Cannabis Bill

Declaration of Private Interest

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, Senator Frum has made a written declaration of private interest regarding Bill C-45. In accordance with rule 15-7, the declaration shall be recorded in the Journals of the Senate.

Bill to Amend—Second Reading—Debate Continued

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Dean, seconded by the Honourable Senator Forest, for the second reading of Bill C-45, An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other Acts.

Hon. Andr Pratte: Honourable senators, like many of you, I’m sure, I approached this issue feeling somewhat uneasy. My own experience with marijuana is extremely limited. I smoked it just once, more than 35 years ago, and I have not touched it since. Nor have I consumed any other drug, with one exception, and it’s called wine.

As a parent, I prayed that my children would not use cannabis or any other drug. That is why the idea of legalizing this substance after 95 years of prohibition leaves me rather uncomfortable. That being said, the legalization of cannabis is being forced upon us.

It’s not being forced upon us by the current government. The legalization of cannabis is being forced upon us by reality, by the fact that for more than 40 years millions of Canadians, especially young people and young adults, have ignored the law and used this drug. For the past four decades, 1 in 10 Canadians has acted as if the law does not exist. This is detrimental to the effectiveness and credibility of our justice system.

[Translation]

Legalization is being forced upon us by criminals and the control they have over the production and distribution of cannabis. That means that the health of our children is in the hands of these criminals. It also means that consumers, honest citizens, are inadvertently contributing to organized crime to the tune of $5 billion annually, to the great detriment of our society.

Legalization is being forced upon us by the fact that every year, tens of thousands of Canadians are arrested, many of whom end up with a criminal record when their crime is no more serious than if they were found in possession of a bottle of wine. This situation is morally, legally, and logically unacceptable.

[English]

In Canada, governments and a large part of society have ignored this regrettable situation for too long. We have operated under the facade that because cannabis is illegal, the use of this drug is not a widespread problem, or at least that it’s not our problem. It’s someone else’s problem or law enforcement’s problem.

Our generation’s drug of choice is alcohol. If a political party promised to reintroduce prohibition today, the suggestion would be ridiculed. Nevertheless, alcohol consumption, when abused, wreaks havoc. Canadian hospitals admit 12 times more patients each year for alcohol-related substance use disorders than for cannabis-related disorders, 12 times more.

Since alcohol prohibition did not work, governments decided a long time ago to legalize it and strictly regulate its production and sale. Why is this reasoning valid for alcohol but not for cannabis? The answers given are usually based on many of the myths around marijuana. Some claim, for example, that using marijuana is more dangerous than consuming alcohol because it leads to using harder drugs. It is the “slippery slope” argument.

However, it should be noted that if “gateway drugs” do in fact exist, and that is not proven, alcohol is one of the main ones. According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse:

. . . the majority of people who use marijuana do not go on to use other, “harder” substances. Also, cross-sensitization is not unique to marijuana. Alcohol and nicotine also prime the brain for a heightened response to other drugs and are, like marijuana, also typically used before a person progresses to other, more harmful substances.

And so I ask again: Why do we insist on treating marijuana differently than alcohol?

[Translation]

Some say that the current government is moving too quickly on this file. On the contrary, the Government of Canada, including every political party, has not acted soon enough. For years, it has allowed a situation that is a health risk for young Canadians and a public safety risk to carry on. For years, at least a quarter of young Canadians 15 to 24 have been smoking marijuana without truly knowing what products they are inhaling into their lungs. Many believe that this product does not have any long-term effects on their health or any impact on their ability to drive a vehicle.

For half a century, the key policy of governments and police forces in Canada has been to go after traffickers, dealers, and consumers of cannabis. What impact have these hundreds of thousands of arrests, warnings, fines, and prison sentences had on consumption? They have had no impact whatsoever.

[English]

Some provincial governments and police forces have asked Ottawa to delay the implementation of this policy. Yet, since the government announced the July 2018 deadline, these very objectors have been preparing and making substantial headway for months.

It is now clear that all provinces will be ready. It is also clear that when the bill is passed, Canadians will be able to purchase cannabis without having to worry about poisoning themselves with bacteria or pesticides, without funding organized crime and without running the risk of ending up with a criminal record.

Will everything be perfect? Obviously, no. However, wondering whether every piece of this puzzle will be in place when the government gives the go-ahead is begging the wrong question. The question that needs to be asked is this: On day one of legalization, will the situation be better than it is now, a time when users can only get marijuana from illegal sources, with no guarantee as to the safety and potency of the product? The only possible answer to this question is yes, a legal and regulated market is preferable to an illicit and uncontrolled market, or if it is controlled, controlled by organized crime.

Those who oppose the passage of this bill obviously have legitimate motives, but, unfortunately, they’re supporting the status quo, which is putting the health of hundreds of thousands of Canadians at the mercy of criminal organizations. A century of prohibition has not changed this reality. Six more months, five more years or ten more years of prohibition will not change it either.

