Debates of June 13th, 2016

Opposition Motion—Decriminalization of Marijuana Possession

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Madam Speaker, this really is a big difference between the Conservatives and the NDP. In the motion, the NDP is asking to decriminalize immediately. As I said at the beginning, our focus, always, is the health and safety of Canadians. Even when the Liberals brought it forward, they said to keep the proceeds out of the hands of criminals and to keep our kids safe.

What Canadians expect us to do, even if they are supportive of an action, is to make sure that we have all the things in place to ensure that Canadians will maintain their safety. I mentioned so many things that are wrong with the current situation. I am in full agreement with the NDP that the Liberals have made a disaster out of this. I was very saddened to hear that they did not put any money aside for inspecting these illegal dispensaries. Most important, nobody wants kids to be able to eat these gummy bears, cookies, and brownies, or bring them to their schools.

These are things that we have to address before moving forward with anything.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Madam Speaker, I was very interested to hear my friend speaking about the recent Conservative convention and this issue of giving tickets to individuals who are picked up for small possession.

My question for the member is this. Does he know that that answer is in fact decriminalization?

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Madam Speaker, again, there was a motion passed at the convention, and the reality is that no matter what motion is passed anywhere, what Canadians expect is a government to be responsible.

I am disappointed that the Liberal members are not moving forward in trying to get their ministers to pay attention to what is actually happening on the ground. In Vancouver, for example, there are more of these illegal marijuana dispensaries than Starbucks. What is the Liberal government doing? It is totally ignoring it, and it is downloading the enforcement on to local municipalities.

With respect to any movement forward on this file, what Canadians expect is that a government takes responsibility and has a responsible approach, not the irresponsible approach that has been advocated for today and also by the Liberal Party, which is doing absolutely nothing to address the questions coming from our municipalities and ordinary Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, it is important to underline that the motion passed at the Conservative convention was not a decriminalization motion. It was one that I was pleased to speak in favour of, in fact. The motion did not remove criminal penalties, but did give police a ticketing option. It expanded the range of available options.

We are dealing with this debate in a particular context, the context in which unfortunately many young Canadians just do not understand the risks associated with marijuana. The Prime Minister admitted to smoking marijuana while being an elected member of Parliament with nary an apology.

Could the member comment specifically on what information we can get to young people to help them understand the real risks associated with marijuana use?

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

The science is clear, Madam Speaker. For our youth, especially those under the age of 25, there are serious mental health considerations, a more likelihood of schizophrenia. This is what really concerns me right now with these illegal dispensaries. They are putting out kid-friendly products such as cookies, brownies, gummy bears, jujubes, and this is proliferating around communities that have never had this issue before. It is exploding.

I would like to see the Liberals take some responsibility for this. They should not wait a year. They should start putting things in place right now so this stops immediately because it is affecting our kids.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise in debate on the opposition day motion brought forward by the NDP. In many ways, having listened to speakers from the government side, particularly the member for Scarborough Southwest, it has me thinking it is Wednesday on the Hill, not Monday. His speech seemed more like yoga on the Hill, where he twisted and contorted himself into different positions, trying to claim that the Liberal track record was on the side of evidence, yet not getting there. It was an interesting speech, and I will address what that hon. member said.

The one thing my friend from Victoria and the NDP bring forward, which makes sense with this motion, is the contradiction facing the government. The motion begins with trying to recognize the contradiction. It is my position, and I think that of my colleagues in the Conservative caucus, that we do not fill a bad policy vacuum with more bad policy. The end state of the opposition day motion is to immediately decriminalize marijuana. I do not think any responsible advocate would say that would be the approach to a wild west situation.

However, I understand the frustration of the New Democrats, because there is a degree of wild west out there right now. My friend from Oshawa talked about the new dispensary that opened in his community. We have seen this in Vancouver and Toronto, and a lot of parts of the country because of the vacuum created by an irresponsible, ill thought-out promise by the Prime Minister when he was third party leader.

There were a number of reasons for his bold policy statement, but one of them was to cover up his own use of marijuana while he was a member of Parliament. However, we do not create public policy based on our own situation or in response to what we feel would be the political debate. We actually do consult the experts. We listen. My friend from Winnipeg speaks more in the House than anyone, but seems to listen very little. I hope he would change that too.

