This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

022126Z Aug 05

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 OTTAWA 002331 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: CA PGOV PREL SNAR SOCI
SUBJECT: CANADA: MARIJUANA DECRIMINALIZATION BILL LOSING 
MOMENTUM? 
 
 
¶1. (SBU) SUMMARY: The marijuana decriminalization bill 
(C-17), which began the Parliamentary term as the potential 
next big issue on the Liberal agenda, appears to have lost 
steam.  Opinion on C-17 is split between activists who 
suggest it does not go far enough, and prohibitionists who 
say it goes too far.  Momentum on the bill slowed 
considerably toward the end of the last session of 
Parliament, and no federal leaders are giving any indication 
they intend to support or push the bill.  It appears now that 
C-17 does not have the support of any significant interest 
group, and without a champion, it does not seem likely 
marijuana decriminalization will rush out of the gate in the 
fall.  END SUMMARY 
 
¶2. (SBU) The Hill Times, a newspaper that covers political 
news and activity on Parliament Hill reports there is little 
support for C-17, and players on both sides of the issue are 
actively criticizing the bill.  Lobbyists have identified 
serious flaws in the legislation, and groups that otherwise 
have very little in common are agreeing the bill should be 
killed.  In its current form, C-17 would replace criminal 
charges with fines for simple possession of up to 15 grams 
and increase penalties for marijuana production. 
 
Legislative History 
------------------- 
 
¶3. (SBU) C-17, the Marijuana Decriminalization Bill, is 
technically titled, "An Act to amend the Contraventions Act 
and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to make 
Consequential Amendments to Other Acts."  The Minister of 
Justice, Irwin Cotler, introduced the bill on November 1, 
¶2004.  The bill was forwarded to the House of Commons 
Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and 
Emergency Preparedness on November 2, and has made no 
progress since.  This is the third decriminalization bill 
introduced by the Liberal Government.  The last attempt was 
Bill C-38 of the 37th Parliament, Session 2.  That bill was 
introduced in May 2003 and died when that session ended in 
November 2003. 
 
The Current Problem 
------------------- 
 
¶4. (SBU) C-17 received specific attention in the October 2004 
Speech from the Throne that began the current session of 
Parliament.  Since that time there has been no leadership on 
the issue from the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice or 
any other Liberal Member of Parliament, save the occasional 
solicited comment.  At the Liberal Party Convention in March, 
marijuana decriminalization was a hot topic, but unlike the 
same-sex marriage issue, which was also highly emotional, 
this attention did not carry through to activism in the House 
of Commons. 
 
Opponents make their cases 
-------------------------- 
 
¶5. (SBU) Many interest groups from both sides of the argument 
have come forward to point out why C-17 does not work. 
Marijuana activists and prohibitionists are finding 
themselves in agreement that they do not want to see the bill 
pass.  This does not bode well for a bill that is also 
suffering from a distinct lack of political support from the 
government.  Some examples of public positions on the bill 
include the following: 
 
--    Canadians For Safe Access (CFSA) (Director, Phillipe 
Lucas) a medicinal marijuana lobby group, believes the 
provisions of the bill appear directed at young men and 
complains it may be directed a poorer Canadians who cannot 
afford to pay fines. 
 
--    The Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy (CFDP) 
(Executive Director, Eugene Oscapella) agrees the bill is 
flawed, and suggests the Liberals may be planning to force it 
through in order to put the issue behind them.  If it is 
allowed to die, Oscapella is hopeful the NDP and Bloc 
Quebecois will force the Liberals to formulate yet another 
attempt. 
 
--    The Canadian Professional Police Association (CPPA) 
(President, Tony Cannavino) is also happy the bill has 
stalled.  The CPPA notes the bill sends the wrong message 
compared to other anti-drug strategies and questions the 
15-gram figure the C-17 terms as simple possession. 
Cannavino says that in discussions with MPs it is clear that 
90-95% do not realize that 15 grams equals between 30 and 50 
joints, an amount the police characterize as a trafficking 
amount, not simple possession. 
 
--    The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police (CACP) 
(Chris McNeil - Halifax Regional Municipality Police, Drug 
Committee Chair) objects to the bill in its current form, but 
admits there is room for reform in marijuana laws.  The CACP 
says any new law must protect police discretion in laying 
charges, and notes the anti-grow-op provisions of C-17 will 
simply force organized crime to divide their operations into 
smaller units. 
 
--    The Canadian Centre for Substance Abuse (CCSA) 
(Patricia Begin, Policy Director) is the one organization 
known to be supporting the bill.  Even the CCSA states the 
government must be very careful with messaging any new law, 
because they are already encountering young people who 
believe the bill alone has made marijuana legal. 
 
--    Alan Young, a marijuana reform advocate from Osgoode 
Hall Law School points out that a key problem is the number 
of interest groups who want to see lessening restrictions and 
easier access to marijuana, medicinal or otherwise.  He 
points out that in the same-sex marriage debate, the gay 
community was able to present a united and coordinated effort 
that made their lobbying very effective and ultimately 
successful.  He says the pro-marijuana community has a long, 
long way to go before it presents the same kind of unity.  He 
goes as far as to call their efforts "fairly inept."  Young 
says that until the marijuana movement can find a 
spokesperson from the mainstream, he does not expect any 
related legislation will make much progress. 
 
¶6. (SBU) C-16 is considered by some to be companion 
legislation to C-17.  C-16 clarifies that impaired driving 
laws cover drugs as well as alcohol consumption.  C-16 is 
making progress in the legislative system and some observers 
point out that its provisions for taking blood samples and 
detaining persons police believe may have or intend to 
operate a vehicle while under the influence of drugs may 
provide an effective counter balance to the perception of 
lessening sanctions if C-17 passes. 
 
¶7. (SBU) COMMENT: Given the number of diverse groups that 
have come forward to note their objections to C-17 it seems 
reasonable to expect that, if the Government decides to push 
the bill in the fall, it will be in for a rough ride.  The 
law enforcement community is concerned that C-17's provisions 
will reduce the discretionary power of police, and encourage 
organized crime to simply change their production methods. 
Marijuana activists suggest increased penalties for producing 
marijuana will only reinforce the black market, and a fine 
system for simple possession will unfairly target the poor. 
In this minority Parliament it seems that only the truly 
consensus bills are passed, and this government will not be 
likely to expend too much capital on a controversial bill 
without a strong constituency backing it up.  END COMMENT 
 
Visit Canada's Classified Web Site at 
http://www.state.sgov.gov/p/wha/ottawa 
 
WILKINS