Bill C-38 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Contraventions Act and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act

Contraventions Act

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Discussions have taken place among all parties and there is agreement to re-defer the recorded division requested on the motion to refer Bill C-38 to committee before second reading until the end of government orders on Tuesday, October 21.

[Wendy Lill, NDP, Dartmouth, NS]

Madam Speaker, I would like to speak briefly to Bill C-38, an act to amend the Contraventions Act and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

I have found the debate very interesting today. There are many concerns with the bill that the NDP shares with many other members of the House. It is a contradictory and confusing piece of legislation at the present time. It has widespread criticism from all sides of the political spectrum.

A case in point, the bill was introduced by the government on May 27, 2003, just one day after it launched an appeal against an Ontario court ruling declaring that people with medical exemptions have legal supplies of the drug. It was a very obvious contradiction right at the outset.

The bill seeks to decriminalize the possession of small amounts of marijuana but toughen penalties on large marijuana grow operations. At present, being arrested for possession or carrying marijuana is an up to seven year jail sentence.

We would like to look at what implications the bill may have on possibly unexpected persons. The provisions of the bill are quite simple. Cannabis possession and production will remain illegal in Canada. The current criminal court process and resulting criminal penalties would be replaced with fines for possession of 15 grams or less of marijuana and one gram or less of cannabis resin.

The bill would give law enforcement officers the discretion to give a ticket or issue a summons to appear in a criminal court for possessing 15 to 30 grams of cannabis.

We have a new four tier method of punishing people. An individual found growing one to three plants would face a summary conviction offence with a fine of up to $5,000 or 12 months in jail. For 4 to 25 plants, it would constitute an offence punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 or 18 months in jail. Growing 26 to 50 plants would result in a sentence of up to 10 years and the sentence for growing more than 50 plants would be up to 14 years, which is double the current maximum penalty.

It is rather an odd way of going about things. It is saying that a little bit is all right and a bit more is less all right. It seems to miss the point in terms of sending messages to people in terms of the use of marijuana.

The bill misleads Canadians and it perpetuates the myth that the criminal law can resolve the problems relating to drugs. The NDP would say that there may be a fear that increased penalties on cultivation could in fact push the price of marijuana up making it more difficult for people who use marijuana for medical purposes.

We would say that a stiffer regime of penalities may ironically reinforce organized crime and force out the small operations, and that there is still an emphasis on enforcement. We have a concern that ticketing will actually increase the demand of police resources at the local level.

There are no provisions in the bill for amnesty for Canadians who currently have a criminal record from cannabis convictions. There are approximately 600,000 Canadians who have criminal records for simple marijuana possession. There may in fact be people in the House who have criminal records for marijuana. I have not done any checks but that is a possibility and certainly there are members of our family who may have it.

As we move ahead and begin to understand marijuana in a different way then obviously we must have some kind of mechanism in place to clear the record on some of these supposed criminal offences.

Bill C-38 presents a contradictory and confused approach. That is the fundamental message that we want to send. On the one hand it purports to offer a measure of decriminalization, but the political rhetoric and system of penalties outlined actually points to a tougher and wider enforcement stance.

Another objection is that we fear that increasing penalties on growing marijuana will push up the price. For medical purposes this could cause even more problems for people who are in need of it for pain management.

There is too much emphasis on enforcement in our estimation. It is feared that ticketing would increase the demand for police resources at the local level.

Approximately 100,000 Canadians use marijuana. There is no evidence that the ticketing scheme or tougher sentences would reduce that number.

I wish to conclude by speaking a little about the medical use of marijuana. The Special Committee on the Non-Medical Use of Drugs did not deal with marijuana for medical purposes. The NDP wishes to draw attention to the serious problems and flaws in the federal government's medical marijuana program. The current regulations of the program are very restrictive, overly bureaucratic, and severely limit the access for Canadians who have a legitimate need for therapeutic purposes. The NDP believes that these unnecessary restrictions should be lifted.

The recommendations of the Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs in this regard make very good sense and we would like to see them adopted.

The bill still needs work. The NDP has been very supportive of the work done by the committee on drug use and has worked hard on a consensus basis to bring about more progressive laws on this front. We will continue to work to make this a better bill in committee.

[Lynne Yelich, Canadian Alliance, Blackstrap, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to take part in this debate about Bill C-38, a bill that would change how the judicial system deals with possession and production of marijuana.

My colleagues across the way have told us about the good intent of this bill: that it will decriminalize the actions of millions of Canadians; that it will provide opportunities for young people who might otherwise be burdened by a criminal record; and that it will relieve some of the congestion in our courts.

But I have to ask, at what cost will this be achieved?

I have several concerns about this bill and the government's attempt to fast-track it through the system, concerns ranging from the amount of marijuana that is decriminalized to the penalties and sentences for various offences. There are also numerous logistical issues involving the practical side of enforcing the proposed new law, which I feel must be addressed before legislation is passed.

Finally and most importantly, I am gravely concerned about the message that Bill C-38 will send to Canadians in general, but to our youngest and most vulnerable citizens in particular. I intend to explore each of these concerns in greater detail during the next few minutes in the hope that these issues will be noted and perhaps highlighted in the committee setting.

The bill establishes a new system of guidelines for the decriminalized possession of marijuana. From what I understand, the government has based these numbers on what it considers appropriate or reasonable amounts of marijuana for personal or recreational use.

Let us look at these numbers. Possession of 15 grams or less of marijuana gets one a $150 fine if one is an adult. Possession of between 15 and 30 grams of marijuana could get someone a fine or perhaps a summons for a summary offence. Possession of one gram or less of cannabis resin is good for a fine.

The implication here is that having between 15 and 30 grams of marijuana is considered reasonable for personal use, that the drug would not be meant for trafficking. Grams seem like a tiny unit of measure, and 15 to 30 grams does not sound like a lot to most of us. But depending on how much marijuana is used, that same 15 to 30 grams translates into 30 to 50 joints.

I know there are many parents and grandparents in this chamber. How many of them would think it acceptable or reasonable if they were suddenly to find 50 joints concealed in their son's or daughter's book bag or clothing? Unless that son or daughter were smoking up day and night, I think I would find myself wondering if some of those joints might be for sale or for purposes other than personal use.

Decriminalizing up to 30 grams of marijuana is the government's idea of responsibility. In contrast, my opposition colleagues feel that this number must be reduced to a maximum of 5 grams of marijuana if this bill is to become even remotely tolerable. This would equal between 5 and 12 joints, an amount far less likely to be for the purpose of trafficking. I personally believe that even 5 grams is too much and that Canadians are better served by a government that does not take lightly illegal drug use of any kind.

As I mentioned a few minutes ago, the penalties for possession and production of marijuana as outlined in Bill C-38 merit considerable questioning and review.

