Debates of June 13th, 2016

Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to research and information, if something I am doing is illegal, I am certainly not going to talk about it. If people can at least talk about what they are doing, we will be able to get far more crucial information. If an activity is illegal, it is very difficult to get information that will give us a better idea of the limits we need to set. That is what I meant to say. If marijuana is decriminalized, people will at least be able to report how much they are consuming, and that will give an idea of the repercussions this has on their concentration or their skills.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise you that I will be sharing my time with the eloquent and brilliant member for Eglinton—Lawrence.

I am pleased to stand in the House today to address the topic put forward by the member for Victoria.

It is clear that there is no reason to hastily rush into decriminalization, as members opposite suggest. Over the last decade or so, courts have told us that people with a legitimate medical need have a constitutional right to access marijuana for medical purposes. As the result of various court decisions, there is a robust regulatory system in place that provides legal access to marijuana for medical purposes to Canadians who need it.

To be frank, those who want it for recreational purposes can wait until such time as we have a new system that legalizes, strictly regulates, and restricts access to marijuana.

At this time, we have a fully functional system that allows a little over 53,000 Canadians to access medical marijuana.

The current system has established strict controls over the production and sale of marijuana for medical purposes. These controls protect protect public health and safety and enable Canadians to access marijuana for medical purposes when authorized by their health care practitioner.

Let me make it very clear. Our government does not licence organizations, such as compassion clubs or dispensaries, to possess, produce, or distribute marijuana for medical purposes. These activities by these organizations are, and remain, illegal. Instead, through the marihuana for medical purposes regulations, Health Canada has put in place controls to enable the production and distribution of marijuana for medical purposes, while reducing the risk of marijuana being diverted to an illicit market or use.

Health Canada grants licenses to producers so that they can produce and distribute dried marijuana, fresh marijuana, and cannabis oil to people who have received authorization from a health care practitioner. Those Health Canada-approved licensed producers must meet the strictest standards in order to produce and distribute medical marijuana.

The system was created to help ensure a professional, secure, and ethical industry that would provide reasonable access for Canadians to marijuana for medical purposes. Licensed producers must demonstrate compliance, including quality control standards, record keeping of all activities and inventories of marijuana, and physical security measures to protect against potential diversion. In addition to those stringent requirements, the system also requires that certain key employees, along with directors and officers in the case of a corporation, have a security clearance.

The regulations provide for rigorous oversight to reduce public health, safety, and security risks by setting out an in-depth licence application review process and a strong compliance and enforcement regime. Licensed producers must meet good production practices, including the requirement for analytical testing for contaminants, sanitation requirements for production, and packaging and storage, among other requirements. Licensed producers also have to test marijuana for microbial and chemical contaminants, and must meet legislated quality control requirements.

This means that the marijuana sold is subject to strict quality control and robust oversight in order to protect the health and safety of Canadians.

For its part, Health Canada plays a compliance and enforcement role to ensure that licensed producers produce marijuana to the high standards set out in the regulations. To this end, the department conducts frequent inspections of all licensed producer facilities.

To date, Health Canada has issued 31 licences to producers located across Canada who conduct their operations according to the quality control measures and appropriate health and safety standards that I have already talked about today.

We know these producers are selling a wide variety of quality-controlled marijuana in a manner that reduces risk to public health and safety. Moreover, licensed producers are offering marijuana at a range of prices, with some producers offering compassionate pricing.

To be able to access marijuana for medical purposes, Canadians must have the support of a health care practitioner; that is a physician in all provinces and territories or a nurse practitioner in those provinces and territories where it is permitted.

These health care practitioners complete a medical document that includes the daily amount of marijuana required. With that medical document, individuals can register with one of the licensed producers identified on the Health Canada website. To date, nearly 53,000 Canadians have registered to purchase marijuana for medical purposes. From licensed producers, Canadians can obtain dried or fresh marijuana as well as cannabis oil.

What is more, people who are entitled to obtain marijuana for medical purposes and who purchase it from licensed producers can produce and possess marijuana products such as ointments for personal use.

