SC38 Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Special Committee on the Non-medical Use of Drugs (Bill C-38)

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Wednesday, October 22, 2003

¼

1845

The Chair (Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.))

Mr. Richard Mosley (Assistant Deputy Minister, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice)

¼

1850

¼

1855

Ms. Patricia Hassard (Assistant Deputy Solicitor General, Policing and Law Enforcement Branch, Department of the Solicitor General)

½

1900

The Chair

Ms. Linda Dabros (Special Advisor to the Director General, Drug Strategy and Controlled Substances Programme, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch, Department of Health)

½

1905

The Chair

Mr. Terry Cormier (Director, International Crime Division, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade)

The Chair

Mr. Terry Cormier

½

1910

The Chair

The Chair

Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Richard Mosley

Mr. Randy White

Mr. Richard Mosley

Mr. Randy White

Mr. Richard Mosley

Mr. Randy White

Mr. Richard Mosley

Mr. Randy White

Mr. Richard Mosley

Mr. Randy White

½

1920

Mr. Richard Mosley

Mr. Randy White

Mr. Richard Mosley

Ms. Linda Dabros

Mr. Randy White

½

1925

Mr. Richard Mosley

The Chair

Ms. Patricia Hassard

½

1930

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ)

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

The Chair

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

The Chair

Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.)

Mr. Richard Mosley

Ms. Linda Dabros

The Chair

Mr. Derek Lee

½

1935

Mr. Paul Saint-Denis (Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice)

Ms. Patricia Hassard

Mr. Derek Lee

Mr. Richard Mosley

½

1940

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

Ms. Linda Dabros

Mr. Richard Marceau

Ms. Linda Dabros

Mr. Paul Saint-Denis

Mr. Richard Marceau

½

1945

Mr. Paul Saint-Denis

Mr. Richard Marceau

M. Paul Saint-Denis

Mr. Richard Marceau

M. Paul Saint-Denis

Mr. Richard Marceau

M. Paul Saint-Denis

Mr. Richard Mosley

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Richard Mosley

Mr. Richard Marceau

½

1950

Mr. Richard Mosley

The Chair

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

½

1955

M. Paul Saint-Denis

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

M. Paul Saint-Denis

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

Mr. Paul Saint-Denis

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

Mr. Paul Saint-Denis

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

Mr. Paul Saint-Denis

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

Mr. Paul Saint-Denis

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

Mr. Paul Saint-Denis

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

Mr. Paul Saint-Denis

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

Mr. Paul Saint-Denis

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

The Chair

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

Mr. Paul Saint-Denis

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

Mr. Paul Saint-Denis

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

Mr. Paul Saint-Denis

¾

2000

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

Mr. Paul Saint-Denis

The Chair

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

The Chair

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

The Chair

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

The Chair

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

The Chair

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

The Chair

Mr. Richard Mosley

The Chair

Mr. Paul Saint-Denis

The Chair

Mr. Richard Mosley

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP)

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies

¾

2005

Mr. Richard Mosley

Ms. Libby Davies

Mr. Richard Mosley

¾

2010

Ms. Libby Davies

Mr. Richard Mosley

Ms. Libby Davies

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies

Mr. Richard Mosley

Mr. Paul Saint-Denis

Ms. Libby Davies

Mr. Paul Saint-Denis

Ms. Libby Davies

Mr. Richard Mosley

The Chair

Mr. Randy White

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies

The Chair

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin (Northumberland, Lib.)

Mr. Richard Mosley

¾

2015

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Mr. Richard Mosley

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Mr. Richard Mosley

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Mr. Richard Mosley

The Chair

Ms. Patricia Hassard

The Chair

Hon. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.)

