(This column was published in the North Shore News on May 19, 2004)
Liberals’ laws up in smoke
By Leo Knight
THE House of Commons has just adjourned as we seem to be headed to an election on June 28. Joe “Who” has said his final goodbyes to that august chamber and the Liberals have ensured the Public Accounts Committee, which has been investigating the Adscam scandal, will never get to the bottom of anything prior to an election.
Call it the first of many broken promises of Prime Minister Paul Martin.
Martin’s website, as the PM, still carries this little breathless bit of nonsense at the top: “As Prime Minister, I am very much looking forward to this new session of Parliament, to work with my colleagues and Canadians in communities large and small, for a better future. To put us on the right path, my government’s key priorities are to nurture our social foundations, to build a 21st century economy, and to ensure Canada’s place of pride and influence in the world.”
Apparently, he wasn’t looking forward to it for very long and the 3rd session of the 37th Parliament was shut down last week seemingly for the last time, paving the way for Martin to call his long-anticipated June 28th election. And in doing some key bills will die on the Order Paper.
Not the least of these is C-25, the proposed whistleblower legislation. Not that it was a particularly good piece of law, the fact that future whistleblowers had to report to their minister seemed to defeat the purpose. But it was the first time that any government in Canada, at least to my knowledge, even made a half-hearted attempt to address this vital issue.
But perhaps the most controversial of the proposed bills Martin will kill is Bill C-10, the act designed to decriminalize marijuana. This was one of those grenades tossed at Martin by the gone and wish he were forgotten, Jean Chrétien. The debate generated by this bill even involved senior officials in the US Government.
Chrétien himself seemed to revel in the national discomfort he created when he was kibitzing with a Winnipeg Free Press reporter and said, “I don't know what is marijuana. Perhaps I will try it when it will no longer be criminal. I will have my money for my fine and a joint in the other hand.”
At a conference on legalizing pot last week, Vancouver Mayor Larry Campbell weighed in on the subject by saying it should be legalized and then we should “tax the hell out of it.”
An interesting thought, but still, I fear not very practical.
One of the main problems with legalization being a panacea to the problem is the troubling little conundrum presented by teenagers. This is the age when many people try the drug. Yet, we still don’t allow teens to smoke cigarettes, it seems hardly likely we will sanction the use of pot by the little darlings. So any argument of the cessation of the black market seems a little premature.
And that brings up another point, last week the always engaging Michael Campbell had me on his talk show discussing this subject. During one of the breaks, we chatted about the nonsensical nature of many of the arguments presented by the pro-dope crowd and how specious they inevitably were.
An example is the way the “smoke ‘em if you got ‘em” lot use their cause to argue legalization will stamp out organized crime. As much as the Viet gangs and Outlaw Motorcycle Gangs control the grow ops that saturate the Lower Mainland, their market is primarily south of the 49th and any liberalization of our existing laws won’t alter that part of the equation.
Yet, I have heard countless of otherwise logical people use this position as a salient reason for legalization.
Another is that were it not for the BC Bud industry, this province would still be in recession. Indeed, while taking calls on the show, some bright light said exactly that. As Michael Campbell said, “anyone who believes that has a profound lack of understanding for basic economic principles.”
Yet, the argument, once advanced by someone without the credibility to back it up, seems to take hold with a great many people.
Much like the oft-touted line that we continue to jail people for the simple possession of marijuana, well, we do not. We don’t jail people for a great many more serious offences, as the regular reader of this space will understand. We don’t put anyone in jail except in the most egregious circumstances. Running a grow op for the Hells Angels is only likely going to bring a modest fine.
One of the other favoured pieces of nonsense is that legalization will free up police time so they can go after murderers and robbers, rapists and politicians. Police do not spend any time rounding up potheads. They haven’t in a decade or two. They do spend time chasing organized crime groups, and considering the myriad of activities organized crime is involved in, everything from guns and extortion, to prostitution and stock market fraud, it doesn’t seem likely the legalization will have any affect on what the police are up to.
There are many sides to the debate and I for one, would like to have an informed debate before seeing any changes to the laws as they currently exist. But the Prime Minister seems to have avoided any sort of divisive debate before an election. Equally, he made darn sure no weak-kneed liberal law of Jean Chrétien could sit on the books and possibly alienate the law and order crowd already drifting to the Conservatives.
As Kim Campbell said, “An election is no time to debate serious issues.”
-30-