As part of the regulatory requirements, licensed producers must ensure the safe distribution of marijuana. This means that licensed producers are only permitted to provide marijuana to registered clients and this marijuana must be securely shipped directly to the client or an individual responsible for the client or to the client's health care practitioner.

Let me also add that licensed producers may not operate a storefront.

Licensed producers must package marijuana in a child resistant manner that allows the client to determine whether it has been opened prior to receipt and helps to prevent children from opening it.

Licensed producers must apply a label on the container indicating the name of the client, that of the licensed producer, the contact information of the supplier, and information about the marijuana being shipped.

The licensed producer is also required to include similar information on a separate document with each shipment of marijuana. These documents are useful should a client be required to demonstrate proof of authorized possession to law enforcement.

All these requirements create a framework that allows people in Canada to access marijuana prescribed by a health practitioner.

The system is working. I mentioned that there are 53,000 registered clients who are already legally accessing marijuana for medical purposes from 31 licensed producers. These licensed producers have the capacity to absorb new clients. This means that Canadians who require marijuana for medical purposes do not need to go to a dispensary. They can already get it from a legal source if they require it for medical purposes.

The government is working hard to make changes to the current regulations based on the Federal Court's guidelines.

While I will not speculate about the specifics of the proposed regulations, they will be crafted to address the issues identified by the court and ensure that authorized individuals have reasonable access to marijuana for medical purposes.

In the meantime, I want to remind the House that licensed producers will continue to carry out their operations as usual and that Canadians needing marijuana for medical purposes can continue to access it through licensed producers.

It is simply unnecessary to decriminalize marijuana. There is a robust system in place for those who need it for medical purposes. For those who wish to access marijuana for recreational purposes, we would urge them to respect the current laws while we take the time to put in place a responsible regulated system for marijuana for non-medical purposes. That system will keep marijuana out of the hands of youth and keep criminals from profiting from marijuana's illegal trade. Therefore, I cannot support today's motion.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the remarks of the parliamentary secretary, the member for Charlottetown. He spoke a lot about medical marijuana. The purpose of the motion before us today is to address the interim measures or preparatory steps the government could take for those who wish to use marijuana recreationally, not medically.

I wonder if my colleague would agree with me on this. If the latest Statistics Canada information says 57,000 people a year are charged and perhaps in two years time, before the law is put into place, some 50,000 Canadians will acquire a criminal record for this activity, which will be perfectly legal as soon as the government enacts the legislation it has promised, a great deal of hardship will occur to that many Canadians in the interim.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, allow me to take that logic to another situation.

The drinking age in the province of Quebec is 18. Do we say to all of the 17-year-olds in Quebec that they are going to be legal next year so we will cut them some slack this year? It makes no sense, nor does this.

The idea of decriminalizing, in the absence of any other system of control, will do nothing but enrich organized crime. It is certainly not where we want to go, and not where we need to go in this country.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with the NDP insofar as there is any ambiguity here. The Liberals said they would change the law, but the Liberals have broken many of their other promises, so we have no reason to assume that they will follow through in this case. For now, marijuana use remains illegal.

I want to ask the parliamentary secretary if he is aware of any jurisdiction in the world where legalization has led to reduced use. If he cannot name that jurisdiction, I wonder why he thinks Canada's experience of legislation would be any different.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, what we know is that the war on drugs has been an abject failure. What we know is that cannabis use among young Canadians is the highest in the developed world.

We know that the prohibition system has been an utter failure. We believe that the right answer is evidence-based, and it is strict regulation and control. That is what we are moving toward, based on the evidence that we will be amassing through the task force. That will be a better answer for Canadians.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the member could provide a comment on this thought.

If this resolution were to pass and the NDP got what they wanted here, my greatest fear is that the gangs and distributors of marijuana will have a field day. They can then go to our young people and say they can go ahead and smoke because it is perfectly legal.

If anything, the biggest benefactor of this motion would be organized crime. The best way to deal with organized crime is through criminal law and through working with the provinces that have the necessary regulations and the framework in place, so that the biggest benefactor is not the gangs, but rather it will be good, sound, social policy.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know how I can answer that question other than to say that I find myself in violent agreement with the member for Winnipeg North.