¾

2020

Ms. Linda Dabros

The Chair

Hon. Hedy Fry

The Chair

Mr. Terry Cormier

Hon. Hedy Fry

Mr. Richard Mosley

Hon. Hedy Fry

The Chair

Hon. Hedy Fry

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

¾

2025

Mr. Paul Saint-Denis

Mr. Richard Marceau

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies

Mr. Richard Mosley

Ms. Libby Davies

Mr. Richard Mosley

Ms. Libby Davies

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies

The Chair

Mr. Richard Mosley

Mr. Paul Saint-Denis

¾

2030

Mr. Richard Mosley

Ms. Libby Davies

Mr. Richard Mosley

Ms. Libby Davies

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies

The Chair

Mr. Richard Mosley

The Chair

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

The Chair

Mr. Richard Mosley

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

Mr. Richard Mosley

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

Mr. Richard Mosley

The Chair

---

CANADA

Special Committee on the Non-medical Use of Drugs (Bill C-38)

---

NUMBER 002

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Wednesday, October 22, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¼  (1845)  

[English]

    The Chair (Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.)): I'll call this meeting to order. We are the special committee on the non-medical use of drugs, studying Bill C-38.

    We are very pleased to have with us today, from the Department of Justice, Richard Mosley and Paul Saint-Denis. From the Solicitor General's office we have Patricia Hassard. Thank you very much for coming. From the Department of Health, we have Linda Dabros. And from Foreign Affairs and International Trade, we have Terry Cormier.

    Welcome to all of you. I don't know if you've drawn straws for who gets to lead.

    Mr. Richard Mosley (Assistant Deputy Minister, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice): I guess that's my responsibility, Madam Chair, seeing that you are examining a bill sponsored by the Minister of Justice.

    May I say at the outset that he very much regrets not being able to be here for your first meeting, but as you know, he is representing Canada at important events abroad.

    He would have wanted us to first acknowledge the very important work this committee, in its former composition, has undertaken on the non-medical use of drugs generally and on cannabis in particular. The proposals that are before you in Bill C-38 take into account the recommendations made by the committee last December.

    The proposals in Bill C-38 form an integral part of the renewed drug strategy that the government announced last year, and the other departments represented here this evening, of course, are partners in that strategy under the lead of the Department of Health. Ms. Dabros will comment a bit further on that a little later.

    I would just like to note that the objectives of Bill C-38, taking into account the work done by this committee and its recommendations, are to discourage use, particularly among young people, through more consistent enforcement; to ensure that enforcement is more equitable across the country; to have the law better reflect Canadians' attitudes toward the possession of small amounts of marijuana; and to address the serious problem of the proliferation of production or grow operations across the country.

    The question of reforming the possession offence is not a new issue. Indeed, it goes back to the Le Dain committee recommendations. The Prime Minister, as Minister of Justice in 1982, spoke in the House in favour of changing the possession offence to address the consequences of conviction for possession of small amounts. In the Department of Justice, the matter has been under consideration for a number of years.

    You're well aware of the proposals contained in the bill. I'm not going to go through those in detail. You know, of course, that it proposes to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to create new possession offences and bring about new production offences. It also amends the Contraventions Act to permit the use of tickets to enforce the new possession offences.

    These proposals would replace the current criminal court process and resulting criminal penalties for possession with alternate procedures and penalties. The persons convicted of possessing 15 grams or less of marijuana or one gram or less of cannabis resin would receive a ticket and a fine ranging from, as currently proposed, $100 to $400, depending on the circumstances.

    At the same time, the proposals take aim at marijuana grow operations and make available more serious penalties for large grow ops than is the case now. As you are aware, increased resources for enforcement operations were made available in this strategy. My colleague Ms. Hassard will be speaking a bit about that with regard to the efforts of the portfolio of the Solicitor General.

    These proposals, of course, were not developed in a vacuum. In addition to your recommendations previously, the Minister of Justice consulted with counterparts in a number of European countries--France, the United Kingdom, Denmark, and Germany--all of which have either moved in the direction of reform of their possession offences or were contemplating it at the time.

    The minister also spoke with ministers responsible for justice in each province and territory, with the exception of the province of Quebec, which was undergoing an election campaign at that time. But we did speak with the Quebec ministry. Prior to tabling the legislation, officials examined the way in which cannabis possession is dealt with in the United States, Australia, and a number of other countries, particularly in Europe.