The Liberals talk about evidence in science. The evidence is before us on the scientific front. Marijuana significantly harms the developing brain. Therefore, the motion today that would quickly decriminalize a drug is irresponsible. So is the approach of the vacuum created by the government as it lumbers toward fully legalizing and in some ways legitimizing marijuana.

The evidence is crystal clear. I did not hear the member for Scarborough Southwest say much about that when he talked about evidence. I did hear the member, the former chief of police from Toronto, quote at length the member of Parliament for Outremont. He seemed to revel in that quote, so I will quote the member for Scarborough Southwest. Years ago in the Scarborough Mirror, a paper that serves the riding he represents, he said while chief of police:

We do not support the decriminalization of small amounts of marijuana...that sends an appalling and inappropriate message and is not going to do anything to reduce the harm in our communities...

That is an interesting quote. We did not hear those words from him today. As a politician now, he is the one charged with filling this vacuum about which all communities are concerned. He seems to have changed his position and given no reason for it.

He did refer to evidence of scientists and law enforcement. Let us look at the evidence from law enforcement.

The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, which that member used to belong to, has looked at the public policy ramification of legalization and decriminalization. It came up with a policy that most recently the Conservative convention in Vancouver endorsed. In fact, my friend from Beaches—East York should do a little more research. It is not decriminalization. It is ensuring that there is not a direct route for small amounts straight to the Controlled Drugs and Substance Act, the criminal route. It is called “discretion for law enforcement in ticketing”.

The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police passed resolution 3 in Winnipeg in 2013. The member for Scarborough Southwest, the now parliamentary secretary charged with leaving this vacuum on marijuana, was part of the conference. With respect to marijuana, it said that because of “a negative impact on public safety and the health of young persons” and because it impaired cognitive function, there needed to be a hybrid solution that allowed law enforcement and society to keep control through criminalization of this drug, but to give discretion to law enforcement.

I think none of us wants to see the scenario of a young person whose career or travel opportunities are cut short by personal use. We have evolved as a society. In fact, since 2013, when the member was a member of the Canadian Chiefs of Police Association, as a member of Parliament, I was taking that position, which at the time was contrary to my own party's position. Why was that? It was because my old colleague, and our friend David Wilks, a lifelong RCMP officer, brought forward the proposal, in conjunction with the chiefs of police, and made a public policy rationale and argument for it. He worked diligently, and I salute David. He lost in the last election and that is too bad. His policy work as an independent MP has been more profound and substantive than the entire government.

The member for Scarborough Southwest says that the government is taking an evidence-based approach, but then he disregards the evidence from the group to which he belonged, the chiefs of police, and from the medical profession, and allows this lawlessness to exist.

That is where I agree with my friends in the NDP, recognizing the contradiction when the Prime Minister said that this product would be legal if people voted for him. Now we are waiting. There is indecision, and mental and physical yoga in trying to justify its delays and positions.

When the Liberals made that promise, they knew Canada would be in violation of international treaties. They knew science supported the fact that chronic use of marijuana could lead to cognitive impairment on the developing brain. They knew the risks to public safety. They knew there would be a wild west approach to these street front retail locations that hoped to be the stores when the member for Scarborough Southwest finally unveiled his plan. This is like the gold rush. They are all staking their claim.

When I was veterans affairs minister, groups suggested to veterans that medical marijuana would cure their PTSD. That bothered me to no end because the science did not support that. In fact, the chair of research for the Canadian Psychiatric Association was the first witness at public safety committee. He said that there was no clinical support for PTSD assistance through medical marijuana. In fact, reports suggest the contrary. Groups also trying to get storefronts are in some cases trying to sign up more and more people, not always concerned whether that is the right treatment option for them.

What I would like to see from the government, particularly from that member, is a more succinct discussion on the harms of the substance. I took a position contrary to my party. I said that we could not have the criminal ramifications for young people for personal use that did not cause any harm. However, no man is an island, as the old expression goes. We cannot permit a drug to be decriminalized with one vote in the House without an approach to ensure there are controls and criminal sanction when warranted.