The proposed fines for possession are negligible and, as such, I suspect they will not act as an effective deterrent. An adult possessing less than 15 grams of marijuana will face a fine of $150, or $300 for possession of between 15 and 30 grams. That is about the same as one could expect to pay for a traffic infraction such as speeding. One look at the Queensway or any other major thoroughfare will give us a pretty good idea of how unintimidated drivers are by the prospect of such a small fine. Marijuana users will likely be similarly undeterred, making the fines ineffective.

Young people between the ages of 14 and 18 will get an even better deal from the government if they are caught with marijuana. Youth fines, as proposed, are one-third less than the adult version. I question the reasoning behind this decision which takes already nominal fines and reduces them so they are more affordable for drug possessing youth.

The government should take a cue from the world of marketing, where it is known that young people often have access to more disposable income than adults and are less cautious in their spending. They wear expensive designer clothing, shoes and accessories, and they tote the latest in high tech communications devices and gadgetry.

The notion that a discount fine will deter youth from possessing marijuana is an absolutely ridiculous idea.

Still on the subject of sentencing, I have heard rumours that the minister may consider tougher minimum sentences for marijuana growers and for repeat offenders. I sincerely hope that this is more than a rumour because these issues have not been adequately addressed in the bill.

From a logistical standpoint, the government is trying to fast-track the bill through Parliament without ensuring that the provinces, municipalities and authorities have the proper tools in place to implement it. From what I have read, the bill does not provide extra money for policing, fine collection or any of the other inevitable administration costs.

As I mentioned earlier, my greatest concern about the bill is the message it sends to Canadians, particularly our youth. I hope this issue will be studied in great detail by the committee.

Before the bill was introduced there was a lot of talk about decriminalization and legalization: Which would the government choose?

When I talked to people in my riding, both adults and youth, I was disturbed to note that the terms were used interchangeably. I worry that should the bill pass, our young people will not differentiate between two definitions and as a result they will come away with the idea that buying, possessing and smoking marijuana is okay. That is a behaviour actually endorsed by the government.

I suggest to the House that it is irresponsible to even contemplate passing a bill such as Bill C-38 without first establishing a clear and comprehensive education campaign to inform our young people about what the bill is intended to do.

In Saskatoon, the city council is in the process of discussing a ban on public smoking. Similar bans have been adopted here in Ottawa and in other cities and towns across the country. It is a health and safety issue and, as such, the cities are trying to do what they can to discourage smoking. By virtue of making it okay to possess a smokable drug, decriminalizing marijuana is a backward step in this fight for improved health.

The government is sending mixed messages. It is telling Canadians not to smoke because it is bad for them and cigarette companies not to advertise because it can influence our young people, but marijuana, that is not criminal.

Yesterday the minister described Bill C-38 as the launch of a real reform. I suggest that the bill needs some real reform.

[Loyola Hearn, Progressive Conservative, St. John's West, NL]

Let me deal with that. We talk about unification. There are all kinds of precedents for unifying two entirely different entities. What is really confusing is trying to unify one party. How can one party be unified? Unifying usually means bringing together two or more entities into one. But when there is one entity, and they are trying to bring it together into one entity, that is extremely confusing.

That is what the government is doing to the country. That is what it is doing to this legislation and other legislation. This is another carryover of what is going on within the great Liberal Party these days.

I will not make a blanket statement and say police generally do not support the legislation, but every police officer to whom I have spoken is against it. We have to ask ourselves what we are doing to society. When are we going to stop opening up the door, getting the thin edge of the wedge in, to destroying the type of society we have in Canada? Bill C-38 is an example.

Some people have said there will be less work for police officers. They have other things to do besides chasing after people who have a joint in their pockets, but the police are already chasing them to see if they have three or four joints in their pockets. There is absolutely no difference whatsoever. People will still want to use marijuana. People will still want to sell marijuana. The door is now open for those who want to get involved in the illegal drug trade much more so than before because they have a ready market and there are all kinds of ways to cover up illegal activities. The work for our police forces will not be decreased. The door will now be open, the thin edge of the wedge will now be inserted, and our young people will have the opportunity to participate in activities from which they would be much better removed.

The government is creating a society which is not for the betterment of Canada. If we start allowing illegal activities, what will be next? Will we overlook a break and enter because only $50 was stolen or because only one window was broken? Is that not going to be considered a criminal offence any more?

Right is right and wrong is wrong. Laws are made for the protection of society, but in particular for the protection of our young people until they understand what society is all about. Legislation like this is certainly not going to help.

I will not go any further than that, except to say that I am entirely against the legislation. I do not think it is good for society. It is the thin edge of the wedge. It is just a cop-out by the government to get away from the type of work that it should be doing. It should fund our police forces properly. In Newfoundland for instance, there is talk that the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary is so underfunded that quite often in order to go to the scene of a crime, they have to hire a taxi. This is terrible.

The RCMP will tell us that they are not funded properly. They do not have the staffing levels to do what has to be done. They are saddled with bureaucracy. It is almost as bad as HRDC, and we will talk about that a little later.

If the government properly funded our police forces, we would not have to worry about saying “They do not have the bodies, they cannot do the work, so let us give them less work and the criminals will have a field day”. It is time the government put things in proper perspective and this is certainly not the way to start.

[Murray Calder, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice recently introduced Bill C-38, the proposed cannabis reform legislation, and I am pleased to debate the bill.

As the House is undoubtedly aware, countries treat cannabis possession in different ways. Some countries tolerate certain forms of possession and consumption, certain countries apply administrative sanctions or fines, and others apply penal sanctions.

However, despite the different legal approaches toward cannabis, a common trend can be seen, particularly in Europe, in the development of alternate measures to criminal prosecution for cases of the use and possession of small quantities of cannabis for personal use. Fines, cautions, probation, exemption from punishment and counselling are favoured by many European justice systems.

Some Australian states and territories have also adopted cannabis decriminalization measures. Some of these measures are similar to what is being contemplated in Bill C-38. I would like to take a few moments to describe the situation in South Australia, the first Australian jurisdiction to adopt cannabis decriminalization measures.

Reform of the cannabis laws in South Australia came with the introduction of the controlled substances act amendment act, 1986. This amendment proposed a number of changes to the controlled substances act of 1984, including the insertion of provisions dealing with the expiation of simple cannabis offences. This represented the adoption of a new scheme for the expiation of simple cannabis offences, such as possessing or cultivating small amounts of cannabis for personal use, or possessing implements for using cannabis.

The cannabis expiation notice, CEN, scheme came into effect in South Australia in 1987. Under this scheme, adults committing simple cannabis offences could be issued with an expiation notice. Offenders were able to avoid prosecution by paying the specified fine or fees ranging from $50 Australian to $150 Australian within 60 days of the issue of the notice. Failure to pay the specified fees within 60 days could lead to prosecution in court and the possibility of a conviction being recorded.

Underlying this scheme was the rationale that a clear distinction should be made between private users of cannabis and those who are involved in dealing, producing or trafficking in cannabis. This distinction was emphasized at the introduction of the CEN scheme by the simultaneous introduction of more severe penalties for offences relating to the manufacture, production, sale or supply of all drugs of dependence and prohibited substances, including offences relating to larger quantities of cannabis.