    The ticketing proposal uses the 15 grams or less mark as a point at which the issuance of a ticket would be the only avenue open for police action. In its review of the international situation, the department found that the amounts dealt with by the possession offence in various countries ranged from about 15 grams up to as much as 100 grams.

¼  (1850)  

    Our current legislation in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act makes a distinction at the 30-gram mark, where amounts of 30 grams or less are dealt with less harshly than amounts over 30 grams. It appeared that 30 grams was too high a quantity for the purpose of this reform and that 15 grams was a reasonable amount, given that it was roughly the amount commonly purchased for personal use.

    Concerns have been expressed just this week about these proposals not being in conformity with the international drug conventions. These conventions require that the possession of cannabis be made a criminal offence, and it is, of course, such an offence under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. The proposals in Bill C-38 would maintain the offence as a criminal offence under the CDSA. It is only the procedure by which the offence would be dealt with and the penalties available for punishment that will change. In our view, most definitely this bill would not be in contravention of the UN drug conventions.

    There was a reference to a recent visit to Canada by members of the International Narcotics Control Board, or INCB. This is the UN agency that monitors compliance with the drug conventions. Representatives of the INCB visited Canada just last week and met with officials. I think there may have been a misunderstanding in terms of the newspaper report. At no time did they advise officials in our departments that Canada was not in compliance with its international convention obligations with respect to the proposals in Bill C-38. Moreover, Antonio Maria Costa, director of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, who visited Canada in the spring--I believe he met with you, Madam Chair, at that time--expressed the belief that the cannabis reform proposals would not be in contravention of the drug treaties.

    I'd like to note also that the minister has had talks with U.S. officials on these proposals. He met with his American counterpart, as I think you're all aware, to explain what the bill would accomplish, in particular to dispel any concern about Canada legalizing cannabis possession. There seems to have been some misunderstanding about the scope and effect of the proposals. We have also noted, in dealings with some of our counterparts internationally, that there is occasionally confusion with what the committee in the other chamber recommended, and when we have the opportunity to explain what is in Bill C-38 and what effect it would have within our legal framework, those concerns are often alleviated.

    We met, for example, with representatives of U.S. departments--the justice department, the health department. I met with a group of congressional representatives, at their request, to address a number of the myths and misconceptions about the nature of the production of marijuana and the Bill C-38 proposals. For example, despite the increased levels of seizures by the U.S. at the Canada-U.S. border, due largely we believe to heightened security flowing from the events of 9/11, the volume that represented cannabis seizures last year was less than 1.5% of the total volume of cannabis seized by U.S. customs--86% of that total volume was cannabis exported from Mexico.

    I'd like to comment a bit about drug-impaired driving.

    Madam Chair, we're pleased to make available to the committee today the consultation paper that the Minister of Justice issued to seek the views of Canadians on proposals that were developed by a federal-provincial working group. Some of you may recall that when the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights addressed the subject of impaired driving a few years ago, it made a number of recommendations for specific amendments to the Criminal Code, one of which addressed the issue of drug-impaired driving. That amendment was in fact made by a government bill introduced in 2000 and adopted by Parliament.

    The committee, at that time, however, had also recommended a study be conducted by federal-provincial officials on how to better improve the collection of evidence in order to enforce the existing Criminal Code offences relating to drug-impaired driving. That work has been carried out by the Department of Justice in collaboration with our federal counterparts, our colleagues, and notably the Solicitor General's department and the Department of Transport.

¼  (1855)  

    I'd like to note, in particular, the contribution of the Province of British Columbia in advancing this work and, in particular, in demonstrating, in the years since the standing committee made that recommendation, the effectiveness of the strategy of training police officers to properly carry out standard field sobriety tests to support impaired-by-drugs prosecutions.

    There are a number of questions that still need to be considered. In that respect, we will need further input from the provinces and territories and also other experts, such as those from the drugs and driving committee and the alcohol test committee of the Canadian Society of Forensic Science, on certain operational and technical aspects of the options being proposed.

    Our paper outlines, but does not detail, the operational requirements relating to, for example, facilities for drug testing and for bodily fluid sample collection and storage. That is in part the reason for the release of the consultation paper today, so we may get on with those discussions and also, of course, so we may solicit the views of Canadians on what is being proposed in that regard.