What I like about the NDP's opposition motion is that it is at least bringing up the issue. The Liberals ran very hard on it. We all remember the drives they did on university and college campuses. Now we have this indecision being filled by operators, and there is no suggestion the federal government is going to take a leadership role to stop that. We saw Mayor Tory in Toronto crack down, and we applaud him for that. However, the government, which ran on this, is avoiding responsibility to have a serious discussion on it, much like the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police did in 2013, to not only talk about the harms, but also how we can reduce the criminal sanction and the impact for someone who has not caused harm to others.

I hope the debate today starts off a process of the government becoming responsible for the vacuum it has created and the uncertainty and criminal activity that surrounds it. I hope it comes up with a solution before the House rises.

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

Madam Speaker, I was certainly intrigued that at the Conservative convention just a few weeks ago a resolution was passed to allow for the ticketing of those who possessed small personal amounts of marijuana. Therefore, there is movement happening here.

In that light, I am interested in the member's comments with respect to my and the New Democrats' hope of what might be the benefits of freeing up the police and taxpayer financial resources, which right now are consumed with ticketing individuals, and young adults in particular, for personal possession of marijuana, to focus on the true aspects of drug crime.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith for delving into what I talked about. I appreciate the fact that she was listening intently.

My rhetorical passion got the better of me and I did not get into the full details of what the chiefs of police said and the position I support, which is that the simple possession of 30 grams of cannabis or one gram of cannabis resin would be exempt from the criminalized route at the discretion of law enforcement officials. They are the experts who we should be listening to on the public safety ramifications. Therefore, officers could look at the situation and issue a ticket. If someone kept repeating the violation or was near a school or there were other factors combining it with other illegal activity, which is often the case, officers would have the discretion to lay the charge and keep that criminal sanction intact. It is a responsible approach that was advanced for many years by our colleague David Wilks, and is supported by the chiefs of police and by many Canadians.

I would suggest to the hon. member for Scarborough Southwest, whom I respect a great deal, to push this solution on the Prime Minister rather than his radical and not well-thought-out legalization plan.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague this morning for his impassioned speech. I actually think there is some common ground in his remarks this morning. On both sides of the aisle, we agree there are some harms that are associated with marijuana that we need to protect against.

I think we would also agree that the status quo is not working. As the hon. Minister of Health said recently before the United Nations, we cannot arrest ourselves out of this situation. As someone who has worked in law enforcement, I think that she speaks with great credibility when she makes that statement.

The member also said that he does not believe that there should be criminal sanctions on a go-forward basis. However, when one listens closely to his remarks this morning one has trouble finding how there is any clarity with respect to a solution to ensure that youth will not continue to be charged and that we will not reduce the harm principle, because there is nothing in his remarks that I heard this morning that addresses the supply side of the issue. Most importantly, there was nothing in his remarks that provided a clear solution when it comes to choking off the resources and the proceeds of crime, which will continue to be fed to organized crime.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, my friend from Eglinton—Lawrence did not quite hear my speech, because I did talk about harm reduction. I actually used a quote from his colleague, the member for Scarborough Southwest, who said that decriminalizing small amounts writ large would not be a way to reduce harm in the community, and he is now charged with coming up with a solution. Therefore, I did mention it.

Since 2013, I have been advocating for a change to the status quo. I have been quite clear here that I am not suggesting legalizing, opening up, or that there is no harm to this product, which is the impression the legalization vacuum of the Prime Minister has created, as well as the lawlessness on the street fronts and in the shops. Rather, what we should have is a sound policy discussion, working with the chiefs of police, and an approach that gives them the tools they need to sanction criminal behaviour.

As I said, no one wants to see a young person, a professional, or a Liberal MP criminalized for simple possession. I have been saying that even when I was at odds with some of the folks in my own party. However, I was doing so alongside people like David Wilks and others by talking about this in a balanced way in terms of how we can reduce criminal sanction where it is not needed and control and provide that criminal sanction where it is, and talk about the risks to health and public safety. We have heard none of that in a responsible way from the government.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, before I begin, I would like to say that I will be splitting my time with the member for the great riding of Port Moody—Coquitlam.

It is a great honour to be rising to speak to the motion that was brought forward by my friend from Victoria because it is a motion the House really needs to debate. Furthermore, it shines some much-needed sunlight on the absolute confusion and contradictions of the current Liberal government when it comes to marijuana policy. It is a discussion the House needs to have, and more important, it is a discussion that Canadians need to hear.