Clearly, the objective of the government policy with respect to marijuana legalization is exactly that, to keep it out of the hands of young people and to keep the profits out of the hands of criminals. That is the process on which we are embarking through this task force, through the consultation with the provinces and territories that have a shared jurisdiction in many of the areas.

It will be a public health approach, and one that will achieve our policy objectives where the old approach, prohibition, has been an abject failure.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we go on to resuming debate, it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Langley—Aldergrove, Seniors; the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, National Defence; and the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, also in respect to National Defence.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Eglinton—Lawrence.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the motion brought by the hon. member for Victoria. He would know that I hold him in high regard even though he is not here, though regrettably I am speaking against his motion.

I also want to thank the hon. member for Charlottetown for his gracious introduction. I will try to live up to his high expectations.

Let me start by reminding the House that our government has committed to legalize, strictly regulate, and restrict access to marijuana.

The Government of Canada intends to keep marijuana away from children and prevent criminals from profiting from its illegal trade.

We will take these steps with our eyes wide open. We will take a responsible approach. We do not want to rush or introduce precipitous changes which are unnecessary and could needlessly complicate the transition to a properly designed and regulated system of restricted access to marijuana. As the Minister of Health said in her recent speech to the United Nations, our approach to drug policy, including the legalization of marijuana, must have a solid scientific foundation.

I would like to use my time today to talk about some of what the science says about marijuana and health. There are both health risks and potential therapeutic benefits from marijuana. While new evidence of risks and benefits continue to emerge, we currently have more evidence about the harms, particularly the harms to youth. There is evidence of very real and negative health effects of marijuana consumption, particularly for young people.

The health risks associated with regular use of marijuana during adolescence and early adulthood, when the brain is still developing, include long-term harmful effects.

Regular marijuana use over time can lead to an increased risk of addiction, and therefore potentially longer lasting harms to mental functioning, such as deficits in attention, memory, learning, and even IQ. This is particularly true for use that begins in early adolescence.

There is evidence that regular marijuana use in early adolescence can have a negative impact on academic success and increase the risk of dropping out of school.

Early and regular marijuana use has also been associated with an increased risk of psychosis and schizophrenia, especially in those who have a personal or family history of such mental illnesses. These effects can cause profound problems for the individuals and their families. All of this is of particular concern given the high rates of use of marijuana among young Canadians.

On average, young people try marijuana for the first time at age 14.

Almost one in five students in grades seven to 12 had reported use of marijuana during the years 2012-13. Moreover, Health Canada's most recent Canadian tobacco, alcohol, and drug survey found that 11% of Canadians aged 15 or older reported having used marijuana at least once in 2013. When examined more closely, the data reveals that 25% of young people aged 15 to 24 years reported use in the previous year.

Young Canadians have an alarmingly high rate of marijuana use compared to youth in other countries.

A 2013 study by UNICEF found that Canadian youth aged 11 to 15 are the highest users of marijuana compared to their peers in other developed countries, and 28% of 15-year-olds in Canada reported using marijuana at least once in the previous year.

Despite the increased risks for adolescents who use marijuana, the Ontario Student Drug Use and Health Survey, conducted in 2015, indicated that the perceived risk of harm associated with marijuana use is lower than it was in the past.

In a talk at a recent conference, the Prime Minister cited the risks of marijuana use to the developing brain when he said that, “we need to make sure that it's harder for underage Canadians to access marijuana. And that will happen under a controlled and regulated regime.”

One of the main reasons why we want to move toward legalization is that it would allow us to properly regulate the use of marijuana and restrict access to it.

Canadians expect us to be responsible as we follow through on our commitment. We need to take the time necessary to get the approach right.

