The saga continues: Canadian legislative attempts to reform cannabis law in the twenty-first century.

In July 2003, an article in the Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice suggested that Canada's long "saga of promise, hesitation, and retreat" in cannabis law reform was finally ending (Fischer, Ala-Leppilampi, Single, and Robins 2003: 266). (2) This characterization was apt. Beginning with the groundbreaking Le Dain Commission in the early 1970s, many health, addictions, and criminal justice experts have criticized cannabis laws as incommensurate to the amount of social and personal harm created by the use of cannabis, and numerous unsuccessful attempts have been made to reform Canadian cannabis control mechanisms. In 2003, this chorus of voices grew louder, with the accumulation of several higher-level court decisions questioning the Charter deficiencies of current cannabis laws and with the release of two reports by Parliamentary committees recommending reform (Fischer et al. 2003). In response to the mounting political and social pressure, the federal government tabled legislation on 27 May 2003 to decriminalize the possession of small amounts of cannabis. This legislation and its two later reincarnations, however, never passed into law.

This research note picks up where Fischer et al. (2003) left off, updating and reviewing developments in Canadian cannabis policy between 2003 and 2008. It begins by briefly outlining the social and political context from which Bill C-38 emerged. It offers a review of the provisions proposed by Bill C-38 and its successors, and delineates the positions of key interest groups regarding marijuana decriminalization. It concludes by reflecting on the contemporary period of cannabis law reform, illustrating how the "saga of promise, hesitation, and retreat" continues today.

The social and political context that preceded Bill C-38

The immediate context of Bill C-38 and what preceded it have been described in detail elsewhere (see Erickson, Hathaway, and Urquhart 2004; Erickson and Oscapella 1999; Fischer et al. 2003; Canada, Library of Parliament 2003). Thus, it will not be reviewed in detail here. But by 2003, several important factors had become aligned so that Canadian cannabis policy was ripe for reform. Specifically, Canada's Senate and House of Commons had just produced two high-profile committee reports on cannabis calling for legalization and decriminalization, respectively. Canadian courts had recently decided on a number of important cannabis cases involving both medical and recreational use, and some challenged "the constitutionality of the cannabis prohibition under Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms" (Erickson and Oscapella 1999: 13; Fischer et al. 2003). Public opinion polls showed that most Canadians supported some form of cannabis-law liberalization (Fischer et al. 2003; Khoo 2004). A large proportion of Canadians (3 million) had used cannabis in the past 12 months and 700,000 had a criminal record for cannabis possession (Canada, Senate 2002a: 15; Fischer et al. 2003: 274). Finally, the Department of Justice had evidence to suggest that cannabis prohibition was differentially enforced across the country, suggesting a need for legal reform to homogenize regional practices (Canada, Library of Parliament 2003). In summary, the context from which Bill C-38 emerged was very favourable to drug law reform, with policy makers, stakeholders, and citizens supporting some form of liberalization of cannabis laws.

The legislation: Bill C-38 and its successors

The following section outlines the series of legislative initiatives undertaken during Canada's latest attempt to liberalize cannabis-possession laws. See Figure 1 for a timeline of the various pieces of legislation involved (see Figure 1).

The most recent events in Canada's long "saga of promise, hesitation, and retreat" began with the tabling of private member's Bill C-344 in the House of Commons on 4 May 2001. Dr. Keith Martin, an MP from the right-wing Canadian Alliance Party, introduced the proposed legislation. It sought to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and the Contraventions Act to decriminalize the possession and trafficking of small amounts of cannabis. Instead these offences would be subject to a series of increasing fines for successive violations.