We are debating a motion that would recognize the contradiction of continuing to give Canadians criminal records for simple possession of marijuana, after the government has clearly and explicitly stated that it should not be a crime. That is a glaring contradiction and is completely unfair.

We have heard in the House before, and I am sure many Canadians have heard, that the definition of insanity is to do things over and over again expecting that, even when it brings about the same result, it will bring a different result. That is simply what we are doing in this case with our marijuana laws and it is time we take a closer look at them.

Cannabis prohibition in Canada has a history that goes back to the 1920s when it was first added to the narcotics drug act as an amendment after a very late night session in April 1923. Its prohibition, going to the United States as well, has also been linked with some of the racial policies as it was seen as an effective tool of controlling Mexican immigrant labour. There is a very clouded history with marijuana prohibition and not all of it was based on completely clear science.

Legalizing marijuana was the big campaign item of the Liberal plan. However, since the Liberals have taken office, not very much has been done. It has already been a big change from the Liberal position. In 2009, the Liberals voted with the Conservatives to introduce mandatory minimum sentences for cannabis-related offences, not a sign of a very progressive party back then. We even have former Liberal prime minister Jean Chrétien calling for the decriminalization of marijuana. We see even within the Liberal Party itself there are a few different splits, and the official policy of the government is off base with a lot of those members.

It is the height of hypocrisy that we have a Liberal government that openly and loudly campaigned on the promise to legalize and regulate marijuana and is now refusing to do anything for Canadians who are found guilty of that possession. The parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice continues to repeat that the law is the law is the law, and that he hopes that all Canadians will respect the law. He has made mention of the fact that he is of the opinion that decriminalization would not do anything to protect our children or to remove the profits from criminal activity.

While I respect the parliamentary secretary's many years as a police officer, his statements are somewhat misleading to the House and to the Canadian public. Let me make this perfectly clear for everyone listening right now. Under our current marijuana laws, the black market is worth $6 billion in British Columbia alone. Criminal sanctions up to this date have completely failed to make a dent in this trade. As for children, let me also inform members of this fact. Under our current prohibition laws, one can go to pretty much any major city in Canada to the nearest street corner, and marijuana will be easier to obtain than either alcohol or tobacco, two products that are strictly regulated by the provincial governments.

I applaud the fact that the Liberals will be moving ahead with legalization and regulation sometime in the future. However, what we are talking about is the here and now and the continued unfairness of our current regime. Provincial governments regulate alcohol, tobacco, and gambling, and they make millions of dollars off all three. It can be argued quite clearly and with lots of evidence that all three do much more harm to our society than does marijuana, yet look at the laws we have; they are completely unbalanced.

I of course agree that we must do everything to reduce harm to our children. I am a father of young children and I expect it is a conversation I will have to have with them at some point in the future. However, using the argument that decriminalization would do nothing toward preventing children from using the drug or that it would do nothing against criminal profits is a logical fallacy of the highest degree, especially when the current regime is quite clearly failing in both of these regards right now.

The time has come to talk about what decriminalization will do.

Under our current Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, under subsection 4(4) and subsection 4(5), marijuana possession of 30 grams or less can result in up to a $1,000 fine and/or six months in jail, and yes, it comes to the discretion of the police officer. However, our problem on the NDP side of the House is that the law is applied haphazardly depending on which jurisdiction in Canada a person is in. I do not feel that it is right to base a person's future on the simple discretion of a police officer. We need to have current laws that apply equally in every part of this country.

This can have profound consequences on a person's life, and not many of our young people are aware of those consequences. As we continue with the prohibition of marijuana, they might not get criminal sanctions. They might not even get a charge, but they will always have it on their record that a police officer stopped them for that, and it can haunt them for years to come.

In 2014, there were 161 marijuana possession charges per 100,000 Canadians, and that is a total of about 57,314 Canadians in 2014 alone. Possession of cannabis is responsible for 54% of all police-reported drug crime.

The Minister of Health has been quoted a few times saying that it is impossible to arrest our way out of this problem. Yet by not supporting decriminalization efforts, that is precisely what the Liberal government is doing. We are continuing to arrest our way out of this problem, which I want to make perfectly clear. Canadians should not have to wait for another year and a half for the current Liberal government to get its act together on a promise it made to Canadians. It is completely morally unjustifiable.

