $500 or $1,000 depending on whether it was their first, second or third offence. They would not go into the court system. They would not receive a criminal conviction and therefore they would not have a criminal record. This is different from the situation today when an individual found in simple possession of marijuana would have to go through the court system and then receive a fine or could go to jail. They could receive up to six months in jail for their first offence.

Drug laws in the country have been motivated mostly for political expediency rather than to deal with the truth. Today we seek to deal with the truth and deal with the facts. The idea in the bill has been employed in many European countries, in Italy, the Netherlands, Great Britain as well as in Australia. Decriminalization of marijuana did not result in an increase in use, it resulted in a decrease or a static amount. That is very interesting. Decriminalization in contrast to legalization of marijuana results in a static amount or a decrease in the amount of drug use.

The bill enables us to save about $150 million every year. Since September 11 there has been an increased demand on our security forces and our police forces. We have to find the money to go after the real criminals: the terrorists, the international drug lords, the people who push drugs and grow elicit drugs. They are the people our police officers need to go after, not someone who is in possession of a small amount of marijuana.

Does the bill provide a disincentive? It provides a financial disincentive, a fine of $200, $500 or $1,000. It saves the taxpayer money, in the order of $150 million. It enables our police forces to focus on the true criminals: the organized crime gangs and the drug pushers.

We also need to look at the bill in the forum of how we look at drug abuse, not from the punitive judicial model that we have used historically, but a medical model. I am a physician and I have spent 13 years working in detox units in British Columbia. I have seen all manners of drug use. I saw many dead people when I worked in the emergency department. I have seen people's lives completely ruined by drugs. I am totally opposed to drug use, including marijuana use. The bill will actually enable us to decrease drug use here in Canada. It will also free up resources to enable us to go into the prevention aspect.

The head start program that was passed in my motion in 1998 strengthens the parent-child bond. It ensures that children have their basic needs met. It helps provide good parenting skills to those parents who perhaps have not acquired them.

When that was employed from Moncton, and the Minister of Labour worked there has been outstanding, to Ypsilanti, Michigan and Hawaii, it resulted in a 99% reduction in child abuse rates, a 60% reduction in youth crime, a 40% reduction in teen pregnancies and a $7 saving for every dollar that was used.

The Government of Canada is looking at ways in which it can build a children's agenda. The head start program would put meat, muscle and flesh on that idea. The House passed it. The government should adopt it. Find the best models from around the world, work with the provinces and employ a national head start program that ensures our children have their basic needs met. This bill would provide some resources to do that.

The other side of the bill, and the secretary of state was kind enough to allow me to attend his meetings in South America in this regard, is that we have a serious problem in the international drug trade. The so-called war on drugs, where we have tried to decrease the drug trade at source by going to Colombia and waging a war on drugs, has been an abysmal failure and will always be.

Rather than trying to decrease production, we need to do is decrease consumption. If we decreased consumption then we would be able to address the devastating problems that we have witnessed in various parts of the world.

In Colombia 70 people are murdered every single day as a direct result of the bloody war that has gone on for more than 20 years fuelled by the drug trade, primarily cocaine. As well, Colombia is branching out into a very pure form of heroin that is coming into Canada as we speak. That will have a devastating effect on people who are addicts. How do we deal with this problem? Let us stop consumption. If there was no consumption there would not be production.

When I was in Colombia it was very exciting. Senator McCain from the United States was also there at the same time. He made some very progressive statements. He said that people in North America could not point their fingers at Colombians and tell them to stop production. He said that we must decrease consumption in North America. The question is how to do that. Again this bill will address that problem.

There are four things we also need to do. First, apart from implementing a decrease in consumption at home, we need to get tough with organized crime. We need to adopt U.S. RICO like amendments. These are racketeering influenced and corruption organization amendments that would enable our police forces to go after the money. Cutting the money from organized crime is the most effective way of hobbling a criminal's ability to function. It is what criminals fear the most. RICO amendments would enable us to convict them and take away their money supports.