We are concerned that half measures such as the decriminalization that the hon. member for Victoria proposes will only send the wrong message to our young people and amount to a disservice to the public. On balance, decriminalization would amount to a disservice to the public for a number of reasons: First, it does nothing to address the supply side of the issue, leaving serious questions regarding the quality of the substance which we aim to regulate. Second, it does nothing to reduce the law enforcement and judicial resources that would be necessary to still prosecute certain contraventions under a new decriminalization regime. Third, and perhaps equally importantly, it would do nothing to stop the flow of proceeds into the pockets and accounts of organized crime.

As members can see, this is a complex issue, and many perspectives need to be considered in order to create a safe, secure, and tightly regulated system for the legal production and distribution of marijuana. That is why our government will soon launch a task force that will give us expert advice on how the legalization process should take place. The task force will include perspectives from many different sectors, including health, justice, law enforcement, and public safety. We want to take the time to hear from experts across a variety of fields who have an interest in this important issue. We must learn from the experience of other jurisdictions that have legalized marijuana, and we must consider the implications of legalization for the provinces and territories.

The science on marijuana risks and benefits is evolving. Some clinical studies suggest that some strains have potential therapeutic benefits for some medical conditions, such as certain types of severe chronic pain. There is emerging evidence that some strains may perhaps be useful in treating epilepsy in children and adults. What is clear is that as the scientific evidence continues to advance, Canadians will need a system which strictly regulates the sale and access to marijuana, and ensures that Canadians have the information they need to make informed and responsible choices about their health.

We believe that legalization, regulation, and restricted access to marijuana is the best approach to protecting our children from both accessing marijuana and from criminal records that may negatively affect their lives. To that end, we will introduce legislation in the spring of 2017 to keep marijuana out of the hands of children and illicit profits out of the hands of criminals. We are convinced that this is the best way to protect our children and young people while enhancing public safety.

I am thankful for the opportunity to inform the House on this important government commitment.

For those reasons, I am against the motion proposed by the hon. member for Victoria, and I would encourage members to make the same decision.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I might gently remind the member that it is against the Standing Orders to mention the presence or absence of members in the gallery.

Moving on from that, the member said that we should learn from the experience of other jurisdictions. I very much agree with that. Use has gone up significantly in every case where we have seen the legalization of marijuana. I asked the parliamentary secretary if he could name a jurisdiction where that did not happen and he was unable to.

I agree that there are certainly problems with the current system. That is why our party is advocating for an alternative, which is to allow police a ticketing option while maintaining that the possession of marijuana is a criminal offence. That allows police officers that middle option in the many cases where it might not be practical or proportionate to prosecute and that I think is part of the problem.

From my perspective, allowing a ticketing option while maintaining criminality would give us the best of both worlds. If the member thinks differently, perhaps he could point to a single jurisdiction in the world where we did see a reduction in the use associated with legalization. I do not think that he can name one.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the question from the hon. colleague across the aisle is well put. The short answer is that this middle option, which he describes as his party recently endorsing at a convention, is strikingly similar to the decriminalization regime which has been put forward by the NDP member.

It is for those reasons that I do not believe that the middle option, as described by the hon. colleague, would either address the supply side of the issue or would address the scarce resources of law enforcement and the courts, which are currently under tremendous strain and pressure. There is no answer with respect to that. Most importantly, it does nothing to address our aim, our intent, to deprive organized crime of the illicit profits, the proceeds of crime, which they would continue to derive in any kind of regime where we did not address the actual quality of the substance that we aim to strictly regulate.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's comments on the matter. He brought up the issue of police resources and said that the motion would not impact those resources. I beg to differ. If the police were able to move a lot of the attention away from some of the smaller crimes and were able to put the resources into the organized issue, the high drug offences, that is where they could actually make a difference.

I want to ask my colleague if he agrees that if they were able to put the resources into those high drug trafficking offences that involve organized crime, it would make a difference.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, having spent the better part of 12 years as a former federal prosecutor in downtown Toronto, having worked on organized crime, having prosecuted both street-level drug trafficking and higher-level drug trafficking, I can say to him, with some credibility, that I hope the regime we are proposing right now is precisely aimed at exercising good judgment and sound strategy in how to manage this important file, the marijuana file.