When we have a Prime Minster who, on the campaign trail, made an explicit promise to Canadians that the marijuana laws were going to be reformed and that legalization was going to be brought in, and then that party forms government, we can understand the confusion. I have constituents who thought that marijuana was suddenly okay to possess the day after the Liberals got elected. I have had police officers tell me that they do not know whether to apply the law equally or not, because they simply do not know what the government's intentions are.

My friend, the member of Parliament for Victoria, has already quoted a few justices who said that they do not want to be the last judge to hand out a marijuana sentence because of the intent of the government. It is complete chaos and confusion, especially on the west coast of British Columbia, an area I am so fortunate to represent as a member of Parliament.

The promise that the Liberals made has evaporated into nothing, because that is what we have now. We have nothing. We have no action. We have the status quo. Canadians did not vote for the status quo. They did not vote to continue with indefensible punishments of possession of marijuana while we wait for the government to get its act together and introduce laws sometime next year.

Canadians will continue to be arrested. They will continue to receive criminal records. They will continue to be listed in police databases and continue to suffer from those records long into the future. It is another year or more under our Liberal government of needless arrests and wasteful trials, tying up our police resources and the courts. The Department of Justice has confirmed that this will cost taxpayers as much as $4 million a year, a complete waste of taxpayer resources.

These are not the actions of a progressive government on marijuana laws. If anyone needed further evidence that the word “progressive” was used as a convenient bumper sticker by the Liberal Party for electoral purposes, they need look no further than the blatant and completely unfair stance of the current government on marijuana. Shame on them for continuing this failed policy. Shame on them for not standing up for what is right. Shame on them for breaking a clear promise.

I am proud to be a part of a party that has stood strong on the decriminalization of marijuana since the 1970s. Liberal members can continue to quote the member for Outremont on what he said in an interview in 2012, but the history is clear. The NDP has been on the right side of this issue for decades now. We will continue to lead the right charge and we will continue to stand up for what is right.

The Prime Minister's father once famously said, “There's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation”. The time has now come for the state to get out of people's personal choices with respect to marijuana possession and use, especially if there is no harm or violence being committed.

I call on the government to immediately move to decriminalize marijuana, take the right action, and be on the right side of history.

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I want to clarify a few points.

The member commented on the issue of decriminalization and suggested that our policy was motivated by anything other than the evidence.

I just wanted to inquire if the member was familiar with the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, CAMH, located in Toronto. I quoted liberally from its report of October 2014 earlier today. It has offered a number of significant evidence-based conclusions about cannabis and measures aimed at reducing harm.

In that report it was quite specific that decriminalization was a half-measure and that it failed to address the harms associated with the prohibition against cannabis use. It strongly recommended our government's proposed approach of legalization accompanied by a strict public health regulatory framework.

Has the member had the opportunity to read that evidence, which is quite compelling and would help clarify for him some of the concerns he has expressed today?

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have not read that particular report, but this issue has gone on much longer than that report.

In 1969, a royal commission began an inquiry into the use of cannabis. Its recommendations included the need to repeal the prohibition against simple possession of marijuana and cultivation for personal use.

If we are going to talk about harm reduction, let me say this to the member. The reason for this statement was that the commission concluded that the criminalization of cannabis had no scientific basis, and the “costs to a significant number of individuals, the majority of whom are young people, and to society generally, of a policy of prohibition of simple possession are not justified by the potential for harm” that comes from criminal sanctions. That was continued again in a Senate report in 2002.

If we are talking about harm reduction, let us stop sending people to jail.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is good to see that the hon. members from that party are quickly coming to the realization that it is the Liberals who are failing on many campaign promises and are in fact much worse in that regard than the Conservative Party.

I want to talk about this particular motion and the fact that under the current regime, there is a lot of confusion in this land, confusion among people, which the hon. member spoke to, and confusion among police agencies on enforcement, given the fact that the Liberals have announced that they are suspending legislation.

Would the motion the NDP is proposing today not create more confusion, not just for police agencies but for others as well?

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would argue the exact opposite. Right now, police are caught between a government's intentions and what the law actually is.

