House of Commons Hansard #71 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was decriminalization.

Topics

Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana PossessionBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

Montarville Québec

Liberal

Michel Picard LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, members must be aware, that in addition to law enforcement representation on the task force, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and the member for Scarborough Southwest, who is a former chief of the Toronto Police Service, will work with the task force to engage Canadians on marijuana-related issues.

Further, as part of the consultative process, Public Safety Canada will be hosting a law enforcement round table on marijuana legalization later this month. This event will focus on key issues related to marijuana legalization and regulation, including priority issues such as organized crime, marijuana sales and distribution, and drug-impaired driving.

It is important for everyone to remember that the law is the law. Canadians should expect the police to continue to enforce the law. This includes laws related to storefronts that sell marijuana.

Under the current law, the Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations, only persons licensed by Health Canada can produce, provide, or sell marijuana directly to patients with a prescription from a health practitioner to access marijuana.

Over the past few months, we have heard stories from the provinces and police forces that are dealing with the issue of illegal marijuana dispensaries. I can assure the House that police forces across the country, including the RCMP, have taken and will continue to take measures to enforce the law against these illegal marijuana dispensaries.

In closing, we are making progress. We recognize the motivation behind this motion. However, we intend to keep a pace that follows a consistent time frame, which allows for consultation and the full review of the complex social, legal, and public safety consequences related to legislating, regulating, and limiting access to marijuana.

Moving to decriminalization immediately would not achieve any of these objectives and would betray our commitment to Canadians. They supported this commitment and they expect their government to see it through.

Canadians do not expect the government to act hastily on this very important issue. I invite all hon. members to join me in defeating this motion.

Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana PossessionBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

We will now move to questions and comments.

The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana PossessionBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC

Mr. Speaker, that gave me more time to reflect.

I appreciate the hon. member's comments. However, what we have been asking for repeatedly since this morning is the number of Canadians who have been arrested since this new government came to power.

Members will recall that, in 2014, the last year for which we have these statistics, 57,000 Canadians were arrested for simple possession of marijuana under the former Conservative government. The Liberals are saying that the situation is not as bad as it was under the Conservatives. However, to date, they have not provided any statistics showing that there has been a change since November 1, 2015.

Therefore, I will ask the question once more and I hope to get an answer this time. How many Canadians have been arrested under the new Liberal government for simple possession of marijuana since last November?

Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana PossessionBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Liberal

Michel Picard Liberal Montarville, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his question.

His question is much more significant and a little troubling, as his aim is to try to determine how many Canadians did not obey the law. To my knowledge, there have been no changes to the legislation. Therefore, the law remains in effect, and we intend to enforce it until the law is changed.

Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana PossessionBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Conservative

Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB

Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned about the negative health effects of marijuana. We have heard members of the NDP quote studies and information from the 1970s, seemingly not appreciating the way THC content in marijuana has gone up significantly over the intervening years. I wonder if the member could comment on the health effects, emerging concerns, and links between schizophrenia and marijuana use, especially in the young, even with relatively occasional use.

Would he agree with me that we need a strong response that recognizes the risks and does not treat this as though it is something simple, small, or not a big deal and acknowledges that it is a very serious issue and a serious health risk when people use marijuana?

Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana PossessionBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Liberal

Michel Picard Liberal Montarville, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his question.

Unfortunately, I am not a doctor. Therefore, I cannot comment on the medical characteristics of the product.

However, it is exactly those types of concerns that we will examine when we create the task force led by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada. Experts will be able to provide good advice, good comments, and proper analyses concerning the methods and measures to be implemented in the future.

Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana PossessionBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, over the last 10 years, we have seen a Conservative government that has wanted the status quo, with no changes or anything of that nature. It just wanted to leave it as it is. In a very progressive fashion, we came out with what I believe is a responsible approach. We want to make sure that there is consultation and a framework that includes regulations, with the objective of taking money out of the hands of criminals and looking at youth education, and so forth.

Now we have the opposition motion, which seems to be premature with respect to passing a law and creating a huge vacuum. I wonder if the member might want to provide his comments on that thought.

Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana PossessionBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Liberal

Michel Picard Liberal Montarville, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

He highlighted the crucial point of the bill, which is the notion of responsibility. Unfortunately, the comments we heard in the House this morning were only about the interests of users.

We care about the safety of users, but we also consider the entire chain, from production to use. If we did not consider the entire chain, it would not be possible to develop a decent, serious bill.

As a responsible government, it is our duty to consider the entire chain, to ensure that the product is not accessible to minors. The proceeds of crime, the proceeds from the transaction, will not end up in the hands of organized crime. It is a matter of the safety and security of all Canadians.

That is a responsible government.

Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana PossessionBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Brampton West Ontario

Liberal

Kamal Khera LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health

Mr. Speaker, as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, let me begin by emphasizing what our government has committed to do.

We have committed to legalize, strictly regulate, and restrict access to marijuana. We will do this because it is what we promised Canadians. It is what Canadian elected us to do, and it is the responsible way forward. Our approach will ensure that we keep marijuana out of the hands of our children, and the profits of this illicit trade out of the hands of criminals.

Decriminalization, on the other hand, would provide a legal stream of income to criminal organizations. That approach would do nothing to protect our kids and to mitigate the risk of unrestricted and unregulated access to marijuana. To decriminalize immediately, as the member for Victoria suggests, ignores the fact that marijuana is not a benign substance.

It is important to do this right, and not recklessly rush changes through at the expense of public health and safety. Marijuana is associated with a number of serious harms. The scientific evidence indicates that marijuana use is linked to increased risks to physical and mental health. This is particularly true with use that starts in early adolescence which is regular and that continues over time.

Marijuana use impairs mental functioning in the areas of attention, memory, reaction time, and decision-making. Among vulnerable populations, it can accelerate the onset of psychosis or schizophrenia. Regular marijuana use, especially use that begins early in life, can lead to an increased risk of addiction.

I think we can all agree that this is a very complex policy issue, with important public health and safety considerations. A thoughtfully planned, strictly regulated, and carefully implemented regime is critical to mitigate the risks of harm to Canadians. We know this from the experience and lessons learned from other jurisdictions that have moved forward on legalization.

Our government is committed to evidence-based policy. One key message we have heard loud and clear from Canadians and from experts is that it is important to take the time to get it right.

In relation to that broad message, I would refer to a 2015 report from the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, which examined marijuana regulation in Colorado and Washington State. This report articulates a number of important aspects for policy-makers to consider, based on the evidence in these two jurisdictions.

One key lesson that I have already alluded to relates to the need to take the time to develop and implement a comprehensive and effective regulatory system. Another key lesson is to prevent use by our young people, by restricting access and fostering a climate that promotes public awareness of the risks and harms of the use of marijuana.

Our government has repeatedly articulated our commitment to ensuring that Canada's approach is robust. It will include strictly controlled sales and distribution, where the appropriate taxes are applied and where access is restricted.

Another key lesson learned from the experience of other jurisdictions relates to the effects and risks associated with. various forms of marijuana products. The evidence and experts tell us that it is important to give serious thought to the control of product formats and dosing or concentration levels. For example, an article in The Globe and Mail this past Friday, June 10, reported that some retailers in Colorado indicated that as much as 60% of their revenue comes from marijuana-infused products. Edibles and extracts, which pose particular health and safety risks, were reported to account for up to 30% of the legal U.S. market.

Unregulated access to these types of products, which would happen if the government were to move forward with immediate decriminalization, would increase risks of harm to Canadians and to our children. As our neighbours to the south have found, cannabis ingested in edible form can take hours to take effect. This means that it carries real risks of over-consumption. Following legalization, Colorado experienced a rise in the number of accidental or unintentional, non-fatal overdoses as a result of unrestricted product formats.

In response to this public health issue, the state government decided to amend their regulatory framework to more strictly control potency and dosing to mitigate the negative health impacts of these cannabis products.

The adage that "the dose makes the poison" is really the basis upon which we develop public health standards for an array of products, and cannabis should be no different. Setting dose or concentration standards is important to consider not only for edible products, but also for the actual plants as well. Numerous studies across the world have found that the strength of marijuana has increased steadily and significantly over the past few decades.