    I'd very much like to thank the committee for allowing us to appear this evening. I believe my colleagues would like to make a few additional remarks, with the committee's indulgence. In that respect, I would turn first to Ms. Hassard.

    Ms. Patricia Hassard (Assistant Deputy Solicitor General, Policing and Law Enforcement Branch, Department of the Solicitor General): Thank you.

    Madam Chairman, I have a short introductory statement to present. I am the assistant deputy solicitor general responsible for policing and law enforcement in the Solicitor General's department. I too would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to be here today to speak about one component of the renewed national drug strategy, which is Bill C-38.

    The Solicitor General strongly supports this proposed legislation and sees it as a much needed step to enhance law enforcement capacity to deal with the very serious and escalating problem of marijuana grow operations. As the committee knows, the presence and functioning of marijuana grow operations represents a significant threat to the safety and security of Canadians, and we know that such operations, while perhaps originally restricted to a few areas in Canada, have now spread to many regions of the country. We know about the many hazards associated with marijuana grow operations, ranging from the fire risks caused by the bypassing of hydro meters to power these facilities, to the proliferation of toxins and moulds that are generated as a result of the grow process.

    These grow operations, whether they're indoor or outdoor facilities, are often run by or linked to organized criminals, and the involvement or organized crime in this burgeoning industry is characterized by violence, turf wars, and intimidation. The profits realized from these grows go to support the continuance of this and other types of illegal activity.

    The provisions contained in the bill before you, Bill C-38, will help to ensure that those who are running large-scale grow operations are treated with the seriousness they deserve. The proposed penalty regime for cultivation differentiates between those looking to grow for recreational use and those seeking to profit from this illicit activity. By doubling the current maximum penalty for cultivation from seven years to fourteen years, Bill C-38 sends a very clear and strong message about how the Government of Canada views marijuana grow operations.

    I want to draw particular attention to the provision that cases involving more than three plants being cultivated would require the judiciary to provide reasons in their decision as to why imprisonment was not imposed when certain aggravating factors are present. These factors, for example, include the risk of danger for children who are in the buildings where the operation exists. This type of provision we think will prompt investigators and prosecutors to ensure that judges are aware of all the relevant circumstances surrounding grow ops and may encourage the courts to issue sentences that could be considered to have deterrent value.

    As I mentioned earlier, the legislation has been proposed not in isolation but as one component of the national drug strategy, and it complements substantial new funding that has been allocated to the RCMP to bolster its capacity to target upper echelons involved in drug production and trafficking.

    A significant portion of this funding will be used to establish dedicated teams across the country to target and dismantle marijuana grow operations. I understand that the RCMP is now working with provinces and municipalities and their police forces to establish these teams in targeted high-risk areas.

    With respect to the possession of small amounts of cannabis, the Solicitor General is of the view that the status quo is inadequate. There is strong support for the concept of a ticketing regime as a useful and needed tool for law enforcement to deal with cases of small amounts of cannabis possession. And I understand you have received a letter from the presidents of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and the Canadian Professional Police Association where they outline in some detail their views, their position on the ticketing concept as well as the proposed sentencing provisions of the bill. I would urge you to hear from these associations early in your deliberations, as they're in the best position to articulate those perspectives with which the Solicitor General has encouraged them to come forward in this process.

    I'll just conclude by saying thank you very much for the opportunity to comment on Bill C-38.

½  (1900)  

    The Chair: Thanks, Ms. Hassard.

    Before I go any further, thanks to all of you for appearing on rather short notice. We really appreciate that.

    Did anybody else want to make an opening statement? Linda?

    Ms. Linda Dabros (Special Advisor to the Director General, Drug Strategy and Controlled Substances Programme, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch, Department of Health): Good evening. I am special adviser to Beth Pieterson, who is the director general of the drug strategy and controlled substances program in Health Canada. Ms. Pieterson is unable to attend; therefore, I'm pleased to be here on her behalf to discuss the implications of Bill C-38 on the activities of Health Canada.

