The following was adapted and significantly expanded from material at the Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy web page, at http://fox.nstn.ca/~eoscapel/cfdp/cfdp.html.
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs has recommended that no significant changes be made to the proposed Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.
This recommendation comes as a surprise, since many of the Senators on the committee were openly supportive of the harm reduction philosophy, and of the decriminalization of marijuana.
Bill C-8 is intended to replace Canada's main laws on "illicit" drugs -- the Narcotic Control Act and parts of the Food and Drugs Act. In the form that Bill C-8 was originally presented to the Senate Committee last autumn, the Bill significantly expanded the reach of Canada's drug laws and continued Canada's heavy reliance on criminal prohibition. The Committee has now refused to moderate any of these aspects of the Bill.
It presented its report containing recommendations for technical amendments to the Bill to the full Senate on Thursday, June 13 and sought to have the Bill voted on that day. However, the Senate did not agree to this, so the voting on the Bill will take place on Tuesday, June 18 at the earliest.
In refusing to change the penalty sections of the Bill, the Committee rejected the recommendations of the large majority of witnesses who appeared before them. These groups included the Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy, the Canadian Bar Association, the Law Union of Ontario, the Criminal Lawyers' Association, the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network and the Canadian AIDS Society.
Several members of the Senate Committee had earlier publicly stated their support for decriminalizing marijuana. Thus, the reluctance of the Senate Committee to carry through with this measure baffled many observers.
A Montreal Gazette article (June 14, A9) quoted Committee Chair Senator Sharon Carstairs as saying the Senators on the Committee dropped the idea of recommending that there be no criminal charge for having a few grams of marijuana because they felt it would never pass the House of Commons (the Bill would have to be returned to the House for a vote on that issue).
Senator Carstairs is also quoted as saying that her committee members were also concerned that decriminalizing marijuana possession would violate several international treaties that Canada has signed (several authorities would strongly disagree with the Senator on this point, and Holland is also signatory to the same treaties).
The Gazette article also quoted Carstairs as saying that the Senate Committee members were indeed serious about decriminalization, but foresaw that a recommendation would be futile at this point. "The majority of the Senators - and I was with them - felt all the evidence indicated decriminalization for simple possession is the way we should be going," she said in an interview.
In what is perhaps the greatest disappointment, the Senate Committee didn't even make any recommendations which would free up the Canadian cannabis hemp industry. Although the representatives from the hemp industry asked the Senate Committee to define industrial strains of cannabis as exempt from the Schedule which contains marijuana, the committee did not do this.
Instead, they made a recommendation that "mature cannabis stalks that do not include leaves, flowers, seeds or branches, and fibre derived from such stalks," be exempted from the definition of marijuana. All this means is that hemp fabrics and papers, which are technically illegal in Canada as they fall under the broad definition of marijuana, would now be permitted. We asked for a Canadian hemp industry, they gave us permission to wear hemp shirts.
The only faint hope held out by the committee was the recommendation that a joint Senate / House of Commons committee be established to conduct an "extensive review" of Canadian drug laws and policies. The text of the recomendation is as follows:
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs strongly urges that a Joint Senate and House of Commons Committee be struck to review all of Canada's existing drug laws, and policies and programs.
Without restricting its mandate, this Joint Committee should be authorized to:
In addition, the Joint Committee should undertake intensive public consultations to determine the needs of different jurisdictions across Canada, including large urban centres where the societal problems associated with the illicit drug trade are more visible. The goal should be to devise a made-in-Canada drug strategy where all levels of government work effectively together to reduce the harm associated with the use of illicit and legal drugs.
To see the full text of the Committee's report on Bill C-8, including the technical amendments it proposed to the Bill, please go to http://www.magi.com/~sencom/rp-c8-e.htm.
The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health has indicated that it intends to undertake some sort of review of Canada's drug policies, as suggested by the Parliamentary Subcommittee that looked at the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. Although this Committee has yet to "finalize its workplan and terms of reference," it is supposed to start work in early October and conclude in the spring of 1997.
Correspondence from Nancy Hall, Clerk of the Parliamentary Committee on Health, reveals that the Minister of Health, David Dingwall, has agreed to the "study of Canada's Drug Policies," but he has suggested that "the review focus on demand reduction rather than the supply reduction side of Canada's existing drug strategy.
To present a written submission or appear before the Committee please contact Nancy Hall, Clerk of the Standing Committee on Health, 6th Floor, 180 Wellington St., House of Commons, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0A6. Phone 613-992-1775, or fax 613-996-1626.
It is possible that the Drug Policy Review will be undertaken by a joint Senate and Parliamentary Committee, as recommended by the Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. This would certainly seem to be an improvement over a Parliamentary Committee, if only because it was a Parliamentary Committee that first passed the bill despite the overwhelming testimony against it.
It is possible that the Senate Committee truly does support decriminalization, and that they passed this bill only because they thought Parliament would reject any substantial recommendations. Unfortunately, they seem to have gone for the all-or-nothing approach, because they could have at least rejected the increased police powers and "streamlining" of the justice system.
The only conclusion that I can draw is that the Senators lost their nerve, and backed down from pressure within their party or from other sources.
When I wrote about testifying before the Senate, I said that "while testifying before the Senate Committee I felt as if these people actually cared about what we were saying, and that they were going to do something to help us end the prohibition of cannabis. I hope that my optimism is not misplaced."
Well, I'm disappointed, very disappointed. I guess hearing senators speaking out in the newspapers and on As It Happens gave me more hope than it should have. I do have some faith left in the Senate Committee, for I believe that they will slowly push their colleagues towards harm reduction and tolerance. I hope that they are able to form half of the Committee that does the Drug Policy Review, for I don't think it will be nearly as thorough if they do not.
But I am also afraid, because while we wait for the review to begin in the fall, end in the spring, and then be debated and reviewed for another year, we will be living under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. The police will be paying informants to sell drugs, the courts will be confiscating people's homes because of a few plants in their basement, and kids with a half ounce in their pocket will get charged with trafficking and go to jail for five years less a day, without a trial by jury.
You can send email to the Senate Standing Committe on Legal and Constitutional Affairs at sencom@magi.com, or write to them at: The Senate, Ottawa, K1A 0A4. Committee clerk Heather Lank can be reached at: (613) 995-5013. Her fax number is (613) 947-2104. Their web page is located at http://www.parl.gc.ca/english/senate/com-e/lega-e.htm.
You should also contact David Dingwall, Canada's Minister of Health. He can be written to at: The House of Commons, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0A6. Phone (613) 996-4743 or fax (613) 996-9851
A good place for updates is the web page of the Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy, at: http://fox.nstn.ca/~eoscapel/cfdp/cfdp.html.
You can also get current information from the Cannabis Canada Online new "What's New" section at: http://www.hempbc.com/whatsnew/index.html.