As policy-makers, it is critical that we act responsibly and take a comprehensive approach, one that we feel will not happen with simply decriminalization. We should learn from the experience of other jurisdictions. We should engage stakeholders and experts, and we should develop and implement a strict regulatory framework for restricted access.

That is an approach that will mitigate public health and safety risks, including the risk of accidental overdose and increased trips to the emergency room. We should not and will not rush through decriminalization and support criminal profiteering, and we should not and will not blindly push forward to legalize marijuana.

Our government has developed a thoughtful and robust plan of action. Our plan is comprehensive and collaborative.

Reflecting the priority that our government has placed on this issue, the Prime Minister has outlined marijuana legalization and legislation as a key deliverable in the mandate letters of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, and the Minister of Health.

To inform the design of a new system, our government has also committed to creating a federal-provincial-territorial task force. This task force will consult with Canadians and experts in public health, substance abuse, law enforcement, criminal justice, industry, and those groups with expertise on production, sales, and distribution, to examine and to report to ministers on all of the issues related to legalization and regulation. The task force's report will help inform our government's approach. We remain committed to working with the provinces and territories throughout this process, with a view to introducing proposed legislation in Parliament in spring 2017, as recently announced by the Minister of Health.

Let me assure the House that our government will deliver on its commitment. We believe that marijuana legalization, with restricted access and robust regulatory controls, is the best approach to keeping marijuana out of the hands of children and keeping illicit profits away from criminals.

Our approach provides for thoughtful action on an important issue that requires a balance of important public safety, justice, and health considerations. I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues on both sides of this House on this important issue.

Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana PossessionBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

NDP

Christine Moore NDP Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health. If the government continues to criminalize the possession of marijuana, some young people who might be looking for information on how marijuana affects their health will not do so because they know that what they are doing is illegal. If we were to at least decriminalize it, they would perhaps not be afraid to ask questions and seek information on how marijuana will affect their health. Decriminalizing marijuana could make it easier to talk more openly and could help warn more young people about how marijuana affects their health.

Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana PossessionBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

Kamal Khera Liberal Brampton West, ON

Mr. Speaker, unlike our government's plan to legalize, strictly regulate, and restrict access to marijuana, decriminalization would provide a legal stream of income to criminal organizations.

That approach would do nothing to protect our kids and mitigate the risk of unrestricted and unregulated access to marijuana. To decriminalize immediately ignores the fact that marijuana is a harmful substance, which it is, so we are committed to legalizing, strictly regulating, and restricting access to marijuana.

Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana PossessionBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

June 13th, 2016 / 3:30 p.m.

Conservative

Robert Sopuck Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB

Mr. Speaker, after listening to my colleague, it is obvious that the Liberals' view toward evidence-based policy is a complete farce, and here is why.

This is one of the few public policy areas where we have a perfect public policy experiment. We have legalized cigarettes. We have all the restrictions in place. We have the packaging, the warning, and cigarettes are put behind cupboards so nobody can see them. They are highly taxed. They are supposed to be kept out of the hands of kids. Has that stopped the criminal production of illegal cigarettes? Absolutely not. In fact, the criminal production and sale of cigarettes has skyrocketed in the face of these restrictions on legal cigarettes.

The exact same thing will happen in the case of marijuana. Once marijuana is legalized, we bring the price up, and we have these so-called restrictions, marijuana is fairly easy to cultivate, so there will be a major stream of illegal marijuana entering the stream of legal marijuana. Criminal profits will increase dramatically, and marijuana will be made even more available to our kids.

There is no restriction in place that the Liberals have talked about, and they have given us no specifics. This simply will not work. Can the member comment on that?

Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana PossessionBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

Liberal

Kamal Khera Liberal Brampton West, ON

Mr. Speaker, our current system of marijuana prohibition just does not work. It does not prevent young people from using marijuana or keep the profits out of the hands of criminals. We know young people have easier access to cannabis now in Canada than in just about any other country in the world. In 2013, a UNICEF study found that in 29 different countries, Canada was number one in underage access to marijuana.

The proceeds from the illegal drug trade support organized crimes and create a greater threat to public safety. There are currently billions upon billions of dollars flowing into the pockets of organized crime, street gangs and gun runners because of the illicit marijuana trade. Legalizing and strictly regulating access to marijuana would help stop funding these criminal activities.