The CEN scheme was modified by the introduction of the expiation of offences act, 1996, that now provides those served with an expiation notice the option of choosing to be prosecuted in order to contest being given the notice. Previously those served with a notice had to let the payment of expiation fees lapse in order to secure a court appearance to contest the notice. In choosing to be prosecuted, however, people issued a notice have their alleged offence converted from one which can be expiated to one which still carries the possibility of a criminal conviction.

The expiation system for minor cannabis offences in South Australia has been the subject of a number of evaluation studies. The impact of the implementation of such a system is therefore best seen there. As I mentioned, the South Australian cannabis expiation notice, CEN, system began in 1987. The main arguments for an expiation system were the reduction of negative social impacts upon convicted minor cannabis offenders and the potential cost savings. Implicit in the former view was the belief that the potential harms of using cannabis were outweighed by the harms arising from criminal conviction.

None of the studies upon levels and patterns of cannabis use in South Australia found an increase in cannabis use that was attributable to the introduction of the CEN scheme. Cannabis use did increase in South Australia over the period from 1985 to 1995, but increases in cannabis use were detected throughout Australia, including in jurisdictions that possessed a large prohibition approach to cannabis.

In fact, the largest increase in the rate of weekly cannabis use across all Australian jurisdictions occurred in Tasmania, a strict prohibitionist state, between 1991 and 1995. A comparative study of minor cannabis offenders in South Australia and Western Australia concluded that both the CEN scheme and the more punitive prohibition approach had little deterrent effect upon cannabis users.

Offenders from both jurisdictions reported that the expiation notice or conviction had little or no impact upon subsequent cannabis and other drug use. However, adverse social consequences of a cannabis conviction far outweighed those receiving an expiation notice. A significantly higher portion of those apprehended for cannabis use in Western Australia reported problems with employment, further involvement with the criminal system, as well as accommodation and relationship problems.

In the law enforcement and criminal justice areas, the number of offences for which cannabis expiation notices were issued in South Australia increased from 6,000 in 1987-88 to approximately 17,000 in 1993-94 and subsequent years. This appears to reflect the greater ease with which police can process minor cannabis offences and a shift away from the use of police discretion in giving offenders informal cautions to a process of formally recording all minor offences.

Substantial numbers of offenders still received convictions due to their failure to pay the expiation fees on time. This was due in large part to a poor understanding by cannabis users of the legal implications of not paying the expiation fees to avoid a court appearance and due to financial difficulties. Most CENs are issued for less than 25 grams of cannabis. Half of all CENs issued were received by people in the 18 to 24 age group.

There has been strong support by law enforcement and criminal justice personnel for the CEN scheme. The scheme has proven to be relatively cost effective and more cost effective than the prohibition would have been. The total costs associated with the CEN scheme in 1995-96 were estimated to be around $1.24 million Australian, while total revenue from fees and fines was estimated to be around $1.68 million Australian. Had a prohibition approach been in place, it is estimated that the total cost would have been around $2.01 million Australian, with revenues from fines being around $1 million Australian.

A report on the CEN scheme noted that it appeared to have numerous benefits for the community, not the least of which were the cost savings for the community as a whole, the reduced negative social impacts for the offenders, greater efficiency and ease in dealing with minor cannabis offences and less negative views of the police held by offenders.

The Australian Capital Territory in 1992 and the Northern Territory in 1996 introduced similar expiation schemes. Victoria implemented a system of cautions for minor cannabis offenders in 1998 and Western Australia has followed with a similar scheme.

The changes made in the cannabis laws in Australia are not technically decriminalization measures as cannabis possession still remains a criminal offence in all Australian provinces.

What has been changed is the reduction in the penalty for possessing small amounts of cannabis for personal use to something less than imprisonment, which is what is being proposed in Bill C-38.

I would like to thank the House for giving me the opportunity to say a few words. I will conclude my brief remarks by indicating that this piece of legislation goes a long way in the right direction.

[Deepak Obhrai, Canadian Alliance, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise and speak to Bill C-38, the marijuana bill.

As we look at the title of the bill, the marijuana bill, one wonders why on the eve of the Prime Minister's departure from politics we are debating a marijuana bill as if it were one of the biggest priorities we have in the country. It seems to me that if the Prime Minister and the government have brought in this bill because they have run out of ideas, then maybe the Prime Minister should just pack up and go home? Canada could then get on with the business of governing and moving forward.

When we look at the marijuana bill, the optics look good. It would decriminalize the small use of marijuana but still control it through summary fines which would not be appear on one's record.

However, as we look deeper into the bill, we realize there are serious flaws. I will point out those flaws today and give the reasons the Canadian Alliance is opposed to the bill.

In election 2000 one of the candidates running against me was a young fellow from the Marijuana Party. I actually thought he was a very intelligent gentleman. His purpose for running against me was to bring out the issue of medicinal use of marijuana.

As well, about two weeks ago a gentleman from my constituency came to my office and we discussed at length the medicinal use of marijuana. He suffers from MS and said that marijuana gives him some relief.

I want to go back to the gentleman from the Marijuana Party because he did get his point out. However it obviously was not a priority with Canadians because he hardly got any votes. This makes one wonder why the government would bring forward Bill C-38. Bill C-38 does not address the issue of medicinal use of marijuana. It just talks about removing criminal conviction for a certain amount of this thing.

When I was a student we used to ask for student discounts when we bought something because we were always short of money. It seems that kind of thinking has crept into the bureaucracy and out from bureaucracy into the bill.

A youth between the ages of 14 and 18 would actually get a discount on the fine. Can anyone believe that? An adult would have to pay $150 but a youth would only have to pay $100. The youth actually gets a student discount on fines. Something is flawed with the bill.

The government says that it will put in $10,000 for the drug strategy. The drug strategy has its own issues out here.

What is the point of the bill? It is not a priority for Canadians. There are other issues. The medicinal use of marijuana is a bigger priority than this issue. I even heard the Prime Minister talk about this bill on national television saying that we should not judge people who use small amounts of marijuana.

Now we do agree on the optics. Even the Canadian Alliance agrees but we have come up with an amount that is not quite as big as the amount in the bill. We think that having five grams should not require a criminal investigation. We understand that, however, if one is in possession of 30 grams, which is more joints, who are we pleasing?

The bigger concern we have, with the discount that I talked about, is what kind of message are we sending to our youth?

On one level we are fighting tobacco by asking people not to smoke. On another level, we are opening up other issues that go along with that, for example, after how many joints will someone become intoxicated? Will the person be driving a car and will the police have the resources to test for marijuana substance in the blood?

When we have so many other issues it becomes very difficult for someone like me, who even had, as I said, an individual run against me in my election and understood its point of view, to support the bill as it is presented.