    Most health effects of cannabis use are related to smoking as a means of ingestion potentially resulting in damage to the respiratory system. Also, cannabis use may be particularly problematic for certain high-risk populations. For example, cannabis use may trigger psychotic episodes among people who already have, or are at high risk for, schizophrenia.

    I'll mention the research being undertaken in Canada in a moment. We are also aware of research on the effects of cannabis reform on consumption levels in other countries. For example, the 2000 report in the Journal of Public Health Policynoted that there was no evidence that decriminalization of cannabis in South Australia caused an increase in use. The 2001 report from the committee of the U.S. National Research Council noted that the effect of decriminalization of marijuana use has been widely studied. Most cross-state comparisons found no significant difference in marijuana consumption in decriminalized and non-decriminalized states. Nevertheless, many of the negative health consequences of cannabis are well known and, where possible, should be prevented or reduced irrespective of Bill C-38.

    With the Government of Canada's announcement of $245 million for a renewed and comprehensive drug strategy, we are now in a position to take some measures to deal with this and other substance abuse issues. Building on progress to date, the strategy will emphasize education, prevention, and health promotion initiatives as well as enhance enforcement measures to which my colleague referred.

    I need to stress that this is a horizontal file, and as my colleague has noted, the federal cannabis reform bill is an integral part of this comprehensive strategy.

    Since the announcement in May 2003, progress has been made on a number of fronts. For example, with the assistance of the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, we are obtaining new prevalence data on drug use in Canada, including marijuana use. This will update baseline data that was obtained in 1994.

    This kind of research and information will enable us to make policy and program decisions that are firmly rooted in evidence. We have also started work on a public education campaign for the renewed strategy. The first phase of this campaign will focus on marijuana and youth.

    In developing this public education campaign, we are ensuring that the appropriate qualitative and quantitative research is being undertaken. The results of this research will guide us in the development of our messaging and how those messages will be delivered.

    We have begun developing consistent messaging on a number of themes: one, the serious health effects of prolonged or heavy use of marijuana; two, the dangers of driving while in a drugged state; three, that marijuana possession continues to be illegal.

    Since this first phase of the public education campaign will focus on youth, you may be interested in knowing that qualitative research that we have recently conducted on 12- to 19-year-olds, done over the Internet, shows us that marijuana has gone mainstream and is well integrated into teen lifestyle. There is denial, confusion, and lack of information about health effects, changes in legislation, and medical marijuana. Most teens think they will only use marijuana for a short time and that smoking pot is not addictive. Teens want to be respected for the choices they make; they react negatively to those who might judge them; and last, they believe that harm reduction campaigns need to focus on the realities, facts, and statistics about marijuana.

    The quantitative research, which was a survey of 1,250 youth, is currently being analyzed. Questions on frequency of use, reasons for smoking, views on the level of danger associated with selected activities--for example, driving--and questions on the dangers of various drugs such as marijuana, tobacco, and alcohol were asked.

    It appears that over 50% of Canadian youth between the ages of 16 and 19 have tried marijuana more than once, that the main reasons teens smoke are, one, out of curiosity, 18%; or two, because their friends use it, 20%.

    We also looked at comparable communications campaigns, those designed to prevent drug and cannabis use in 19 countries and one U.S. state, California. Of these, we have 10 synopses and detailed documentation on four major campaigns done in Australia, England, the U.S., and France. Analysis continues, but what stands out to date is that most jurisdictions have an integrated drug campaign and are not just focused on cannabis.

½  (1905)  

    Positioning cannabis is a challenge when perceptions may be that it is harmless. A number of countries acknowledge youth experimentation and provide detailed credible information.

    As I mentioned earlier, this is a horizontal file and we are working collaboratively with our federal partners and key stakeholders in developing the public education campaign. This kind of collaboration and consultation is essential.

    You may recall that Ministers McLellan, Cauchon, and Easter are committed to a biennial conference as part of the drug strategy. This is to ensure that the strategy remains reflective of, and responsive to, community concerns. Clearly, marijuana use, especially from a health impact perspective, will be a topic for ongoing discussion.