Our government is moving forward with creating a new system to legalize, strictly regulating and restricting access to marijuana. This is the responsible way to do it, and this is exactly what we will do.

Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana PossessionBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

Montarville Québec

Liberal

Michel Picard LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on her speech.

In my view, the farce is not to trust the professionals and scientists who have the experience to be giving good advice.

How does my colleague think that Health Canada will be able to collaborate on this task force?

Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana PossessionBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

Liberal

Kamal Khera Liberal Brampton West, ON

Mr. Speaker, reflecting on the priority our government has placed on this issue, the Prime Minister outlined marijuana legalization as a key deliverable in the mandate letters of the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and the Minister of Health. Our government has developed a thoughtful and robust plan of action, one that is comprehensive and collaborative.

To inform the design of a new system, our government has also committed to creating a federal-provincial-territorial task force. This task force will consult with Canadians and with experts in the public health, substance abuse, law enforcement and criminal justice industries, as well as all other groups with expertise on production, sales and distribution.

We remain committed to working with the provinces and territories throughout this process with the view of introducing proposed legislation in Parliament in spring 2017.

Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana PossessionBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

NDP

Christine Moore NDP Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC

Mr. Speaker, I think the main thing is understanding why it is important to decriminalize marijuana possession now. Over 50,000 people are still charged with simple possession of marijuana every year and end up with criminal records even though the government clearly signalled its intent to legalize marijuana. That is what we have to put an end to.

It is utter nonsense. The Prime Minister himself admitted to using marijuana. At some point that evening, he must have been in simple possession of marijuana. He even admitted to using it while he was an MP. Still, the government keeps telling more than 50,000 Canadians a year that they will have a criminal record and never mind the fact that the Prime Minister himself admitted to doing the same thing they did.

We have to consider the fact that a number of public figures have admitted to doing this at some point in their lives. Luckily for them, they were not caught, but other people get caught every year and suffer the consequences. This is out of whack. Whether or not someone suffers legal consequences is entirely a matter of luck.

We must also remember that this is a frequent occurrence. Many people are exposing themselves to possible legal consequences. In Abitibi—Témiscamingue, according to 2008 statistics, one in eight people or 12% of the population aged 15 and over used cannabis that year. Among those users, one in three had used it less than once a month, and one in four, or barely 3% in the region, had used it between one and three times a month. A majority of users, about six out of 10, used it more than once a week during that 12-month period.

In concrete terms, to paint a clear picture, this means that any time I travel around my riding, considering the number of people I meet along the way, I definitely, although unknowingly, cross paths with someone who is in illegal possession of a controlled substance, because of the government's inaction and failure to change the law. That is a large number of people. It is important that we take action to prevent these people from facing the legal ramifications of having a criminal record.

I also think it is important to stop bogging down the justice system with cases that I think have a lot more to do with health than crime. Marijuana for personal use is much more of a health issue than a crime issue.

We have often heard the government say that decriminalizing possession would keep the money in the hands of criminals. We have heard that argument a lot. I think that argument more or less makes sense when we consider that, as with any business, legal or not, there is the matter of supply and demand and the issue of price. The reason criminal groups grow and sell marijuana is that there is money to be made. Unfortunately, that is the main motivation. As soon as there is less to gain, they will leave the market. The reason they do well is that, since they are assuming risks, they can sell the substance at prices that do not at all reflect the cost of production.

If we decriminalize marijuana, then presumably the people who possess it for personal use will be able to grow the few plants they need for their own consumption.

The spouse of a man who uses marijuana for medical purposes was interviewed in a 2014 news article on medical marijuana. Even though she knows it is illegal, she grows marijuana because her spouse is suffering. She estimates it costs her 5¢ a gram. According to the Sûreté du Québec, the black market price is about $10 a gram.

If marijuana is decriminalized and the price stays that high, most people will choose to grow their own marijuana. Eventually, the black market will lose its appeal because most people will choose to grow their own depending on the price.