Second, what we need is a freer trade agreement in the Americas. A free trade zone in the Americas is crucial. If someone is growing cocaine in Colombia, that person would need to export something else. Right now the greatest barriers to farmers in developing countries are the barriers to trade that we in the west employ. Let us remove those barriers to trade and enable the people, who are grinding out an existence in abject poverty, to export and earn money so they can get away from this crop.

The last point is a very interesting one. Earlier this year Canada and the west had their knuckles wrapped for allowing legal chemicals to go to countries where they were used in the production of cocaine and heroin. The United Nations asked us why we were allowing this to happen and why had we turned our backs on it. This is wrong. We can and must have a series of import-export permits on the precursor chemicals that are necessary to the production of cocaine and heroin. If we did that, we would be able to track where the chemicals went and hit the people who produced the drugs in the first place. It is eminently doable.

When the secretary of state and I were in San José, Colombia, I had a chance to speak to the United Nations and OAS drug representatives. I pitched this idea to them and they thought it was a fantastic. They said the only thing that was holding this up was bureaucracy.

Canada should take a leadership role in implementing a series of import-export permits that would enable us to track as well as eliminate those people who produce drugs, by tracking the precursor chemicals and choking off supply. It is something that is doable, it is cheap and can be very effective.

If we look at and compare those countries that have had a very punitive model for dealing with drug abuse, such as the United States, and those European models where they have had a decriminalization approach, we would see this.

In the Netherlands, Italy, Germany and now in Great Britain decriminalization of simple marijuana possession has enabled them to decrease the use of cannabis. The reason is very interesting. They reckon that because the forbidden fruit syndrome was not attached to a decriminalized substance like cannabis, they found that use, particularly among youth, declined quite substantially, which is very interesting. When one looks at harder drugs, there is not a shred of evidence to show that cannabis is a gateway drug. In fact, where drug use had been decriminalized, they found that hard drug use actually was static or had declined. This is also a very interesting fact.

When drug use in European countries like the Netherlands was compared to the United States, it was found that the use of harder drugs like cocaine was about 2% in the Netherlands and about 11% to 12% in the United States. Therefore the harder, more punitive actions do not work when the objective is to decrease the use of hard drugs.

Europeans, Australians and now the Brits have done the same thing. A pilot project to decriminalize the use of marijuana was done in Brixton to see what would happen. They found that drug use declined. There was a massive saving to their judicial forces. The same thing happened in south Australia where decriminalization was so effective that it is now looking at applying it to the entire country. Where it has worked it has been extremely effective.

I want to go back for one moment and talk a bit about the cost factor.

Today in Canada there are about 71,000 convictions for possession every year. More than half of that is due to marijuana. Does it make sense that we use our law enforcement forces for this particular process? Does it make any sense for a 20 year old to be picked up, convicted and receive a criminal record for the simple possession of marijuana? In getting that criminal record, this impedes a person's ability to gain access to a wide variety of professional faculties thereby severely compromising and truncating the individual's ability to be a contributing member of society in the future. It does not work. If we look at society and see who is supporting it, it is very interesting.

The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the RCMP, the Council of Churches, elements in the Canadian Medical Association and other groups have said that is time to decriminalize, not legalize, marijuana possession. They have said that it is time drug use was looked at in a more comprehensive fashion. Those groups look at it not in isolation, quite wisely, but look at the larger picture.

How do we prevent drug use? The head start program will prevent drug use by working with parents. This has had a profound effect on children. We have to work with our youth. If we start early with our youth, we will have an opportunity to substantially reduce drug abuse here in Canada. This does not work however with adults.

I worked as a doctor in jails and I was also a jail guard. The extent to which drug abuse is found in jails is quite profound. A study was done of 4,230 inmates and it found that 40% of those inmates used drugs in jail within the last year. That is shocking. It does not work. We have to use other models.