I attended the recent police convention, the reception in Ottawa. I had the chance to speak to many police officers from both the Lower Mainland and Vancouver Island. They understand that the law is the law. However, when that is contrasted with a sitting government's intent to change the law, it leads to nothing but confusion.

We are simply trying to make the law clear. It is a stop-gap measure while we get to the government's intentions. Let us stop harming people with criminal records. The police have much bigger things to do. They could go after drug traffickers. People who possess marijuana are not a threat to society. This is outdated science and outdated moral values. It is time to move on.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, Marie-Josée Dumas, executive director of Liberté de choisir, an addiction prevention organization in my riding, said that the Prime Minister's promise has already had a negative effect on the ground because young Canadians now think that the possession and use of marijuana is already allowed. If legalization is not necessarily preceded by decriminalization, many users will be caught in the trap and will end up with a criminal record. They will not be able to work, and it will be hard for them to find housing and insurance, among other things, for 10 years following a conviction.

What are my colleague's thoughts on that?

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I could not agree with my friend more.

This is about looking to the future, about stopping criminal records for young people. That is who it affects. It is completely unjustifiable and immoral that we are saddling these young people with these records far into the future and are putting the onus on them to clear their records.

It is time to move on. Our police have better things to do.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford for his speech and his reasonable suggestions and evidence points. I will add to this important motion.

I rise today to support the motion by my good friend and colleague, the member for Victoria. Action from the government to decriminalize marijuana possession is long overdue. Certainly Liberals must understand the hypocrisy of their current position. Arresting, detaining, and otherwise abridging the civil rights of Canadians for a practice they plan to make legal is unacceptable.

If we asked Canadians what they thought was the most prominent promise made by the Liberals in the last election, ending the marijuana prohibition would be at the top of their list. The Liberals made lofty promises to swiftly legalize cannabis so that it could be controlled, like alcohol. Now they claim that it is more complicated than they thought, so they will not be introducing legislation until the spring of next year.

The only concrete action they have taken is to appoint the member for Scarborough Southwest to look into the matter. The sensible thing to do would be to stop charging people today until we can get the reformed regime in place.

The reality is that about 60,000 Canadians will be arrested for simple possession of marijuana, and 22,000 will end up with criminal records this year alone. This lack of action will cripple many young people, 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 the Liberals took office. A criminal record can be a serious impediment to employment and travel opportunities that disproportionately affects youth in our communities.

Maintaining the status quo is a massive waste of the time, effort, and energy of our entire criminal justice system. Currently the federal government spends about $4 million a year trying simple possession cases, and that does not include the cost of enforcement and court resources. Police and our courts should not have to misspend resources because the government refuses to make this simple regulatory change.

While we continue to wait for legislation to legalize the cultivation and sale of marijuana, the government should remove cannabis from the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. The current legal limbo for cannabis is creating unnecessary confusion in our legal system and is creating disorder for municipal governments across the country that are dealing with the rapid expansion of marijuana storefronts in our communities.

This year, B.C.'s chief health officer declared a public health emergency due to opioid overdose deaths. This state of emergency is thanks to the rise of serious drugs like fentanyl. In B.C., 308 residents died from illicit drug overdoses in the first four months of 2016. That is up 75% from the 176 deaths in the same period last year.

I am by no means advocating a police-only approach to drug use. However, being able to task more police to go after major drug traffickers should be our top priority. Let us get on with decriminalizing cannabis so that we can free up more resources to tackle the real problems facing Lower Mainland communities.

I will add that as a former city councillor in the city of Coquitlam, I know that we worked closely with the RCMP to provide the tools and resources needed to go after the real crimes and offences happening in our community. I know that is not only in Coquitlam. It happens in Port Moody, where we have had gang violence in the past, and I know that other communities right across the country are dealing with serious crime. This needs to be the focus of our police.

Canadians know that the status quo is unacceptable. More and more prominent Canadians and organizations are speaking out and are calling on the government to take action on decriminalization now.

An April report from the C.D. Howe Institute argues that pardoning Canadians convicted of simple possession, throwing out any outstanding charges, and not charging any more people with marijuana possession would free up substantial financial resources, which could mitigate some of the costs of legalization.