Furthermore, anyone who chooses to grow their own marijuana can control what fertilizer they use, for example. Perhaps THC levels will decrease because people will not be trying to grow the strongest product possible. They will simply want to grow something that meets their needs. For example, because the product is for their own use, people might apply less chemical fertilizer, which unfortunately can be found in plants sold on the black market.

It does not make any sense to say that, by decriminalizing marijuana, we will continue to send money to the criminal world. I believe that most of the people who use marijuana regularly will choose to grow it themselves because they will no longer have to worry about getting a criminal record. Of course, they will have to make sure that their children and others cannot access it. They will no longer have any dealings with organized crime. If there is a significant drop in demand because people are choosing to grow their own marijuana, there will be no more use for the black market. Criminals will slowly move away from smuggling marijuana or at least selling it.

Growing a marijuana plant is nothing like distilling alcohol. In the case of alcohol, a lot of controls are needed because the health risks associated with a bad batch of liquor are very high. The plants that people grow at home will likely have a lower THC concentration. Those plants will therefore be less harmful to health than the marijuana that is currently being sold on the black market. I think that it is completely false to say that decriminalizing marijuana will ensure that money continues to be sent to criminals. Decriminalization would allow people to grown marijuana themselves. That argument does not hold up if people are growing it for their own use.

Another important thing is that, if marijuana is decriminalized, then people can get the health care they need. Right now, the problem is that people are afraid to say that they use marijuana because they know it is illegal. Adults and people who are a little older, who are over the age of 50, use marijuana for different reasons. Because of the impact it could have on people's work or personal lives if others knew that they used marijuana occasionally, they do not talk about their use of marijuana and do not seek out information on the effects it could have on their health.

If marijuana were decriminalized, young people could seek out information on how marijuana affects their health, without fear of potential consequences if anyone were to find out that they use the drug. Decriminalization would also allow for a more open discussion on the difference between recreational use and problematic use.

It is no secret that marijuana has significant effects on the health of users. It can have some serious consequences, especially on the psychological health and motivation of young people. However, if young people cannot talk about this openly, they cannot get this information, and it is difficult to intervene. People will still avoid disclosing their marijuana use, and we will not have an accurate picture of the situation.

People regularly lie in surveys on marijuana use because they are afraid of what might happen if this information were obtained by a third party. As a result, they do not seek medical assistance. Occasional marijuana use may be acceptable, but when someone uses marijuana every day, that goes beyond recreational use and becomes a health problem. It is important to be able to say that.

What matters to me now is changing the lens through which we see marijuana. This is not a criminal matter; it is a health matter. We should be able to have an intelligent conversation about this. Compare marijuana to alcohol. If people have one or two drinks a week, that is not a problem, but if people feel the need to drink every day or drink incredible amounts of alcohol, that is a problem, and those people need to get help.

We need to be able to talk about responsible use and determine what constitutes a health risk, and decriminalization is key to having that conversation. If not, some people will not talk because they will fear the consequences. As people get older, the consequences for their lives, their work, and their family become more far-reaching, so they are less likely to come forward or to seek out the information or the help they need, depending on their situation.

Decriminalization will enable us to get the answers we do not have right now, such as the long-term health consequences of marijuana use. It will also enable us to figure out how much is too much for driving. How long should a person wait after using marijuana before getting behind the wheel? How much would make it dangerous?

If people cannot even talk about their usage without fearing legal consequences, they will not be able to seek out that information. However, this information is essential if we want to pursue legalization. For one thing, we need to set limits for operating a vehicle so that people can be informed. If we do not have accurate information, we will keep going around in circles.

There is another argument to the effect that decriminalization will not do anything to prevent young people from accessing marijuana. That is not true at all. Right now, if someone is smoking marijuana in a park, for example, a police officer has no choice but to take all of the legal measures: arrest and charge the person, keep evidence, etc. These legal procedures take a long time. There are therefore no immediate consequences associated with using marijuana in an inappropriate place.

If marijuana were decriminalized, municipal bylaws could be put in place to prohibit its use in municipal parks, for example, and violators could be fined. Police sweeps could be used to change behaviour. Since an immediate sanction would be imposed, people would think twice about using marijuana again in an inappropriate place where there are young people.