Opponents fear that legalization will lead to a sharp increase in consumption, especially among young people. This may seem logical. If you legalize the sale and consumption of a product that was previously illegal, people will rush to buy more. But in this case, this is not so.

(1530)

Legalization will not lead to a long-term increase in cannabis use. Why? Because for the past 40 years, at least, prohibition has not been an effective deterrent. Canadians, especially young adults, use marijuana as if it were already legal. When a deterrent is not effective and you remove it, nothing happens.

[Translation]

In 1972, the LeDain commission concluded that criminalizing marijuana possession didn’t work. At the time, 8,000 Canadians were being arrested every year for marijuana possession. Thirty years later, Canadian police officers were arresting five times more people — 40,000 per year — for simple possession. This despite the fact that the special Senate committee chaired by the late Senator Nolin had published a report that came to the following conclusion:

There have been tens of thousands of arrests and convictions for the possession of cannabis and thousands of people have been incarcerated; however, use trends remain totally unaffected . . . .

Fifteen years have passed since the special committee released its report, but we have made not one iota of progress.

It is true that, during the 2000s, the proportion of Canadians using cannabis began to shrink. Some saw that as proof criminalization was working. Let us take a closer look, however. The number of arrests for cannabis possession reached record-high levels between 2010 and 2014 — about 60,000 per year. At the same time, the proportion of Canadians using cannabis began to rise again. That shift shows that there is no simple cause-and-effect relationship between punishing marijuana users and the prevalence of marijuana use.

[English]

Let’s look at Colorado and Washington State. In both states, as you know, legalization really took off in early 2014 with the opening of the first legal cannabis stores. What has happened since?

The most credible source of information is the National Survey on Drug Use and Health. According to the most recent data for Colorado, the prevalence of marijuana use among adults increased from 12.9 per cent to 16.6 per cent between 2012-13 and 2015-16 — so a slight increase. However, the situation among young people aged 12 to 17 improved, with the percentage of marijuana users dropping from 11.1 to 9 per cent.

For Washington State, the same survey indicates that cannabis use by adults has remained stable, and cannabis use by adolescents has decreased. In short, in these two states that have legalized cannabis, the nightmare scenario did not occur.

Many parents of children and adolescents are worried about the proposed legislation now before us, and I understand their concern.

To these parents, I say with great respect and sympathy, even if you would like it to be otherwise — and we would all have liked a different outcome — the current system, based on the prohibition of cannabis, does not protect your children. The reality today in our neighbourhoods, in our streets and near our schools is that it is much easier for a minor to buy a few grams of marijuana than a case of beer.

Legalizing marijuana will not increase health risks for these young people whether they are minors or young adults. First, it will still be illegal for minors to possess cannabis. I repeat: For minors, possession of cannabis will continue to be prohibited under the Criminal Code for five grams or more, or under provincial legislation for any quantity, including less than five grams.

Second, these health risks already exist. We simply chose to hide them behind the heavy curtain of illegality. Instead of educating young people about marijuana, we thought it better to try to scare them. Forbidding is not educating. When it comes to young people, forbidding is a sure fail.

Of course, legalization will not eliminate the health risks of cannabis. It will, however, allow educators and public health workers to engage in honest, fruitful discussions with young people about the harms of marijuana rather than be silenced by the taboo that has existed until now.

Honourable senators, those who oppose the passage of Bill C-45 in this chamber would like Canadians to believe that it is impossible to complete the meticulous study of this bill before the summer adjournment. I disagree.

Bill C-45 is 134 pages long. We have five months left, 16 weeks of work. That’s about nine pages a week. I believe that most Canadians expect an efficient Senate to be able to get that kind of work done. Especially since, as recently as last month, they saw us pass Bill C-63, the Budget Implementation Act — a complex, 317-page enactment — in just 10 days.

Well, you will tell me, of course, that’s true, but this is a different kind of bill. This bill will, in a way, change Canadian society. I would put it in the same category as, say, the medically assisted dying bill, Bill C-14. Counting pre-study, it took us two and a half months to study and pass Bill C-14. Would anyone dare say we did not do a thorough examination of that bill? Again, we have five months to study Bill C-45, twice as much as we had for the medically assisted dying bill.

The introduction of Bill C-45 gave me the opportunity to read the report of the Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs. I did so bearing in mind the kind of man its chair, Pierre Claude Nolin, was. Senator Nolin was a Conservative — a conservative of party and of principles — a wise, pragmatic man who would not have endorsed the legalization of cannabis had he not been absolutely convinced, after careful consideration, of the futility and the harmfulness of prohibition.

Colleagues, I don’t expect that you will be influenced by the mundane speech of a rookie senator. Instead, I ask you to stop and reflect on these wise words that Senator Nolin left us in his historic report:

. . . the continued prohibition of cannabis jeopardizes the health and well-being of Canadians much more than the regulated marketing of the substance. . . .

It is time to recognize what is patently obvious: our policies have been ineffective because they are poor policies.

Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)