Contraventions will still require police to exercise judgment, to expend resources, to lay tickets, and to prosecute those tickets in a court, which is yet to be defined by the hon. member or his colleague who is advancing the motion.

That is the flaw in creating a criminalization regime.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member what his opinion is on the motion presented by the NDP. We have been hearing a lot of talk about a very idealistic approach, that somehow putting this legislation in place piecemeal, I would say, and decriminalizing right now would lead to people growing marijuana in their gardens and making marijuana that is safer and less strong than the marijuana that is available now. There are all these idealistic opinions. However, they completely fail to recognize the profits that would still be gained by illegal criminal organizations. I would like to get the member's opinion on that.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree that it is important not to be ideological in our approach to how it is we propose to strictly regulate marijuana on a go-forward basis.

As the Minister of Health said in her recent speech at the United Nations, we cannot arrest ourselves out of the situation. The status quo is not working. We need to take an evidence-based, scientific approach.

The Minister of Justice has said the same thing.

This is a consistent theme that runs through all of our government's policies, be it on this file, be it on health, or be it on the economy. This government does not favour ideology over principled, evidence-based decision-making. It is the reverse, and I am proud to be part of this new approach.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Trois-Rivières.

Despite the Prime Minister's clear campaign promises to move quickly to fix our marijuana laws and stop the senseless arrests for simple possession, the government has spent the last six or seven months doing nothing. The Liberals announced a timeline for future action, in New York, but that action is at least a year away.

I am hearing from a broad range of constituents in Nanaimo—Ladysmith who are confused by the government's messages on marijuana, so here is a nine-part list of who is affected by leaving marijuana regulations uncertain.

First, there are judges. Justice Selkirk, from the Ontario Court of Justice, said, in December:

I recall distinctly the Prime Minister in the House of Commons saying it's going to be legalized. I'm not going to be the last judge in this country to convict somebody of simple possession of marijuana.

He continued:

You can't have the Prime Minister announcing it's going to be legalized and then stand up and prosecute it. It just can't happen. It's a ludicrous situation, ludicrous.

My second category is taxpayers, because the government spends $3 million to $4 million annually in prosecuting simple possession cases. New Democrats believe that it is irresponsible to allow police and court resources to be wasted this way, creating new criminal records for something the government imminently plans to legalize. Police have better things to do.

The third category is legal commercial producers. There are 60 licensed commercial businesses across Canada. One of them, Tilray, is in my riding. These businesses have done everything the government has asked them to do. They have jumped through incredible hoops. They have security, investment, and inspections. It is a very tightly regulated industry. They have invested in good faith, but they are not sure what will be the conditions for further investment. They are in an insecure business environment.

The fourth category is legal personal-production licence holders. Again, the Conservatives made a whole lot of changes, and there were a lot of prosecutions over the last 10 years. They are in an uncertain place. These people are growing medical marijuana legally, but they do not know how solid the ground is on which they stand. It is a problem.

There is another broad group affected in my community: those with illegal dispensaries in their region. These are not licensed under the current law, so the fifth category is local governments that are left scrambling to address the jurisdictional hole left by the lack of federal leadership on the illegal dispensary issue.

The sixth category is customers who are reliant on this dispensary supply. They may well have been prescribed this medically. They believe that it is a legitimate source they can rely on. They are discombobulated by ad hoc police raids and the interruption of what might be a prescribed supply for them. It creates anxiety.

The seventh category affected is that of neighbouring businesses affected by these illegal dispensaries. These people are alarmed by changes in their neighbourhoods, outdoor smoking, and a different clientele mix. The Greater Nanaimo Chamber of Commerce representatives are complaining to me about this and about the lack of federal leadership. There is a lot of work to do on this file.

The eighth category for me is regions that are missing out on the benefits from legal commercial medical marijuana growers. Tilray, in my riding, is one success story. The company added 140 employees in 13 months. Operating impacts are estimated to grow from $13 million to $88 million in our region if the government can get ahead and plan what this industry is actually going to look like. We are waiting for leadership.