By decriminalizing marijuana possession, the government can give the provinces and municipalities the latitude to regulate the context in which use is acceptable. It could also make the actions to prevent use more effective.

Right now, legal action must be taken each time. If we consider the fact that 12% of the population is using marijuana or has used it in recent years, it is clear that it is not realistic to take all of those people to court. Between 3.6 million and four million Canadians per year would be going through the court system. That does not make any sense. We cannot do that.

If marijuana were decriminalized, people could be fined for using marijuana in inappropriate locations. It would also allow community workers and parent committees, for example, to target areas where they think such use would be inappropriate, such as schoolyards, parks, or other places where young people go. It would allow the municipalities to ensure that marijuana is only being used in places where there are no young people. That could have a positive impact by reducing access to cannabis, since right now, it is impossible to put in place bylaws on something that is supposed to be illegal.

The problem is that if simple possession continues to be illegal, we cannot put certain regulations or policies in place, because the product is supposed to be illegal.

For instance, if someone is caught in possession of a substance at school, the police must be called and legal proceedings for a young offender must be initiated. However, if a young person is caught in possession of cannabis at school and it has been decriminalized, he or she could be asked, under the school's regulations, to destroy the substance and a lot more effort can be put into social intervention. We could try to understand why that young person is using drugs. There is also a public health approach. If there are underlying health concerns involved, such as mental health, we can intervene accordingly. By continuing to criminalize it, the Liberals are burying their heads in the sand and depriving the authorities of the tools needed to properly intervene.

It is very important to keep in mind that we absolutely must not trivialize marijuana use. I recognize that this substance has adverse health effects. Regular use creates motivation problems in young people, as well as mental health problems. It affects blood pressure and it changes electroencephalograms. It is important to decriminalize possession immediately in order to address the health risks and the ineffectiveness of prohibition.

This would allow people to talk more openly about their marijuana use and to seek health information. Decriminalizing possession immediately would help us to intervene and to stop criminals from trafficking in this drug. As soon as cannabis possession is decriminalized, people who use it more regularly will find that it is much easier to produce what they consume themselves. This will enable them to gain control over their product and pay less than what criminals are currently charging, since that cost is associated with a risk that would no longer exist with decriminalization.

This is the logical way to proceed. The fact that it would still be illegal to sell cannabis will keep things under control and will very much help the people who consume it regularly anyway. They will benefit because they will have more control over the product they consume and will also be much more open about looking for information on their health.

Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana PossessionBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

Montarville Québec

Liberal

Michel Picard LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness

Mr. Speaker, what is deeply disturbing about decriminalization is this insistence on focusing on the end user and believing that a solution could help one person grow enough marijuana for personal use, which, I repeat, is illegal for the time being. This also does not take into account what is happening in the market, and that is what people are ignoring.

People with ties to organized crime are offering this type of product to children in elementary schoolyards. What really bothers me is that people do not realize just how much marijuana is grown on farmland and that farmers' lives are at risk because they are victims of extortion. People also do not realize the phenomenal amount of money invested in hydroponic greenhouses, which generate profits for organized crime.

What would the member say to those who voted for her to prove that decriminalization is safe?

Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana PossessionBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

NDP

Christine Moore NDP Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thought I gave a good explanation in my speech.

Once those who consume marijuana on a regular basis are able to produce what they need, and I believe that this will happen with many people who use marijuana regularly, the criminal market will collapse because it is all about supply and demand.

If people start growing marijuana themselves and the criminal market collapses, I believe that people with ties to organized crime will stop visiting schoolyards because the market will collapse. Naturally, they will focus on other substances, which are not quite as popular with young people.

Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana PossessionBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Conservative

Earl Dreeshen Conservative Red Deer—Mountain View, AB

Mr. Speaker, the member's speech certainly was interesting. I know that we will have a lot of things to talk about when, finally, the legislation comes.

We are talking about plant physiology and how farmers or how producers are going to have to change things so that they can regulate to find out exactly how much presence of effective chemical there is going to be. Backyard pot growers and people raiding their gardens, all of these other sorts of things are taking place.