    I hope this has given you a sense of Health Canada's role, particularly as it applies to Bill C-38 within the context of Canada's renewed drug strategy.

    Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Cormier.

    For the benefit of my colleagues, when we have the opening statements, then we can ask the guests if they would like to grab a piece of pizza and head back to their chairs, and then I'll get all of you guys. We'll probably take a five-minute break.

    Mr. Terry Cormier (Director, International Crime Division, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade): I'll make a very short opening statement, then.

    The Chair: Yes, you're between them and the pizza.

    Mr. Terry Cormier: I'll begin, first of all, by saying thank you for the opportunity to appear before you this evening with my colleagues from the other ministries.

    This is an international issue. There are international dimensions to this problem, and that means the Department of Foreign Affairs has an interest here. Our interests are several.

    First, there is the international legal architecture that is designed around the drug policy issues. There are three international conventions.

    We just had a visit to Canada this past June from the executive director of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, and the members of the INCB, the International Narcotics Control Board, have just completed a visit to Canada, which is a part of the regular program the INCB undertakes.

    The INCB members came misinformed. They came with incorrect information as to our legislation. They were still thinking legalization. After having been properly briefed about our legislation, the intent of our legislation and the realities of our legislation, in sessions they had with us last week, their assessment is that our legislation is entirely in compliance with our international obligations, which of course has been our assessment from the beginning. We would not, I think, as a country have proposed legislation if we had had any risk of not being in compliance with our international obligations.

    Obviously there are other dimensions in terms of our political relationships, and reference has been made to the importance of the Canada-U.S dimension to this issue. Let me say that on Canada-U.S. issues, the relationship that exists between our country and our friends and neighbours to the south is exemplary. It is the best bilateral relationship in the world in terms of dealing with public safety issues. This is recognized by the U.S. government. In the State Department publications, the cooperative relationship that we have with the United States is held out as a model, and it is, if you look at the relationships that exist between neighbours.

    I will close with those two comments, but those would be the two principal dimensions that involve the interests of my ministry.

½  (1910)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Cormier.

    Can I ask you if you would like to grab a piece of pizza. I'll suspend for five minutes.

½  (1911)  

---

½  (1916)  

    The Chair: Thank you. I'll resume the committee.

    The first questioner I have on my list is Mr. White. Mr. White, the microphone is yours.

    Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Mosley, is it fair to say that minor possession is 0 to 30 grams, with an option after 15 grams for a criminal record? Is that an accurate statement?

    Mr. Richard Mosley: I'm sorry, I'm not sure I caught the question.

    Mr. Randy White: Is it fair to say that we're talking about minor possession being 0 to 30 grams, with an option of a different penalty after 15 grams--but basically minor possession is 0 to 30 grams? Is that an accurate statement?

    Mr. Richard Mosley: I think so. The existing law covers 0 to 30 grams, and that is--

    Mr. Randy White: We're talking about this--

    Mr. Richard Mosley: I understand. By way of context, that is the minor possession offence at present. What's being proposed here is dividing that 15 grams--one for resin, but for Cannabis sativa, dividing that 15 grams.... Under 15 grams, a ticket would be the only option for enforcement, with a set fine. Between 15 and 30 grams, there would be the option of proceeding by way of the summary conviction offence, as in the current law.

    Mr. Randy White: Okay, I'm going to ask you again for my wording. Is it fair to say that 0 to 30 grams is a ticketable offence, with an option, at 15 grams and above, for a summons?

    Mr. Richard Mosley: Yes.

    Mr. Randy White: Thank you.

    Within that context, can you tell me approximately how many joints 20 grams would make on the street? Do you know?

    Mr. Richard Mosley: It depends on how it's rolled, whether it's a fatty or something else. It depends on whether it's all the bud or if it's loosely rolled.

    We've had demonstrated for us that 15 grams, not 20 grams, can be rolled into as many as 30 joints.

    Mr. Randy White: So if I use the quantity of 20 grams, it could be 40 joints.