The Alliance would like the bill to go back to the committee where we can think about it. The bureaucrats have mistakenly brought forward this bill and the Prime Minister is in a rush to push it through before he departs. Why? Only he knows the rationale for that. What is the rush? This is not a priority on the radar screen. There are many other issues that have a higher priority for Canadians, such as health care and all the other issues, than a marijuana bill.

The Canadian Alliance has called for amendments to the bill and has asked that it be sent back to the committee where we can rethink it and, when we have nothing else to do, discuss the bill again.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise to speak at this stage in the debate on Bill C-38 which, as you and I both know, is getting a lot of media coverage and is the topic of much conversation in the homes of Quebec and Canada, because this is an issue that really grabs people. Often the debate is based on preconceived ideas. I would therefore encourage my colleagues in this House to ignore any preconceived ideas and to address the problem in the most objective way possible, and not to be blinded by ideology.

There are two statements that need to be made at the outset. First, smoking, regardless of what substance is smoked, is not good for people's health. This is, in my opinion, a very obvious statement, unless one is blinded by some ideology, just as one can say that drinking alcohol is not exactly the healthiest thing to do either.

Second, the repressive approach used by governments, particularly those in North America, is not working. Despite the millions of dollars, the amount of effort and the law enforcement resources invested in the battle against drugs, there is no disputing that government repression has not worked. Just about everyone agrees on these two statements, I believe.

Having made those two statements, let us now look at what direction we can take to deal with the problems referred to. It must be pointed out that Bill C-38 is supported in principle by the Bloc Quebecois. We do, however, believe that any measures to soften the approach to cannabis possession must go hand in hand with preventive and educational measures aimed at the population in general, but young people in particular.

The provinces must be the ones involved in prevention, because—being education—it falls under their jurisdiction, and not the federal government as part of a so-called national drug strategy.

I must point out in this connection that the Bloc Quebecois agrees that possession of marijuana will always be illegal and that there will always be sanctions, though not under the Criminal Code. This is an approach the Bloc Quebecois agrees with.

We do have one problem, however, since we do not know the breakdown of the $245 million allocated to the national drug strategy. In order to be logical, within this federal system we are living in but want out of, this money ought to go to the provinces, and to agencies reporting to the provinces with expertise in drug education, prevention and the campaign against drug abuse.

There is one other thing that disturbs us about Bill C-38 and that is the latitude given to police officers. Members will recall that one of the reasons for suggesting that the penalty for simple possession of marijuana be changed—so instead of having a criminal record, it would be a question of fines—was that the law was being enforced differently all over Canada. Often, in large urban centres, the police, overloaded with other cases, ignored simple possession, while the same person in a smaller city would be charged with a crime. That introduces issues of geographic inequality into the enforcement of the Criminal Code.

Contrary to the committee's recommendations, the first version of Bill C-38 left some discretion to police in deciding whether to lay criminal charges for possession of 15 to 30 grams of cannabis.

We recently heard that the Minister of Justice wants to lower that quantity from 15 to 10 grams. I want to remind everyone that this is one third of the amount envisaged by the committee established by the House. I am eager to hear the explanation for lowering it from 30 to 10 grams, which leaves even more discretionary power to the police. I really want to hear what the Minister of Justice has to say to this. I hope he will have some very serious figures to back him up, studies that will demonstrate and explain the reasoning behind this decision he seems to have already made.

It is all very well to say he is open to amendments, but I do not think the minister is saying this out of the goodness of his heart; I think he was unable to resist the pressure from some of his backbench MPs and pressure from his American counterpart. Therefore, I hope he will have good answers to give us regarding the lowering of the quantity on which criminal charges can be based.

Furthermore, I am quite eager to ask the Minister of Justice questions about an inconsistency when it comes to small-scale growers. Individuals possessing small quantities could be fined instead of charged, but individuals cultivating small quantities would be charged and could face harsh penalties.

My question for the minister—and I am prepared to consider any number of solutions—is that in doing this, we are forcing infrequent users to buy their supplies on the black market, which is controlled by organized crime rings.

Do we want to help these criminals earn more, even if only indirectly? I am asking because this bill lacks consistency, and I am very interested to hear how the Minister of Justice will respond to what I see as this obvious inconsistency in the bill before the House.

Furthermore, if we consider Bill C-38 in a broader context, the decriminalization of simple possession is a measure that will have a limited impact on changing the foundations of the war on drugs. Decriminalization, as I said at the beginning of my speech, is not the same as legalization. One would want to control the distribution, quality and price of products, and ensure adequate supply. That is the avenue suggested by a senator in a Senate report.

The Bloc Quebecois supports the principle of Bill C-38. However, we feel that there are various inconsistencies that must be remedied and corrected. Our overall approach to this bill is to leave ideology at home and hold an open discussion in the belief that a solution can be found. We hope that the Minister of Justice is doing likewise, and we are looking forward to working in committee to ensure that Canadian law is more responsive to the problems I raised at the beginning of my speech.

[James Lunney, Canadian Alliance, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, last night the debate began on Bill C-38. It is a controversial bill. Yesterday the hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford spoke on behalf of my party about this bill and outlined conditions which we on our side would consider for the decriminalization of marijuana, conditions that have not been fulfilled, that are some very serious issues which need to be addressed, and conditions by which many members of our party feel they could support the bill.

I want to address several issues that I feel are very important concerns that come out of this bill. There are five issues or reasons that come out of this bill and show that this bill is poorly thought out, poorly timed and a high risk for Canadians and for our society.

The first of the five issues I wish to address in the brief time allotted to me involves health. As members of the House, we should, I believe, be concerned about the health of Canadians. I think there are some very serious health issues related to the bill and to the use of marijuana.

The second issue is the effect that this bill would have on our young people and on children.

The third is safety. I am concerned about safety. There are some very serious safety issues. This bill would expose Canadians to significant risks.

The fourth is organized crime. There are some very serious concerns in this area.

Finally, the fifth is trade and the effect that this bill if implemented will have on our trade with our largest trading partner.

First, on the subject of health, the government is spending about $500 million taxpayer dollars on a health issue: trying to convince Canadians not to smoke cigarettes. That is a lot of money. We know that tobacco smoking is a very serious, undermining factor in regard to the health of Canadians, and it continues in spite of the warnings and the labels. Now, due to this bill, the Minister of Health is proposing to spend another $250 million trying to convince Canadians not to smoke marijuana at a time when we are making it easier for them to do so and lowering the consequences. I wonder if this is a good investment in our health care dollars.

If I had time to refer to it, I could quote the committee report, “Working Together to Redefine Canada's Drug Strategy”, from the committee chaired by the hon. member for Burlington. In the report, the committee correctly identified that marijuana contains tars and benzopyrenes far in excess of what cigarettes do. It is widely known or accepted that smoking two or three marijuana joints is the equivalent to smoking about 20 tobacco cigarettes.

I wonder if Canadians have had an open and thorough discussion about the liabilities we are exposing ourselves to if we increase and encourage this habit of smoking a product that is almost certain to undermine the health of long term users. These studies are not in place. I think Canadians deserve the right to discuss this more thoroughly before we take on liability for future health care costs and for future taxpayers.