Finally, the ninth category, which is the focus of today's debate, is the thousands of mostly young adults who will have criminal records for the rest of their lives because the Prime Minister did not respect his promise to legalize marijuana as soon as he took office. Having a criminal record for marijuana possession has big consequences. It can impede one's travel and future work opportunities. This is again the focus of today's debate. It is unfair to impose criminal records on citizens when we are told that this will be a legal drug in less than two years. It is unfair and it costs everyone.

One of the costs is 18 months, under a Liberal government, of needless arrests and wasteful trials that are tying up our police and our courts. The justice department has confirmed that it will cost taxpayers as much as $4 million a year.

In 2014, there were almost 60,000 marijuana possession charges, and Statistics Canada says that is 3% of all arrests in our country. In 2013, possession of cannabis accounted for 54% of all police-reported drug crime. If police stopped prosecuting young adults, then resources could be focused on dealers and organized crime.

In my city, Nanaimo, there is a fentanyl crisis that is tying up firefighters, police, health responders, and hospitals. It is causing deaths. This is a serious problem, and we are not getting the action we need on it. There were 17 fentanyl-related deaths in 2014 in the Island Health region, 22 in 2015, and nine in just the first three months of this year. The medical health officer for my region, on Vancouver Island, Dr. Paul Hasselback, says that Nanaimo's fentanyl overdose rate is higher than the provincial average. It is something we really should be focusing on instead of criminalizing simple possession of marijuana.

This follows a trail of Liberal failures. In 1969, a royal commission said that the cost to young individuals was not justified and said to get rid of prohibition for personal use. The Liberals ignored the recommendation. New Democrats introduced a bill, and it was not supported by the House.

In 2002, a Senate report said that the true damage to society caused by marijuana was felt through the side effects of criminal penalties. Again, there was no action. In 2009, the Liberals voted to support Bill C-15, a Conservative initiative to impose mandatory minimums for cannabis-related offences.

The Liberal and Conservative governments have consecutively failed to keep marijuana out of the hands of young people, and giving them criminal records has not helped.

New Democrats want the government to make a difference on the ground right now, to make a difference in people's lives. As the Liberal health minister said quite rightly, it is impossible to arrest our way out of the situation. Therefore, the government should support the NDP motion. It should immediately decriminalize simple possession while it drafts laws to legalize marijuana.

Yes, it can learn from Washington and Colorado. Yes, it can tackle edibles, labelling, and dosage control. It can do all of those things, but while it does that long, extended work, it should make a difference right now in the lives of Canadians. New Democrats believe that it is irresponsible to allow the valuable resources of police and courts to be wasted creating new criminal records for something the government imminently plans to legalize.

New Democrats will continue to push for the government to take common sense steps, such as decriminalizing simple possession of marijuana, while it develops a comprehensive plan and a timeline to legalize it.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I also come from the land of B.C. bud and therefore would like to get it legalized, regulated, and licensed. However, I want to ask how we can do something with the right hand without knowing what is happening with the left.

If we decriminalize it, does the member opposite not feel that we will be allowing organized crime, gangsters, and those who are selling fentanyl-laced marijuana to sell it into the hands of children and youth? If we decriminalize it, it will still allow our children, youth, and the young population to interact with organized crime, putting their lives at risk.

The member very well knows that in her riding, as she stated earlier, deaths are very high. How can we legalize use without regulating the product and the means by which people get it in the first place?

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for for giving me the opportunity to clarify.

I would say two things. The first is that criminalizing simple possession of marijuana, small amounts for personal possession, has not prevented the kinds of effects we are seeing in our country. It is not natural or logical to link those pieces.

The second thing I would say to reassure the member, and I would hope for his support on this motion, is that all New Democrats are talking about is removing the terrible problem of young adults in Canada having criminal records for personal possession. It is simply to get them out of the criminal justice system. It would not do anything for illegal growers, illegal gangs, or fentanyl manufacturers. Those would continue to be criminal actions, and that is what police resources should be focused on: dealers, organized crime, and drugs that are truly killing and harming people.