Former Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chrétien has recently said, “What is completely unacceptable, in my judgment, is a young man smoking marijuana will have a criminal record for the rest of his life, [and] he can't cross the border”. The new Liberal government should heed his advice.

Even the Conservative Party of Canada has modernized its approach to marijuana laws, calling on the government to remove possession from the Criminal Code. Considering the Conservatives' past inflammatory rhetoric and draconian criminal justice record, this shift is truly monumental.

Marijuana possession is running out of opponents, and the Liberal government is running out of excuses.

In my riding of Port Moody--Coquitlam, hundreds of people have contacted my office calling for the decriminalization of marijuana. Many are confused as to what the current law is, given the government's position on legalization. For many, the ambiguity leads to a false sense of security. These otherwise law-abiding citizens could find themselves convicted of a crime, which could be readily prevented. Others have contacted my office to express frustration about how the lack of sensible regulation has created problems for their strata boards and for the proper function of local businesses.

Marijuana legalization must be carefully considered and must take best practices from other jurisdictions that have already successfully implemented regulatory regimes. We can look south of the border for some of those best practices.

At the same time, we cannot continue with the status quo of punishing people for a practice the government plans to make legal in the very near future. Decriminalization makes sense, would save money, and would save Canadians from further injustice. I hope the government will end its hypocrisy and support the motion before more people become victim to government inaction.

I would like to mention that a recent poll done by EKOS is indicative of where Canadians now stand. Seventy-three per cent of British Columbians agree with the decriminalization of marijuana. Seventy-five per cent in Atlantic Canada agree. In Manitoba, 69% of those surveyed agree. In Ontario, 70% agree. We can see the trend. Over two-thirds to three-quarters of those surveyed feel that this move makes sense, that it is a move in the right direction, and that it needs to happen. Very few are opposed to such a move.

We implore the government to consider this move. That is why we put forward this opposition day motion. We hope the government will consider it. We hope enough members on that side will consider this as a strong move in the right direction. We are not saying that this is the only thing the government needs to do. We are saying that this is the right thing for it to do. The government needs to take action on this now as it moves forward on this important topic.

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, there are just a couple of things I want to clarify for the member.

First, the government's promise in its throne speech was to legalize, regulate, and restrict the use of marijuana. The member only spoke to the first third of that, which is legalization. He neglected, unfortunately, to talk about the importance of regulation and restriction for cannabis control.

The member opposite made reference to the importance of learning lessons from other jurisdictions. In November 2015, the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse submitted a report on cannabis regulation entitled “Lessons Learned in Colorado and Washington State”, which said that it is essential to “[t]ake the time required to develop an effective framework for implementation and to prepare for a successful launch;... [d]evelop the capacity to administer the regulatory framework;... [and] invest proactively in a public health approach that builds capacity in prevention, education and treatment”.

I am just wondering if the member opposite has had the opportunity to read that important report. I know he values the lessons learned from other jurisdictions. Those lessons are available to him if he cares to read them.

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

Madam Speaker, as parliamentary secretary, the member has done and is doing his homework on this, and I appreciate that. Obviously, I have not read all of the reports that he is citing. However, as to the thrust of what he is talking about, there is no restriction now. This is the issue. That is why what New Democrats are proposing makes sense.

The government has taken no action in terms of this important topic. It has been over half a year, there has been no action, and we will not see any action until the spring of next year. Decriminalization is needed now. Canadians are calling for it. Let us make that happen.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Madam Speaker, I again want to thank the NDP for bringing this up, because it really highlights what a disaster this legalization program is that the Liberals want to bring in.

I want to ask the member a very important question. Anything that is done has to be done responsibly, and I want to ask him about the tools that are in the tool box today. We see dispensaries popping up all over the place with edibles. The Liberals put absolutely no money in for inspections, so we do not even know if the marijuana used to bake these edibles is laced with anything, like angel dust. Where are the profits going? They are going to organized crime.

Most importantly, he mentioned the Colorado experiment. There are no tools in the tool box for police to check for impaired driving. In Colorado there was an increase in death and disability due to impaired driving and an increase in the hospitalization of kids due to edibles. The NDP motion today is calling for immediate decriminalization.

Could the member please say what he is aware of and what tools are in the tool box today? I am not aware of any tools in the tool box that would alleviate the issues that I have just brought forward in my question.

