A Green Platform Indeed: Questions for Elizabeth May and Company

* Updated: 10 April 2011

** On 8 April 2011, I asked a number of questions that I had following my reading of the 2011 Green Party of Canada Platform. However, some of the questions I had are answered in Vision Green which includes a more comprehensive set of priorities for the next decade. Where the issues I raised are addressed in this larger document I have included relevant excerpts in this update (in italics).

---

Yesterday, the Green Party of Canada released their 2011 platform (read here) and certainly proved that they're not a one-issue party with policies on variety of different issues. While leader Elizabeth May admitted that her party would not form the next federal government, her assertion that their proposals will push the envelop on a number of public policy issues holds true. This is certainly the case when examining the penal policy components of their plan for Canada. While the Green platform does lack detail on a number of important issues facing Canadians, they do introduce interesting ideas for consideration.

Legalization and Taxation of Marijuana

A first issue in the area of penal policy that is likely to catch the attention of voters is a budget line that lists revenue for legalizing and taxing marijuana (see p. 10). There are many reasons such a measure might be attractive to Canadians including:

1) There would be regulatory oversight over the production of marijuana, making it safer to consume as individuals would know exactly what they're using and their impacts (visit Amsterdam and you'll know what I'm taking about);

2) Marijuana would be taxed and steer legitimized revenues towards producers, merchants and government coffers instead of gangs and cartels who currently have a monopoly over the market and engage in violence to control its underground trafficking;

3) Canada would generate additional revenue by becoming a tourist destination for pot enthusiasts;

4) Canadians would save funds currently spent on a failed prohibitionist approach through reduced enforcement expenditures for policing, the judiciary, prisons, parole and the like;

5) Many Canadians would no longer be afflicted with the stigma of criminalization that is detrimental to individuals in a number of ways, including limiting their job prospects, for simple possession in a context where the majority of the population has consumed marijuana at some point in their lives; and

6) Individuals who use marijuana for pain relief instead of opioids, as well as other highly addictive and harmful pain killers, would enjoy greater access to the substance and a greater quality of life in contrast to having to constantly wait for pain relief due to our overburdened health care system that sees long lines in hospitals, a shortage of doctors and nurses, and significant turnaround times to obtain a medical marijuana license under the current regime.

While there would be many benefits to legalizing and taxing marijuana, including those listed above, the spectre of such a policy change will, as it has in the past, generate some opposition. I'll leave it for others to engage in raising hysteria in the model of Reefer Madness (watch here). At the same time, there are a number of practical questions associated with the implementation of marijuana legalization and taxation that need answers from the Green Party leader including:

1) With the United States next door and already concerned with the security of our common border, how would the Government of Canada assure our southern neighbours who will (rightly or wrongly) be concerned with the open distribution of a substance that is currently illegal in states across their country? How will you reassure them that there will not be a spillover affect into their backyards (not that prohibition works all that well to stop this now)? Put differently, would such a policy lead to a thickening of our shared border and how would that impact the Canadian economy?

Issue not addressed.

2) What kind of regulations and taxes would be imposed on a legitimized marijuana industry?

From page 73 of Vision Green:

- "Legalize marijuana by removing marijuana from the drug schedule".

- "Create a regulatory framework for the safe production of marijuana by small, independent growers".

- "Develop a taxation rate for marijuana similar to that of tobacco".

3) What type of bureaucracy would be created to support the regulation and taxation of marijuana?

From page 73 of Vision Green:

- "Establish the sale of marijuana to adults for medicinal or personal use through licensed distribution outlets".

- "Educate the public about the health threats of marijuana, tobacco and other drug use" (see also page 69 - "Increase funding to tobacco awareness programs and marijuana-use prevention programs and set a goal for a smoke-free Canada").

4) What kinds of rules would be in place to limit the ability of youth to purchase and use marijuana (not that the system we have is all that difficult to circumvent in this regard)?

Issue not addressed.