Individuals who had very small amounts of marijuana and were intercepted by police would no longer face having criminal records. They could well be ticketed, as the Conservatives have proposed, but they would not face having criminal records for the rest of their lives.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my colleague about two issues which, as far as I know, have not been brought thus far in the debate. I want to ask her what she thinks the effect of this motion would be on marijuana use in driving and how that would affect road safety and what concerns she might have around that.

The second issue I want to raise is that some law enforcement people have told me that having marijuana be illegal makes it easier for them to access drug dealers, because if they stop someone who is smoking a joint and they have a small amount of marijuana in their possession, it allows them to conduct a search and they may well find substantial amounts of other drugs.

I want to hear the hon. member's comments on those two issues: how maintaining the criminal element around marijuana may well improve public safety, at least in those specific ways.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, voting yes to today's NDP motion would allow police resources to be concentrated on true crime in our country and actually getting at the root of drugs and violence that actually affect people on the ground.

They would have more resources to do roadside checks around who is driving dangerously for any reason, whether that is workplace fatigue, alcohol, or anything.

There really is no downside. Again, because the government has indicated that it is already going in this direction, its task force will recommend that this be a drug that is allowed to be used and distributed. We are simply talking about getting out of the lives of individual young Canadians who will unfairly bear the brunt of a drug charge for which possession, consumption, and distribution will be legal in just a matter of years.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's great comments on this.

The Liberal members have been raising the issue of resources. I want to ask my colleague, what is the cost of inaction? We have already been waiting seven months or more. It is not expected that there will be any action before another year and it may take up to two years, maybe longer, before a regime is actually implemented.

What is the cost to young people, municipalities, municipal police forces? What is the cost to them in terms of delay of action or inaction on this issue?

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, like so many areas where we have had a failure of federal government leadership, whether it is oil spill response, abandoned vessels, in this case marijuana dispensary regulations, I have seen my former colleagues from local governments scrambling to fill those holes. It means every community has to figure out its own ad hoc rules. It would be so much better if we saw federal leadership in this area.

The financial cost, the direct cost, is $4 million a year simply in prosecuting small personal possession charges. That is embarrassing, really, for us in this country in this day and age. That money could be spent so much better elsewhere.

The cost of criminal records for individuals we have discussed, and they can really hamper people's time.

I would argue finally for the government, it has the need to act on the very strong mandate that was given to it by Canadians, and I think voting in favour of this motion would be a show of faith in the Liberals' commitment to follow through on a campaign promise.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that, since debate on this topic began today, the discussion has been all over the map, which is probably normal with such a delicate topic.

Despite the fact that we are talking about marijuana, which is commonly known as a soft drug, some people are worried about abuse. I would like to come back to the key aspect of the motion so that we know what we are talking about. I would particularly like to draw members' attention to point (a), which is the heart of the NDP's proposal. It reads:

That the House: (a) recognize the contradiction of continuing to give Canadian criminal records for simple possession of marijuana after the government has stated that it should not be a crime;

We are talking about simple possession of marijuana. That is the situation we have been put in since the most recent election campaign. During that campaign, I often told the people who asked my opinion on the dreams, promises, and commitments of the Liberal party to be careful because everyone knows that the Liberals tend to signal left during the election campaign and then turn right when they take office. As a result, we are now in a situation where Canadians' dreams have been shattered. There are many examples of that.

For example, we could talk about all those people who were thrilled at the prospect of a tax cut that would give them more money and help them make ends meet. Once the Liberals came to power, very few people actually benefited from a tax cut, and those who received the largest tax cuts were already among the wealthiest Canadians.

Seniors in my riding were especially attracted by the idea of investments in home care. There was nothing in the budget about that. On the environment, people were saying that they could finally see light at the end of the tunnel. The Liberal government made the same commitments as the previous government in Paris. We can clearly see that on all counts, there is a gap, actually it is an abyss, between the vision presented during the campaign and what the government is currently doing.

