Honourable Senators, I first want to recognize the commitments made to the First Nations by the government through a letter of agreement in order to promote the passage of Bill C-45. I agree with those commitments because they allow for their context to be taken into account in an informed way. I would have hoped that the government would give the same consideration to the serious work and arguments of the provinces and the territory that chose a prudent approach in prohibiting home cultivation, so as to ensure a smooth transition from prohibition to legalization. This prudent approach is justifiable. Canada is the first OECD country to legalize that substance.

However, the arguments used by the government to substantiate its refusal of the amendment that would have allowed provinces to prohibit home cultivation were not documented carefully or thoroughly in regard to public health issues. The cabinet just referred to expert reports that have not been made public to this date.

As far as I am concerned, I believe it is not enough to list measures that provinces and municipalities will be able to take to regulate home cultivation or to conclude, without any supporting evidence, that growing a few plants will effectively combat large grow operations managed by organized crime.

In contrast, the Quebec government did rigorous work based on serious public health considerations. Several strong arguments support the prohibition of the home cultivation of cannabis, and I recognize that opposing arguments were also raised by the federal government.

I would like to focus on three of the arguments that came out of the work done by public health specialists from Quebec. The first has to do with preventing the distribution of home-grown cannabis outside the legal system, particularly distribution to young people. That has not often been said here, but it’s important. The second has to do with adopting a careful, progressive approach, given that the Quebec law provides for a report on its implementation three years from the date it comes into force and every five years after that. The third argument is about not clogging up the justice system with multiple legal battles going all the way to the Supreme Court, when people decide to challenge the Government of Quebec’s ban on home cultivation, at great expense, on the grounds that it may fly in the face of the objectives of Bill C-45. This would also force the Government of Quebec and the federal government to use public money to defend themselves in court.

(1820)

That said, I would like to remind you that the bill’s sponsor, Senator Tony Dean, did a tremendous job of carefully documenting all the issues at the centre of this legislation and answering all of our questions. Many senators who originally opposed this bill — a number of senators from the Independent Senators Group come to mind, along with some other senators who preferred decriminalization to legalization — changed their minds based on the edifying answers they received from Senator Dean and his team.

Although I am convinced that legalizing cannabis is the right thing to do, I had hoped that it would be done in a way that respects the opinion of all the parties involved. It seems to me that the federal government is showing a lack of openness and flexibility. However, I believe that the Senate has a duty not to go against the will of a democratically elected government, or to do so only under extraordinarily rare circumstances. In this case, I don’t believe that the circumstances warrant an exceptional insistence from the Senate. The government is ultimately responsible for its choices, and it will be up to Canadians to pass judgement when the time comes. That is the prerogative of every democracy based on the rule of law.

I nevertheless believe that preventing disputes and recognizing the provinces’ constitutional jurisdictions should be a standard practice. Earlier, I supported Senator Carignan’s amendment in a last attempt to prevent the implementation of Bill C-45 from being caught up in legal proceedings.

I am faced with a dilemma: I agree with the principle of legalization, and I don’t want to unduly block the legitimate will of the government — and, let us not forget, the will of the House of Commons as expressed in the message sent yesterday — but I am convinced of the merits of the provinces’ position. So I will continue to hope that the situation evolves, but I will vote in favour of the House of Commons’ message. I will do so as I think of all the people in the provinces and territories who have worked very hard, especially public safety agencies, police services, health services, social services and all public services. I am also including all the companies that henceforth will be legally licensed to ensure that anyone who wants to purchase cannabis legally can do so under optimal conditions for quality. I am also doing this to support these companies. In the event that this issue does end up in court, I believe that it is still more important to strike a balance between controlled legalization and its benefits in terms of fighting organized crime and protecting children.

The fact remains that once the Senate defers to the government, the duly elected government officials will be accountable to electors. Thank you.