5) How would the Government of Canada set a price range for the sale and taxation of marijuana that would ensure that a robust black market (not dissimilar to the one that currently exists now) where cheaper product that many Canadians would be inclined to buy doesn't emerge?

Issue not addressed.

6) How would the funds currently allocated to the enforcement of marijuana towards 'cops, courts and corrections' be reinvested into Canadian communities?

Issue not addressed.

It should be noted that none of these considerations are death nails to the proposal tabled by the Green Party as many good answers to these questions exist. However, these questions do need to be debated in a serious way if reasonable marijuana policy advocated by the likes of Canadian Students for Sensible Drug Policy and Norml Canada is to be enacted instead of deepening the problems associated with prohibition through measures such as S-10: An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substance Act that recently died on the Order of Paper when the Harper government fell.

Sections of Vision Green relevant to the governance of drugs

- "Reduce drug addictions" (p. 70)

- "Ending the war on drugs" (p. 73)

Investments to Prosecute 'White Collar Crime'

A second issue in the area of penal policy included in the Green Party's platform is additional funds to "prosecute white collar crime" (see p. 11). While this type of enforcement policy - like the recently passed Standing up for Victims of White Collar Crime Act that, among other things, set mandatory minimum sentences for frauds exceeding $1 million - is likely to generate support from many Canadians, I would make the case that such measures distract our attention from one troubling fact: that the lax financial regulations that allow individuals to steal vast quantities of funds from others, and ruining their lives in the process, are largely left in tact.

Given the kind of money that is involved, one has to ask whether additional investments in prosecution or longer sentences for this scale of fraud will have a significant deterrent effect on those who stand to gain so much by engaging in such acts. Instead of focussing much of our attention on reactionary justice, I think our resources would be much better spent on putting in place mechanisms to prevent this kind of victimization because once it occurs no prison sentence handed-down to those who have harmed others or partial restitution will undo the damage caused by such an act.

Put simply, if we individualize, we fail to deal with the systemic issues that enable victimization to occur in the first place. Parties who support these kinds of 'tough on crime' measures need to be asked whether their proposals are simply band-aid solutions that will eventually peal and leave gapping wounds, while allowing the meta-narrative of greed to continue uninterrupted.

From pages 86-87 of Vision Green:

- "Adopt the recommendations of the Advisory Report from the National Roundtables on
Corporate Social Responsibility. This framework sets out clear standards and reporting obligations for Canadian corporations. It would establish an ombudsman office with the power to investigate and evaluate complaints from affected communities and determine levels of compliance with the established standards.
- Work with the provinces to establish a national Canadian Securities Commission and bring in a federal Securities Act to protect investors from unfair, improper, or fraudulent practices, and foster fair and efficient capital markets as well as confidence in those markets.
- Introduce legislation to hold Canadian corporations that are working overseas to the same environmental and human rights standards as they are in Canada.
- Prevent legal intimidation of ordinary people by limiting the rights of corporations to sue groups and individuals only for actual loss.
- Develop laws similar to the U.S.’s Alien Tort Claims Act that will allow those who are not Canadian to sue Canadian corporations for gross violations of basic human, environmental or labour rights in their own countries.
- Reduce the disclosure requirements for prosecuting corporations. In a complicated stock market fraud or investment scam, disclosure can amount to hundreds of thousands of documents that have to be gathered, sorted, organized, and copied so they can be given over to the defendant and the defendant's lawyers as soon as charges are laid in a case.
- Oppose the takeover of Canada’s stock exchanges such as the Toronto Stock Exchange, by corporate entities based outside of Canada".

Other Relevant Sections of Vision Green not Included in the 2011 Platform

- "True justice; Real security" (pp. 81-83)

- "Cracking down on organized and white collar crime" (pp. 84-85)

- "Anti-terrorism and border security" (pp. 85-86)

- "Corporate accountability" (pp. 86-87)

- "Access to justice" (pp. 87-88)

- "Gun control and ownership rights" (p. 88)