In the case of marijuana, I would say that there is an even greater gap, if that is possible. The Liberals told everyone that they would quickly legalize marijuana. However, that is not the case. What people continue to believe, especially adolescents, whom I really understand, is that they are invincible. In fact, I have spent most of my life in touch with adolescence, first as an adolescent myself and then as a teacher of adolescents for 25 years. When we think about our adolescence, which for most people in the House was not as long ago as mine, we can remember often having the feeling of being invincible. When we are adolescents, the things we do are not risky, and we believe everything will be fine. If we try smoking a joint, we are not going to be arrested, because that only happens to other people.

The reality is quite different, and thousands of Quebeckers and Canadians who want to try smoking a joint or consuming an edible, such as a muffin or what have you, run the risk of ending up with a criminal record. They could end up with a criminal record, even though the Liberals made a promise and said that no one in our society should end up with a criminal record for simple possession of marijuana. Therein lies the contradiction and the confusion surrounding this issue we are trying to resolve with the very simple approach of decriminalizing marijuana. The majority agrees on this measure, and we are not talking about 50% plus 1 of Canadians. We are talking about 68% of Canadians who agree with decriminalizing simple possession of marijuana. I would remind members that we are talking about simple possession.

I must admit that the issues are diametrically opposed, but I have a hard time understanding the Liberals' inconsistent approach.

In recent weeks, we have talked a lot about Bill C-14 on medical assistance in dying. We heard that even though the Supreme Court issued a clear unanimous ruling, society was not ready and we needed to move forward slowly. As a result, the Liberals proposed the criterion of reasonably foreseeable natural death, which has been challenged in both the House and the Senate.

Small steps are necessary in the case of medical assistance in dying, but in the case of simple possession of marijuana, small steps are apparently not needed. In that case, the government wants to go full bore. Legalization needs to happen immediately, which is completely impossible. We need to forget about that. All we have been promised is that a bill will be introduced in 2017. Some Liberal members are saying that it could be introduced later, and, rarely, someone says that it could be introduced earlier. We hear nothing about consistency.

We need a bill to deal with the drug issue once and for all, but the first step is to implement a simple, easy-to-understand measure for everyone. Say a teenager is influenced by a group of friends or just wants to try this once. We need to make sure our measure eliminates the possibility of ruining that teenager's life with a record that will make finding a job or travelling much more difficult. We know that teenagers are tempted to try new things. There is a disconnect there.

I would like to talk about my own transition from childhood to adolescence. In my day, things might have seemed simpler because becoming a man or daring to do the forbidden meant trying to smoke. Cigarettes could be had for a penny, back when we still had pennies.

Obviously, that has changed. Each generation is better educated than the last, and we now have very clear evidence about the dangers of cigarettes. Cigarette consumption has decreased markedly, but the battle is not yet won. Some young people still choose to smoke, and they need to be shown the negative health effects of that choice.

Right now, the legal system spends $4 million on cases that may result in records for teenagers. If we used that money to educate young people about this, we could make tremendous progress. Contrary to what my dearly departed mother believed, one toke does not a hard-drug addict make. It is a long way from the former to the latter, and we can easily interrupt that progression with health education.

Since time is running out, I will close by painting a picture of the situation using some statistics. We invest $4 million in our justice system every year, and 80% of the offences that have to be processed involve simple possession of cannabis. If members want to talk about organized crime and everything else, so be it. However, 80% of offences are related to simple possession of marijuana. That amounts to 66,000 arrests a year and 22,000 people who risk getting a criminal record.

As I said earlier, 68% of Canadians are calling on us to take this first step, go ahead with decriminalization, and work on education so that experimentation remains just that, experimentation.

What is even clearer is that all of the parties are slowly coming around to the NDP's approach, which we first proposed a number of years ago.

I see I am out of time. I will end there, as I will have an opportunity to continue through questions.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I travelled around my riding and met with students, both before and after the election, they all asked questions about marijuana. Everyone wanted to know where I stand. I have always been clear. I am in favour of legalizing marijuana. Not a single student thanked me for changing the rules because they thought it was great that they could now smoke. That is not the case. That is not what the vast majority of them think. They really understand what is going on.

Who does my colleague think will control the market if we go ahead with decriminalization without any other changes? Who will control the marijuana market in Canada?