I am concerned about the effect on children. The bill proposes a lower fine for young people aged 14 to 18 in regard to possession of marijuana. What kind of program is this? What kind of message does it send to our young people? We have heard about passing the buck, and that happens a lot, even in a place like this. There is a lot of passing the buck, but now we are passing the pot. I can see this encouraging older users to make sure there is a young person along with them so that if the police show up it would all belong to the young person. That is passing the pot. I think this is a very serious thing.

I am concerned about the effect that using these products has on our youth. There was a major article in the Vancouver Sun that talked about another drug, but I think it is related. It is called crystal methamphetamine. It is cheap. It is everywhere. It lasts for hours and does serious damage to the brain. It seems to be replacing marijuana for young people on the coast, and a lot of them, in fact, because it is cheap, readily available and is produced in many homes, in a dangerous fashion. However, for young people taking crystal meth, there is no place to deal with them. They are often paranoid when they come off this very nice high they get; they go through periods of paranoia and violence and have extraordinary strength because of the drug. Hospitals do not want them and care facilities do not want them.

I am concerned that the attitude the House would be projecting if we approve the bill would be to encourage young people, to say that drugs are okay, it is not a big problem, to use marijuana, but if it does not give them the high or costs a little too much or is a little hard to get, to try crystal meth. Once people cross that barrier of indulging in mood altering substances, it is a slippery slope with very nasty consequences.

On the safety concerns, we are closing our eyes to the fact that organized crime is very heavily involved in this issue, with billions of dollars. We estimate that in Canada, at least on the west coast, there are some 15,000 to 20,000 homes with illegal grow ops in them. They pirate hydro in a dangerous fashion. It is dangerous for the hydro workers and dangerous for the communities and neighbourhoods these houses are found in. It is dangerous to the children. It is estimated that one in four of these homes is rigged with illegal electricity, which creates fire hazards for our police and firemen going to these homes. Many of them are booby trapped, but there are children living in these homes. That is a very serious concern.

The fact is that there are billions of dollars going into this illegal drug trade. Do we think that by decriminalizing this we are going to undermine criminals' ability to earn profits from this? Or are we in fact increasing the market for their product?

An article from the Vancouver Sun of May 9 reports:

In every neighbourhood: Marijuana has transformed B.C. from crime backwater into the centre of a multi-billion-dollar industry that has crept into communities across the province.

The article states that the cultivation of marijuana is estimated to be worth $4 billion a year in sales. By increasing the market for these products, are we trying to encourage organized crime?

I know the justice minister will say that he is toughening up penalties, as if that would be a deterrent, and he says maximum penalties, by the way. If we really wanted to send a message, we would toughen up by increasing minimum penalties, because the same article goes on to say that jail terms were imposed in only 18% of the cases and the average length of the jail terms was just under five months. The consequences are too low for this type of crime.

This same article goes on to state:

High profitability, low risk, and relatively lenient sentences continue to entice growers and traffickers, making it difficult, if not impossible, for law enforcement agencies to make a truly lasting impact on the marijuana cultivation industry in Canada.

Do we really think that by making it more available we are going to help the police in this cause and will the judges impose anything other than minimum sentences and minimum fines?

Thus, there are very serious concerns related to organized crime.

Returning to the safety issue, the police have an opportunity to take a breathalyzer test for someone who is under the influence of alcohol, but we currently have no test to determine impairment from drugs or from marijuana. I know there are experiments with a blood test. It is one thing to take a breathalyzer test from someone at the side of the road. However, when someone is under the influence, it might be a high risk activity for both parties involved for a police officer to take a blood sample.

Blood is a high risk factor. I can imagine a police officer who is trying to take a blood sample getting a spurt in the eye. There could be serious health risks associated with that in this day of viral diseases, AIDS, hepatitis C and so on. What kind of risk are we exposing our officers to?

I am also concerned about trade issues. Our neighbour and largest trading partner, the United States, is clearly not going this way. We have huge trade, about $2 billion, going across the border every day and our country is very dependent on that. My riding is hurting right now because of hold-ups with the softwood lumber tariffs and we have other border issues that we are trying to resolve with the Americans.

What are we doing to our borders for the citizens who like to travel to the U.S.? The United States is certainly not going our way on increasing marijuana possession. We are creating another barrier for citizens who want to travel to the United States to visit their families, to holiday, to do business and for other reasons. We are putting ourselves at risk.

There are serious health concerns associated with the bill. Smoking anything is not good for us. I can well imagine the risk that the health minister is exposing us to with medical marijuana. Her department is sending out packets of marijuana seeds to medical doctors to dispense to their patients to grow their own.

I can see well-heeled liability lawyers who like to sue governments taking a class action suit when we find that down the road some of these people have been taking so-called medical marijuana with no proof that it will help anyone. What kind of liability are we exposing future taxpayers to?

We had a serious issue with hepatitis C and compensation related to that. What kind of liability are we exposing taxpayers to when people using this product develop cancer or some other serious debilitating element because of this?

These are serious issues that need to be discussed. I hope these issues will be thoroughly aired before a decision is made by the House.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak in the debate about Bill C-38. It has been a long time in coming. We have had this sort of strange situation where on the one hand it appeared that there was a lot of emphasis to get this bill moving, yet we are only today now debating it and sending it off to committee.

I would concur with the comments of the member from the Conservative Party who questioned what the government's real intention was with the bill and whether it would ever see the light of day in terms of something being acted upon, given the time frame in which we are operating. It is sort of politics in the twilight zone.

That aside, decriminalization as a measure to recognize the failure of our prohibitionist policies is something that many people now accept. For sure it is better to have a fine than to end up being in jail and having a criminal record. However there are a number of problems with the bill.

While decriminalization is something that we could see as a progressive step forward in dealing with the failure of prohibitionist policies, the bill as it is presents a very contradictory and confused approach. On one hand it offers a measure of decriminalization. On the other hand the political rhetoric that has been surrounding the bill, and we heard from the minister today, and the system of penalties outlined in the bill actually point to a tougher and a wider enforcement stance.

I want to put forward the remarks made by Eugene Oscapella from the Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy. He has said that the bill really perpetuates the myth that the criminal law can resolve problems related to drugs. That is one concern we have. The bill relies upon the premise that somehow if we end up even with a system of fines and it is still within the criminal law that marijuana is still an illegal substance, then we are controlling the drug and controlling the use of it.

As was shown in the special committee report on the non-medical use of drugs, of which I was a member, it became very clear in the evidence that we had that whether a substance was legal or illegal had virtually no impact on its use. In fact we would be far better off providing real education for Canadians about drug issues, about the potential health issues related to drug use and focusing our financial and educational priorities on that.

As we know with smoking, for example, it is not illegal. The decrease in smoking has not come about because smoking is illegal. It has come about because it has been highly regulated and because we have spelt out what can and cannot be done. A vast amount of education has been given to people individually and within society as a whole to make them aware of the dangers of smoking. That is with a legal substance.