½  (1920)  

    Mr. Richard Mosley: It could be, but I would caution that it depends on the nature of the product, on what you're buying, whether it's all buds, whether it's a mixture of buds, leaves, stems, twigs, whatever, whether other things are mixed in with it. We've normally relied on a range, and in that context we'd say that 20 to 40 grams would be the range you could get out of that amount.

    Mr. Randy White: Yes, that's the way I understand it as well. It's the size of it and the quality and that sort of thing.

    We've seen the THC component of marijuana increase over the years, and it's getting more sophisticated as years go by in the hybrids that come out of it. What happens down the road if we say 0 to 30 grams, for instance--we'll use 30 grams as the upper limit--but the THC component moves from 15 to 25 grams.

    Perhaps I should ask that of Linda, who may know more in that area.

    But you can see where I'm going. I'm concerned about not just the quantity but also the quality of the product increasing. And here we are setting a limit of some sort, whatever limit comes about, but the limit now is perhaps less potent than it will be down the road.

    I don't know who can best answer that.

    Mr. Richard Mosley: We may all take a shot at that one.

    We relied heavily on information collected by the RCMP in this regard and the analysis that has been done of a proportion of samples, a quantitative analysis by Health Canada. And this is a report that's available on the RCMP website, entitled Marijuana Cultivation in Canada: Evolution and Current Trends--November 2002.

    It's also one of the issues that we addressed when we went to Washington in July and met with U.S. officials, researchers, and the representatives. There's a lot of myths about the potency level. It's undeniable that the potency has increased in terms of the average amount that is available today, but there are some suggestions that, for example, B.C. bud is the only cannabis available on the market and that this is all up at the high end of the spectrum.

    The quantitative analysis indicated that this simply was not the case, that the average potency level was hovering around 6%. Certainly there are occasions when it can be found to be higher, and it has been found as high as, say, 25% on rare occasions. Certainly what was coming to the attention of Health Canada through that analysis didn't support the premise that what was available on the market today was as high as people thought. That was one of the misconceptions we wanted to address when we visited Washington.

    Perhaps my colleagues may want to add to that. Linda, do you have anything?

    Ms. Linda Dabros: Well, I do have some current statistics. We've carried out 15,500 analyses of marijuana and we have found only 52 exhibits that had a strength of 20% or more. The majority of exhibits had a THC level of 10% or less.

    Mr. Randy White: Okay, that's an analysis you undertook, but for certain, the people who are growing this stuff are trying to get the most potency out of this that they can possibly get, and I'm sure it will increase as years go by. One of my concerns is about increasing potency, and we're setting the standard at a certain number today but disregarding perhaps the potential potency.

    I do want to get in another question here, and perhaps I can get back to what I just asked you later, because I'm not quite through with it.

    I'm concerned about the maximum penalties. British Columbia is notorious for this in the courtrooms--virtually no penalty or minimal penalties. I didn't bring the material I wanted to for the committee members and you, because I wasn't in my office when I was called in. My concern is that putting penalties at a maximum does little good in most courtrooms today for this kind of stuff. It's just going to be minimum and there's no real change.

    Oftentimes governments will say, we're getting really tough here and we put the penalty to the maximum, and really it doesn't make a change at all. Now, you could say that's up to the courtrooms of the country, and perhaps that's right, but the reality of the real world out there is that judges today in many cases are saying, look, don't bother me with this stuff, because even 30 grams is low; get out of here. And I'm concerned about no minimums, that we're looking at maximums only, which really won't be effective.

½  (1925)  

    Mr. Richard Mosley: In terms of possession, what in effect is being proposed is a set fine, which would be the amount that is on the ticket, and that is what you would pay unless you wanted to go to the trouble of seeking a court hearing and arguing for a lesser amount.

    I understand what you're saying with regard to the production offences and the grow operations. That certainly has been a matter of some concern for the law enforcement community. Our own prosecutors are very frustrated by the lack of consistency in the penalties that are being handed down by the courts, and I would say particularly in the province of British Columbia, for the grow operations. Members of the Court of Appeal of British Columbia have even noted that there is no consistency in the sentencing decisions.

