Honourable senators, as a senator from Quebec, I am rising in a spirit of transparency to explain to you why I am voting against the amendment.

First, as you know, I strongly support Bill C-45. I argued for and voted against a number of amendments, both in committee and in this chamber, because I felt that they were incompatible with the objectives of the bill. I voted against the other amendments because I was strongly against the idea of delaying the coming into force of the bill.

I supported the amendment on home cultivation, the matter before us today, and, in my opinion, the government was wrong to reject it. Nevertheless, I understand the government’s argument, which does have some merit. I am not convinced, however, that prohibiting home cultivation necessarily compromises the objective of curbing the illegal market, especially when measures are taken to ensure that the price of legal cannabis in more remote areas is comparable to the price in urban centres.

Despite the solid arguments that were made in support of provincial prohibition and that were consistent with Bill C-45, I agree with Senator Carignan on this aspect of constitutional law, our favourite subject these days. I supported the amendment in question because it dispels the uncertainty surrounding the interaction between federal and provincial legislation. It also aligns with my sense of the fair balance that must be established between the legislative powers of the federal and the provincial governments.

Second, let’s be clear on what is and what is not at stake. This is not an attack on provincial jurisdiction. It is also not a case of the federal government imposing a very centrist vision of federalism in order to destroy the provinces. On the contrary, Bill C-45 and the federal government’s approach include a wide variety of means that provide for the recognition of provincial jurisdictions. That was clearly explained in Senator Harder’s speech, and I will not repeat it here, but I will add one thing. The senator talked about where in the law was this reference to the provincial legislative powers mentioned. He said that it does not exist. This aspect does not need to be in the bill because of subsection 92(13) of the Constitution. It is clear that the provinces have the power to legislate and have done so in a number of ways.

I would like to add that I have no doubt that the federal power to legislate in criminal law is sufficient to support Bill C-45 in terms of the decriminalization of the possession or home cultivation of a maximum of four plants. This has nothing to do with constitutional law. Both areas of jurisdiction are present and are respected.

What, then, is the issue? It is simply a question of an argument on one branch of the doctrine of paramountcy in constitutional law. In that case, rejecting the amendment is simply about eliminating an area of uncertainty in terms of the scope of provincial jurisdiction.

I still believe that the amendment is a good idea, so why do I oppose Senator Carignan’s amendment? I do so for two reasons. The first is my conviction that we must make our decisions on the basis of principle and ensure that our positions are coherent and consistent.

I support Bill C-45 and I still think that delaying the implementation of the bill would be a mistake. Although the government did not agree to the amendment, it did recognize, more so than it ever has before, the vast majority of provincial regulations and jurisdictions that are consistent with the approach of Bill C-45.

Honourable senators, we have done our job and done it well. We have been heard. We have discharged our duties to the people we represent. We are not here to represent provincial governments. We have discharged our duties to Canadians and Quebecers.

This brings me to the second reason, which is my understanding of the constitutional role of the Senate as an independent and complementary legislative institution within our parliamentary system.

Honourable senators, the Senate has, at times, insisted on its amendments, and that may happen again in the future. However, when I consider all of the competing viewpoints on the government’s message, I have to conclude that this is not an attack on provincial jurisdiction, an attack on vulnerable minorities, or a case of the government’s plan being unreasonable or irrational. It is a disagreement with some provincial governments about one branch of the principle of paramountcy in constitutional law.

I do not see this as enough of a challenge to trigger our constitutional duty to stand firm against the elected house’s strategic decisions. The Senate’s job is to provide an objective review of the legislation and, if necessary, improve it. Our role is also to improve on the work of the House of Commons within the legislative process. That is what we did. In my humble opinion, it is now time to accept the House of Commons’ legitimate decision. I will vote against the amendment. Thank you.