The argument of prohibition as a tool for dealing with drug use and the harms that can flow from drug use has been shown to be a failure.

The Senate report on marijuana came out in September 2002 and it was a very wide-ranging and excellent report. The report pointed out that 30% of the population has used cannabis at least once. That is approximately 100,000 Canadians daily. In fact of the over 90,000 drug related incidents that are reported annually by police, more than three-quarters of those incidents relate to cannabis, and over 50% of all drug related incidents involve possession of cannabis. That is from the Senate report.

Given the magnitude of that problem and the use, we have to ask ourselves whether the regime as presented in this bill will respond to the reality of what Canadians are actually doing. Certainly one concern we have with the bill is that it does not contain any provision for personal cultivation. The special committee on the non-medical use of drugs recommended that there should be some provision not only for possession for personal use but also for cultivation.

Unfortunately the government chose not to do that so we have this contradictory position where the government is saying that people will get a fine for possession of marijuana if it is 15 grams or less, but they cannot go out and buy it anywhere because it is an illegal act.

In fact, as Dan Gardner, a critically acclaimed journalist from the Ottawa Citizen , pointed that out in a series of articles he did on the drug issue. In his article on May 28, he said:

Criminologists have often found that lowering, but not eliminating, a punishment results in more punishment. It's called the “net-widening effect.”

Replace charges with fines, and people the police would have let off with a warning and a wave under the old system will instead by hit with a fine. In other words, decriminalization could lead to more people being punished, not fewer.

Then I have an image in my head of the Prime Minister in one hand holding a joint and in the other hand holding his fine. What is this actually saying? Are we saying that somehow by having a fine we are trying to give people the illusion that we will be preventing them from using marijuana? We have the Prime Minister saying, “Oh well, this is the way you do it. You smoke a joint, you pay your fine and away you go pretty happy”.

What is the purpose of the fine? If it is there as a deterrent, then again the evidence will show that as a deterrent it simply has no use. All it becomes is a source of revenue and a widening of police enforcement on the basis that municipalities will now see a way to collect more money.

I did want to respond to the question put forward by the Canadian Alliance that we had to be very careful about this bill and that we would have to talk to the Americans because it had to do with the borders. I know that some Liberal members have been off courting the drug czar and getting all the arguments from the drug czar about why this is so bad.

I truly believe the objection of the Americans to this bill has nothing to do with border crossings. It has everything to do with their political war on drugs, which in effect is a war on poor people, and the fact that they do not want to see Canada take a different kind of approach, an approach that has been successful in Europe in terms of decriminalization. That is what their objection is truly about. I really do not think it has anything to do with the border. It has to do with them not wanting to see another approach that will show the gaping holes and their own failure on the war on drugs.

We very much look forward to the debate at the committee. There obviously will be a whole variety of amendments. The NDP members will be introducing amendments because we have questions about the lack of provisions around cultivation. We have questions about the fines system. We have questions about the enforcement that underlies this, the fact that it continues this prohibitionist policy and that somehow the criminal law will deal with this issue.

We certainly look forward to what goes on in the committee and hearing from the witnesses. Hopefully the bill can be improved to better reflect the reality of what Canadians want to see, given that the use of marijuana is very prevalent in our society. I think there is a very common understanding that we do not want to see Canadians criminalized.

One other issue we will be bring forward is why there is not an amnesty provision for the approximately 600,000 Canadians who have a criminal record for simple possession. There is nothing in the bill that would give relief to people who live under the negative effects of a criminal record, for example, who cannot go across the border.

I know constituents in my own riding have faced terrible situations because they have a record from simple possession. We want to see some of these issues addressed, and we look forward to the debate in the committee.

[Inky Mark, Canadian Alliance, Dauphin—Swan River, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to debate Bill C-38 on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party.

I will begin by asking a question. What is the motive behind the government bringing this bill in at this late stage? As most of us in the House know, there are probably another four weeks left before the House rises, at least that is the rumour we hear. Is this part of the Prime Minister's legacy? We are not sure. This is serious business we are dealing with right now.

Another point that needs to be brought out is that we cannot legislate or create legislation based upon popularity or trends, especially when we are dealing with a topic as serious as this one. We need to spend a lot of time debating and doing research because something like this will have an an effect on future generations, beyond the time that members in this House spend on it in this session.

The Supreme Court has three cases right now on which it will render decisions in terms of answering the question as to whether Parliament has the power to control such substances as marijuana. There is no reason that this topic cannot wait until after the next election. I also heard that the crown prince in waiting has a different attitude toward marijuana than the current government.

As far as we are concerned, the Progressive Conservative Party would like to see this topic put to rest. We can deal with it in the next Parliament.

Bill C-38 sends the wrong message to current users today. I think people need to be concerned that, yes, there are a lot of adolescents and young adults using marijuana, if not on a daily basis certainly recreationally. What it would do is reduce the severity of the activity from a Criminal Code breach to that of a parking ticket, actually less than a speeding ticket.

We call it decriminalization but in essence it is the first step to legalization. We are decriminalizing it because we are taking one part of an action out of the Criminal Code and saying that under such conditions it is all right to go ahead and do it. In other words, it sends the wrong message.

We need to deal with this subject from a broad perspective. We need to look at the whole realm of drug use, with marijuana being one of them. We need to decide whether we want to legalize marijuana. It is like the problem we are dealing with now of solicitation and prostitution. Little chunks here, little bits there, a little band-aid here does not really work. Maybe in the short term it will make some people happy, the ones who are toking up, but in the long term, when we look at the benefits to society, it probably is not the way to go.

In fact, some basic questions need to be raised. Will Bill C-38 decrease the prevalence of harmful drug use? Will Bill C-38 decrease the number of young Canadians who experiment with drugs? Will Bill C-38 decrease the incidence of communicable diseases related to substance abuse? Will Bill C-38 increase the use of alternative justice measures, such as drug treatment courts? Will Bill C-38 decrease the illicit drug supply and address new and emerging drug trends? Will Bill C-38 decrease avoidable health and socio-economic costs?

The reality is that if the use of marijuana is treated like a parking ticket, there is no doubt that the marketplace will still exist. We must remember that use is driven by market. Where there is demand there will be a supply.

Bill C-38 really does not deal with the big picture. We cannot deal with just the user and forget about the supplier of the marijuana. We know that in recent times the Americans have criticized Canada for being a little too liberal regarding the use of marijuana, especially in comparison with their zero tolerance drug policy across the line.

The fact of the matter is it does affect the trade movement, the movement of goods and services, as well as the movement of people between our two countries. The Americans certainly do not perceive us in a positive way knowing that the drugs laws in Canada are very liberal and easy. I think we need to assess the impact it has on the country as a whole.