It is very interesting to look at hard drug use. Some people have said that punitive action needs to be taken and these people need to be put in jail. That does not work. I have done some exploration in Europe with regard to hard drug use. People were put in methadone programs, needle exchange programs and were even allowed small medicinal use of the drug they were using.

That program was held in conjunction with housing, education, work, being an essential part of the program, and, of course, therapy. After one year, the combination of that in a defined time period had a 50% to 60% success rate for hard core drug addicts.

I listened to what people said about the program. Some said that they had been on the streets. The program had given them job training and put them to work. It provided them the structure in their lives which they had never had before. Although they had been given the medicinal heroine for a period of time, it was a limited period of time.

The quid pro quo to receiving the drug is the patients must engage in the treatment programs. If they do not engage in therapy, treatment, counselling, work and job skills, then they cannot participate in the program. They have to have a willing partner.

In my experience Canada has a revolving door syndrome. People are thrown in detox and come out dry. Within 24 hours, I have seen these people in the emergency ward. They are drunk or on drugs again after having spent seven to ten days in detox. That model does not work.

We have to obligate the drug addicts or the substance abusers to engage in these other elements of treatment, work, job skills and counselling to get them off the street. Where that has been done in Europe, 50% to 60% of people have been taken off the street. This is quite extraordinary.

The cost savings are substantial. True, there is some front end loading of money, but we have to look at this in the long run. It saves money in the long run.

Perhaps the greatest scourges and the greatest damage associated with drug use are not the problems of taking the drugs themselves, but the indirect costs; the crime associated with drug abuse. Many people who take heroin and cocaine have to engage in stealing and prostitution to raise the money they need for $300 and $400 a day habits in cocaine, crack cocaine, Ts and Rs and heroin. They do not get that by going to work.

That of course has a profound impact on our society. The costs associated with drug use in Canada is more than $20 billion. That is what It costs us directly and indirectly as result of drug use. Perhaps the most frightening element of all this is the scourge of HIV and other communicable diseases.

If we compare the United States with some of the European models and Australia, take Great Britain for example, the incidence of HIV is about is about 1% among IV drug abusers, which is much higher than IV drug abusers in North America. If we look at people who use heroin, roughly 40% of individuals who have taken heroin intravenously have shared needles. It is shocking.

It is incumbent upon us to look at a broad range of issues, look at this factually, logically, deal with the facts and employ programs that have worked around the world.

I certainly would be remiss in not thanking Steven Barrett, Kerrie Woods, our British connection, and Jennifer Ratz for their very hard work in putting this together and working with me along this level. I want to thank the Secretary of State for Latin America and Africa for being so kind and generous in allowing me to participate in a couple of very important trips we have taken this year.

The elements of the bill I have put forth have widespread support from the public. Roughly 75% of the public in polling wants decriminalization of marijuana. Roughly two-third plus of the member of the House want decriminalization. I hope the government takes the bill, adopts it and send it to committee. I hope it does not let it languish but adopts it as a much larger program of how we deal with substance abuse issues in Canada today.

Let us look at it from a humane fashion. Let us look at it from a compassionate fashion. Let us look at it from a medical model, not a punitive model. Let us do the right thing, the socially appropriate thing, the harm reduction platform. Let us save lives, save money and help Canadians in the future. If we do that, truly Canada will be on the cutting edge and we will be saving many lives.

[Keith Martin, Canadian Alliance, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-344, an act to amend the Contraventions Act and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (marijuana).

Madam Speaker, the bill deals with the simple possession of marijuana.

Our courts are clogged today and the purpose of my bill is to unclog them. It would decriminalize, not legalize, the simple possession of marijuana. It would provide penalties, unclog our courts and save huge amounts of money for the court system. It would also allow police officers to do more important things, such as going after rapists, murderers, robbers and people involved in organized crime.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)