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

Madam Speaker, the member's question is important. I know the police and RCMP across the country have effective tools. What New Democrats are saying is that there needs to be action on decriminalization right now so that we can move forward on simple possession of marijuana. That would allow the police to put the emphasis where it is needed: tackling organized crime and the hard or illicit drugs that the member referenced. That is where we need the resources.

We need to look at best practices, whether from the United States or across this country. We need to be putting those best practices in place, but we need to provide the resources and tools necessary now and not wait for another year and create the kind of chaos and confusion that exists currently. That is the problem. That is why the step of decriminalization is so very much needed and important.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Victoria for his motion.

We are very happy to have this opportunity to reiterate our government's promise to Canadians about the legalization and strict regulation of marijuana and the government's responsible, methodical approach to keeping that promise. As members know, that promise was part of an election platform that received broad support from Canadians all across the country in the last election.

That promise was and remains to legalize, regulate, and restrict access to marijuana to ensure that we keep marijuana out of the hands of children and profits out of the hands of criminals. We will punish more severely those who provide it to minors, those who operate a motor vehicle while under its influence, and those who sell it outside of the new regulatory framework.

The Prime Minister has clearly stated on numerous occasions that our government will meet that commitment. That commitment was included in the mandate letters issued to the Minister of Health, the Minister of Justice, and the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, recognizing the need to do more than simply change a few words in the law. We need to move forward in a way that allows us to address a good number of priorities. We need to focus on things like public safety, prevention, treatment, and public awareness campaigns. We need to ensure that questions related to law enforcement, public safety, and criminal justice are fully addressed.

A simple quick fix to decriminalize possession of small quantities of marijuana for personal use, as the member for Victoria is proposing, would be an imprudent course of action, with all due respect to the hon. member. Canadians support legalization, but they want reassurance that the important issues are fully addressed, and safety is just one of those issues.

Canadians want to know the police have the right tools and training to address drug-impaired driving. They want to know that appropriate measures are in place to keep marijuana out of the hands of their children and that criminals will not profit from legalization.

Immediate decriminalization would address none of these issues. That is why our government is taking a responsible, ordered approach to fulfilling this commitment.

However, that does not mean we are not moving forward. Our goal continues to be to introduce the appropriate legislation in the spring of next year. As we work toward that goal, we are also mindful that this must be a collaborative effort. We cannot advance without engaging our provincial and territorial partners. We are striking a task force to consult with provincial and territorial governments; with experts in public health, substance abuse, law enforcement, criminal justice, and economics; with indigenous and youth groups; and with other stakeholders and Canadians.

This process is in motion. The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, the Minister of Justice, and the Minister of Health wrote to their provincial and territorial counterparts in March, inviting them to provide recommendations on the names of experts to be considered as members of the task force that will be launched in the very near future.

In addition, a secretariat has been established at Health Canada to support the work of the task force. This secretariat, which is already in place, will also play an important role in relation to the federal-provincial-territorial working group on marijuana legalization and regulation.

The working group met for the first time last month and will continue to meet regularly going forward to ensure an ongoing dialogue about the approach and strategies for better coordination, including common communication materials.

As members might imagine, our provincial and territorial partners need clarity on the nature of their role under a new regime, such as whether marijuana will be federally or provincially regulated and distributed.

Our partners are asking us to take the time necessary to ensure they are able to implement any legislative or operational changes that may be required on their part to support a new regime.

Madam Speaker, after my speech, I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Brampton West.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The member for Brampton West will have five minutes to speak to this matter.

Orlando Shooting

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, we are all appalled by the unspeakable violence of Saturday's events in Orlando.

First, on behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I want to express my sincere condolences to the victims' loved ones and my best wishes for a speedy recovery to the far too many injured.

We are gutted by this dark, barbaric hatred that struck Pulse. It was the darkest ignorance that claimed 49 lives and injured more than 50 other innocent people. By attacking the LGBT community on Saturday, the coward used his weapons to attack our social fabric, openness, and freedom.

Let us respond to this violence by drawing closer together. Let us make the right choice between anger and solidarity. As pride festivities are being organized everywhere and with just two months to go before Montreal's great pride parade, let us stand united, strong, indivisible, and proud in the face of all these fanatics—