The legislation creates a series of fines, as I indicated. The fines are for possession of thirty grams or less of cannabis or one gram of cannabis resin. However the fines for each offence are not being uniformly applied. Adult fines are higher than those for use, which does not make any sense. As well, if the fines are not high, there is hardly a deterrent.

A concern also exists for reducing fines applicable to youth, especially as the federal government is actively trying to educate young people not to smoke cigarettes or marijuana. That is the irony here. Even with the use of cigarettes and tobacco today, retailers have to hide their supply behind a curtain so kids who go into the store cannot see them. If a retailer sells cigarettes to a minor, the fines are monstrous. With alcohol we have the same kind of controls that have been mentioned.

In terms of the system of fines being the same as a parking ticket, what happens if people do not pay their parking tickets? Obviously the tickets pile up. How the system collects will be a huge challenge, not only locally but across provincial boundaries.

It is easy to say we will write tickets and hopefully they will be paid. What if they cannot pay it? What if a youth is caught and cannot afford to pay the ticket? Is that ticket just thrown in the garbage?

There are no provisions for repeat offenders and no increasing fine scale. Each time offenders are fined they simply pay the set amount. If the fine is not paid, then it is turned over to a collection agency. That is a joke. This is hardly an awe inspiring deterrent. Imagine breaching the Criminal Code, receiving a fine and then the fine has to be sent over to a collection agency.

Some U.S. states that have decriminalized simple possession seize an offender's driving licence for failure to pay fines. That makes a lot more sense. As well, some states have increased penalties for repeat offenders.

The aggravated provisions are a maximum penalty of $1,000 or six months imprisonment. However, there are only three aggravated provisions: possession while operating a vehicle, not driving while drug impaired but simply having marijuana in a car; possession while committing an indictable offence; and possession in or near a school. More aggravated provisions could have been added such as possession in or near a sports or community centre.

The MADD organization has serious concerns about Bill C-38, as well as the police organizations in the country. There is a lot more than just saying a person has smoked, he has been caught but we will not make him a criminal. Canada expects more from the House of Commons. We need to put more time into the bill, rather than rushing it through the House at this time.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for this opportunity to speak to Bill C-38, which has just been introduced by the Minister of Justice. I will say right off the bat that we are in favour of supporting this bill. We are confident and we truly believe the minister when he says that in committee he will listen to members and make the necessary changes to better define the bill and make it more effective.

Our reality reflects the distinct character of Quebec and we want to share it with the minister and the members of the committee. We are sure that, as was the case with the Young Offenders Act to a degree, after hearing about those differences and the success we have had in Quebec, together we will be able to improve the bill before us.

I will talk about our reservations, but on the face of it, the very idea of decriminalizing simple possession is, in our view, the best solution for the short term because it deals with the most important issue by ensuring that people found in possession of cannabis will no longer have a criminal record.

In our opinion, this option is also one that best balances the need to reduce the harm due to consumption and the need to reduce the costs and problems associated with enforcement. Because Bill C-38 is aimed at decriminalizing the simple possession of cannabis, the Bloc Quebecois, as I said, will vote in favour of the bill.

This option presents many advantages. First, such a reform will inevitably result in huge savings in legal costs and other criminal justice system expenses. According to various studies, it is estimated that the fact that the simple possession of marijuana is still a criminal offence costs about $500 million a year in legal proceedings. It costs $500 million a year to process arrest cases and follow-ups to cases of simple possession of marijuana. Decriminalization could result in a substantial reduction in this cost of $500 million.

If the House will permit, I shall try to explain what decriminalization is. Some people, like the Canadian Alliance just now, are very much aware of this issue and so are we. Too often, the general public thinks that this bill means that young people, everyone, will be walking around with a joint, and there will be no more problems; life will be wonderful. But that is not it.

The difference between decriminalization and legalization is simple to demonstrate. Let us take an example that is easily understood by everyone listening: the highway safety code. If you are going 130, 140 or 150 km per hour on highway 417, sometimes there are police around; if they have you pull over, you are not a criminal, but you have done something illegal and you get a ticket; you pay the fine and that is the end of the matter.

If, each time a person did something illegal like not stopping for a red light or speeding, he or she were charged with a criminal offence, and had to appear in court—each time—our courtrooms would be even more clogged than they are.

What the minister is saying with this bill is that simple possession of a certain amount of marijuana is not permitted, it is still illegal. I will discuss quantities and sorts at greater length later. A person who speeds receives a fine, but not a criminal record.

I am certain that many parents who are listening to us today have children who have had bad experiences. In Quebec, I think that close to 50% of youth under 18 have had an experience with marijuana or soft drugs. Are they future criminals? Yet they get arrested and they get a record.

What happens when they get a record for making a mistake in their youth and getting caught with a joint? What if, one day, they wanted to go to the United States? They would have to get a pardon, which is a big hassle. If one day they became truck drivers and had to cross the border, they would have serious difficulties. If they wanted to become lawyers or police officers, with a police record they would be considered criminals.

Members of all parties have seen it all too often in their offices. This is not a political issue. Young adults come and tell us, “I got arrested 12 years ago, but never thought there would still be a record of that today. It is causing me all sorts of problems in my professional life. Am I a criminal?” No, these are not criminals, just young people who made a foolish mistake.

Our population has to deal not only with soft drugs but also with alcohol. Every year, alcohol kills 3.5 million individuals around the world, while tobacco kills approximately 750,000.

Even if there are no known cases of cannabis related deaths, this substance remains prohibited. How much is spent on alcohol awareness campaigns? I think it will not come as a surprise to anyone if I say that young persons under the age of 18 use it occasionally. The same is true of tobacco. Both these drugs are legal in our societies, and the social costs associated with them are much higher than those associated with cannabis.

That is why we think that this Parliament and this society must keep up with the times and ask themselves questions. Do we want to continue penalizing our adolescents and young adults by burdening them with a criminal record they do not really deserve? Will we keep overloading our courts with crimes which are not really crimes? Should possession continue to be prohibited? Yes, but under the Contraventions Act, by giving a ticket. Simple possession remains illegal, but is no longer criminal.

That is important to us. It is also important that the savings of $500 million a year from the tracking of criminal cases be reallocated to a good awareness campaign. The minister announced, earlier, plans for a $245 million campaign on Canada's drug strategy.

We believe, and this belief is based on blatant and tangible examples, that this $245 million should go to those who are knowledgeable, at the provincial and territorial level, where they deal directly with the people affected by drug use.

The $245 million is fine, but should be redistributed to the provinces to fund more effective awareness campaigns. Why give $245 million to the provinces? The firearms program was originally supposed to cost $2 million. We are now at $1 billion plus and the government still has no control over costs.

With regard to national awareness campaigns against smoking, we still do not know exactly how the federal government is spending the money. We only have to look at the results. We think that, given these disastrous results, the money must to given to the provinces.

Consequently, it is worth reminding members that, with this bill, the possession and production of cannabis are still illegal under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. The approach to enforcing the law will be changed. It will now be governed by the Contraventions Act. A minor contravention will therefore be given to the offenders.

