Honourable senators, I struggle with this aspect of the legislation because I’m vehemently against any measure that is in any way permissive or appears to be permissive of providing marijuana to anyone under the age of 25, never mind anyone under the age of 18. However, I do see Senator Bernard’s point that an 18-year-old passing a joint to a 16-year-old friend shouldn’t face 14 years in prison for doing so, and I don’t think any reasonable person would disagree with that.

Notwithstanding my objection to the use of marijuana by young people, I would agree with a need for an amendment to lessen the severity of punishment for such an offence.

However, I do not agree with removing penalties altogether. Doing so would fly entirely in the face of what is supposed to be the main purpose of this legislation. After all, the overarching objective of the government in passing this bill is to make sure we actually reduce, in the long term, marijuana use among young people, to keep marijuana out of the hands of youth and to decrease the use among youth.

Again, I must repeat, notwithstanding my objection to the overall use of marijuana by people under the age of 25, and we all know the reasoning behind that. We listened to the Canadian Medical Association, the nurses’ association. I haven’t heard any compelling argument to make me believe that for people who regularly use marijuana from the ages of zero to 24 it doesn’t have an enormously adverse effect on their cerebral development.

I strongly support the compromise being proposed by Senator Plett’s amendment. I find it to be reasonable. It builds from what Senator Bernard is trying to achieve, and I think Senator Plett is making sure we’re protecting teenagers in this country.

It sufficiently addresses Senator Bernard’s concerns over the severity of the penalty, and just like the second part of her amendment, it maintains consistency with how we punish similar offences related to social sharing of alcohol, for example. I believe this balanced approach also addresses the issue we know is a problem with other aspects of this legislation, which is the increased backlog it will create in the courts. So in the interest of consistency, balance and alleviating unnecessary courtroom backlogs, I think this is a very reasonable amendment.

Social sharing is going to have the biggest impact when we legalize marijuana. We all remember when we were a little bit younger than we are now and we recognize what the driving force was for us taking our first drink or trying our first cigarette. It’s being 16 or 17 in a high school, on a football field or in a locker room and wanting to be like that 18-year-old. It’s only normal. Every young teenager wants to be like the 18- or 19-year-old. They want to grow up in a hurry, so if the 18-year-old is having a cigarette, you figure, “That’s pretty cool. Let’s try a cigarette, my first drink or my first beer.”

How many 15- and 16-year-olds are dealing with alcoholism in secondary school in this country, and how do they get access to that alcohol? They get it because some 18- or 19-year-old buys it for them. It’s very rare that it’s a friend who buys him a beer. It’s a peer. A peer is not a friend; they are someone you come across on a football team because, in Canada, you have various leagues where 18-year-olds are playing with 17-year-olds. On many junior hockey teams you have 15- and 16-year-olds playing with 19- or 20-year-olds.

So there is that inevitable overlap, and if we don’t take measures and steps to safeguard those young teenagers who just aren’t ready to make a decision of a legal adult, then I think we’re negligent in our overall responsibility.

I just wanted to share those thoughts, and it’s for those reasons I am supporting Senator Plett’s amendment.