However, if we look at the Colorado experience, right now, one of the key things they are looking at is acute marijuana intoxication in children. The key component there is that people are normalizing the use of it and then putting the chemicals into brownies and gummy bears and so on, so that a child does not know what it is that they are getting. By doing this normalization, I see that we are creating so many other issues.

Could the member speak somewhat about how they are going to regulate and protect those families and those children who are going to be subject to these things when all of this is free and normalized?

Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana PossessionBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

NDP

Christine Moore NDP Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC

Mr. Speaker, decriminalizing marijuana right now would give us some flexibility as we work on legalizing it.

For example, based on Colorado's experience, we can anticipate the negative effects, for example, with respect to products that can be marketed to look like candy for children.

If we decriminalize and do not legalize this product, we can take time to pass a law that takes a common-sense approach to legalization. This product is found on a small scale and not a large scale, for example, in the case of consumers who grow it themselves, Furthermore, if some products, such as candies made with marijuana, need to be restricted, in much the same way as we banned vanilla-flavoured cigarettes because they were enticing to children, we can have some flexibility.

The priority right now is to ensure that people do not suffer legal consequences for using marijuana and can talk about health issues. Decriminalization would help achieve both of those objectives.

Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana PossessionBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

NDP

Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet NDP Hochelaga, QC

Mr. Speaker, if we do not decriminalize simple possession of marijuana immediately, there will be many more arrests and court proceedings in the next year. We are talking about $4 million a year in costs for the Department of Justice alone.

Can my colleague suggest other uses for this money? For example, it could be put towards combatting substance abuse.

Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana PossessionBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

NDP

Christine Moore NDP Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC

Mr. Speaker, yes, that money could be redirected from the justice system to the health system right now for programs related to marijuana use, such as addiction prevention programs. Some people are addicted and need programs to help them quit using.

The money could also be spent on programs to prevent drug use among young people and campaigns that provide accurate information about the potential health consequences of marijuana use and explain why it is important to be aware of this so people can make responsible health choices. All of that money could be redirected toward health rather than crime and justice. I think it would be win-win all around if we invested that money in health.

Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana PossessionBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Scarborough Southwest Ontario

Liberal

Bill Blair LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a couple of questions of clarification. My questions come from a report by the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health and some of the insight and guidance that it has provided through its scientific research and recommendations for a public health policy framework for the legalization and effective and efficient regulation of cannabis.

I would seek the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue's response to this. That report says very clearly that decriminalization is a half measure that does nothing to control the potency or quality of marijuana consumed by Canadians because it remains prohibited under decriminalization. In the member's remarks, I was somewhat confused as to whether she was talking about immediate legalization or decriminalization. Of course, decriminalization and prohibition remains the rule, but law enforcement on prohibition does drive cannabis users away from prevention, risk reduction, and treatment services.

Perhaps most important, I want her response to CAMH, which is, by the way, the leading mental health and addiction research facility in Canada. It said, “Decriminalization...encourage[s] commercialization of cannabis production and distribution – without giving government additional regulatory tools”. This is an opportunity of enormous profit for organized crime. I have seen first hand the ravages of organized crime and the violence and victimization that it perpetuates on our neighbourhoods.

Is this what the member intended?

Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana PossessionBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:05 p.m.

NDP

Christine Moore NDP Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC

Mr. Speaker, I want to make it very clear that decriminalization is not the end of the story when it comes to marijuana.

This is absolutely just one step. We will continue to move forward, but what I know for sure right now is that decriminalization is less harmful than the prohibition we have now, which drives people into hiding, subjects them to legal consequences, and prevents us from having an intelligent conversation about the direct consequences. I am absolutely sure that decriminalization will work much better than prohibition, which has been the preferred approach for too long. Decriminalization is certainly not an end in and of itself. We need to do a lot more hard work on this issue.

Opposition Motion — Decriminalization of Marijuana PossessionBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Scarborough Southwest for his comments because it is exactly where I want to go with mine. I followed quite closely the hon. colleague's presentation. I find it farcical that decriminalization will lead to better study in the impairment of drivers.

Is my hon. colleague aware of the technology that exists for impaired driving for our police agencies, as well as the training and the time frame for implementing that new technology in order to know whether somebody is impaired and the level of impairment through marijuana?