In what circumstances will these people get a contravention? The possession of 15 grams or less of marijuana would be liable to a $150 fine for an adult and $100 for a youth. For a youth, a $100 fine is already high enough that he or she would think twice before doing the same thing again.

I will provide some facts, since I am almost at the end of my presentation. One in 10 Canadians uses cannabis. Over 30,000 Canadians are accused each year of possession of cannabis. In Quebec, 80% of the accused are adults, not youth.

There is one very interesting bit of information. Currently, 84% of the population would be in favour of the legalization of marijuana for therapeutic and medical uses, for example. In May 2001, the Canadian Medical Association said in its review that arresting people for the possession of marijuana has more serious social consequences than the moderate use of the drug itself. Thus, arrest is more serious than use.

Consequently, we will support this bill. We hope that some corrections will be made, and we think that this is a step in the right direction.

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I move:

That Bill C-38, an act to amend the Contraventions Act and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, be referred forthwith to the Special Committee on the Non-Medical Use of Drugs.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the motion to refer Bill C-38 to a special committee of the House before second reading.

I would like to remind the House that, in the Speech from the Throne, the government made a commitment to modernize the Narcotic Control Act.

Last May, in order to meet that commitment, I tabled a bill which launches a real reform. The purpose of Bill C-38 is to change law enforcement in Canada for the possession of a small quantity of cannabis and to increase penalties for the growing of large quantities of marijuana.

We must make one thing clear right from the start: it was never a question of legalizing marijuana and we are not now legalizing marijuana. It remains an illegal substance and offenders will be always be prosecuted and punished by law. What we are doing is changing the kinds of prosecution for certain offences by proposing new penalties and alternative procedures.

The new legislation will ensure that the law will be applied uniformly from coast to coast and will allow us to devote police resources to operations where they will be most useful.

This bill was not drawn up in a contextual vacuum. It is part of Canada's new drug strategy. A sum of $245 million was allocated to the fight against the root causes of drug abuse and to the promotion of health.

The government is increasing the funding for informing and raising the awareness of the Canadian public, especially young people, about the dangers of drugs.

This decision was made in full knowledge of the facts. We have done our homework. We have benefited from much research, consultation and debate.

The research goes back to the LeDain Commission, three decades ago. Two recent committee reports have also helped us understand the issue: the Senate's Special Committee on Illegal Drugs and this House's Special Committee on the Non-Medical Use of Drugs, chaired by the hon. member for Burlington.

Clearly, the current law is in need of reform to send a strong message that marijuana is illegal and harmful, but also to ensure the punishment fits the crime. We have to ask ourselves as a society whether it makes sense that a young person who makes a bad choice in life should receive the lasting burden of a criminal conviction. It means that the doors to certain jobs may be closed or they may have trouble travelling internationally.

With the reforms that I have introduced, the current criminal court process and resulting criminal penalties would be replaced with alternative procedures and penalties. Those convicted of possessing 15 grams or less of marijuana or one gram or less of cannabis resin will receive a ticket and a fine ranging from $100 to $400, depending on the circumstances. This fine would be higher in many cases than what offenders are receiving now. It is important to know that when a young person is facing a charge, his or her parents will be notified.

Police officers will retain the discretion to give a ticket or summons to appear in criminal court for possession of more than 15 grams of marijuana. The maximum in that case will remain a $1,000 fine and/or six months in jail. In addition, the new alternative penalties regime will not be available in cases of possession of over 30 grams. Those offences will result in criminal charges.

At the same time that we are modernizing our possession offence, we are taking aim at marijuana grow operations. We know that these large grow ops are sometimes located in residential areas. We know that criminal gangs are often behind those operations. This bill sends a clear message that we will not allow our neighbourhoods to be threatened by these grow ops and we will take strong action to combat organized crime.

Our bill provides for doubling the maximum sentence for large marijuana grow operations. It sets out a number of aggravating circumstances which would require courts to provide reasons for not imposing a prison sentence. With tougher legislation, and more efficient enforcement measures, we hope to put an end to this kind of activity.

I would now like to address certain questions that have been raised with regard to this bill.

First of all, there is the issue of impaired driving. This is not a new problem; I would remind the House that it is already a serious offence under the Criminal Code to drive when impaired by alcohol or drugs.

Thus, we must give the police the tools they need to identify drivers whose faculties are impaired by drug use.

The Department of Justice is currently circulating a consultation document prepared by a working group.

Secondly, there is the question of whether these reforms are reasonable, not only in the Canadian context, but also internationally.

Let us examine what is happening elsewhere in the world.

In some countries, possession of small amounts of cannabis is not a crime. In others, it remains a criminal offence, but it is not prosecuted. Some countries, including the United States, see active prosecution as a key element of their policy response to possession of small amounts of cannabis.

Although drug enforcement is a shared state-federal responsibility in the U.S., 12 states have laws decriminalizing possession of small amounts of cannabis.

The state of South Australia, along with two Australian territories, have adopted fines for possession of up to 100 grams of marijuana. Several evaluations to date in South Australia found no increase in cannabis use linked to its policy.

Similarly, in the U.S. no significant difference in cannabis use was found between those jurisdictions that decriminalized cannabis use and those that did not.

While we can learn from what others are doing, our reforms are designed to reflect the Canadian reality. We are taking a comprehensive approach recognizing that drug and alcohol abuse can take a heavy toll in human terms and cost our economy billions of dollars.

Earlier I mentioned that this motion would send this bill to committee before second reading. This demonstrates that the government is listening and willing to consider amendments to ensure we get it right.

The Income Tax Act

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Bill C-38. On the Order: Government Orders

October 9, 2003--the Minister of Justice--Second reading and reference to the Special Committee on Non-Medical Use of Drugs of Bill C-38, an act to amend the Contraventions Act and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

Business of the House

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to answer that question. I think it is an excellent question.

This afternoon we will continue with the debate on Bill C-48, the resource taxation measures. We will then turn to a motion to refer Bill C-38, the cannabis legislation, to committee before second reading. If this is complete, then we would follow with: Bill C-32, the Criminal Code amendments; Bill C-19, the first nations fiscal institution bill; and Bill C-36, the archives bill, if we get to that. There is some discussion going on about Bill C-36.

Tomorrow we will begin with Bill C-19, if it has not already been completed, and then go to Bill C-13. If we have not completed the list for today, we could as well continue with that.

Next week is the Thanksgiving week of constituency work. When we return on October 20, it is my intention to call Bill C-49 to begin; that is the redistribution legislation, for the benefit of hon. members. When that is concluded, we would return to any of the business not completed this week or reported from committee.

Thursday, October 23, shall be an allotted day. That is the sixth day in the supply cycle.

Criminal Code

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I apologize to the hon. member. For greater clarity, although it has been discussed by House leaders and perhaps alluded to, I want to confirm to the House that the reference for Bill C-38, presently scheduled to be debated tomorrow, is reference to committee before second reading.