    One of the objectives of the bill is to send a signal to the courts that the large-scale commercial grow operations have to be treated more severely than the small-scale personal production that might come to the attention of the courts. I must say, however, that the department does not support the use of minimum sentences. That's based on extensive review of the empirical evidence and the research literature.

    We did a study recently with our provincial and territorial counterparts for ministers responsible for justice across the country, because of course, this question comes up repeatedly: what about mandatory minimum penalties? I think the research literature is quite conclusive that it does not achieve the objectives for which it is adopted. Particularly, most of the evidence in this area, and the drug area especially, has been from the American experience through the so-called “war on drugs”, and it has had little effect on the availability of the product on the market.

    There is a raft of very negative and adverse effects of mandatory minimum penalties, and one of the consequences is that the actors in the system attempt to evade those consequences by plea bargaining, by charging down, by finding the exercise of discretion is not applied by the court but is applied by the police and the prosecutors.

    So the conclusion of that study, the research, including a report in 1999 that looked at some 50 different empirical studies on mandatory minimums, was that they simply did not bear out the objectives for which they were adopted.

    For that reason, Mr. White, this is not something that the department would suggest the committee pursue in its review, but we do share your frustration over the lack of consistency. We hope that by moving the maximum penalty and structuring the offence.... This has been done with some success, we believe, in a number of the American jurisdictions where they distinguish between the production of small-scale amounts, which the courts will, I suspect, treat leniently, and the production of commercial-scale cannabis grow operations.

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. White.

    Ms. Hassard.

    Ms. Patricia Hassard: Madam Chairman, could I add something to that?

    From the Solicitor General's perspective, we believe this aspect of the bill is probably the most critical one, and that the differentiation among the penalties and the addition of a requirement that the judiciary consider aggravating factors and then describe in their decisions why imprisonment was not imposed if those aggravating factors are present is a novel way to approach the issue, which you're concerned about, and we're very supportive of that.

½  (1930)  

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Lee, and then Mr. Marceau--or do you want to go first?

[Translation]

    Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ): Okay.

[English]

    The Chair: I'm taking a list. Do you want to go that way? Okay.

[Translation]

    Mr. Richard Marceau: I thought that was how we were going to proceed.

    Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): … [Editor's Note: Inaudible]... Madam Chair.

[English]

    The Chair: Everyone will get a turn.

[Translation]

    Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I am asking a question...

[English]

    The Chair: That's okay. I knew you guys would want to get on.

    Would you like to go, Mr. Marceau?

[Translation]

    Mr. Richard Marceau: I don't mind, Madam Chair. I am a gentle and accommodating guy.

    The Chair: You have the floor, my friend, and you have 10 minutes.

    Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I object to this, Madam Chair. I think that it would be preferable to alternate, but that's my opinion.

[English]

    The Chair: The committee will decide how they would like to proceed, but I think we shouldn't waste any time on it. Would you like to flip a coin?

    Mr. Richard Marceau: He's such a nice guy.

    Derek, come on, go ahead.

    The Chair: All right, Mr. Lee, and then Mr. Marceau.

    Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): Thank you.

    In the line of questioning of Mr. White we seem to have covered off a lot of the territory. They were good questions, Mr. White, and good answers from the witnesses.

    I wanted to focus on a piece of the testimony that referred to the risks, the threats, that come from the grow operations. It appeared to me from what you were saying that the risks to the community, the risks present, relate more to the manner of growing, and the toxins and the mould, and the risk of fire and explosion, and the risks of dealing with stolen electricity. Those are the kinds of risks you were referring to, rather than any risk related to the nature of the marijuana itself. Did I take that correctly?

    Mr. Richard Mosley: No. If I may--and I'll invite Ms. Dabros' comment as well--the risks associated with the consumption of marijuana remain real. This is not a benign drug and it's certainly not something that we would want to suggest isn't significant. There are, however, certain very profound problems with the grow operations. You've listed a number of them. It is a public safety hazard, particularly where there have been hydroponic operations carried out in residential areas, but there are also other threats associated with grow operations--for example, in farmers' fields where traps have been set to harm people who may come across the grow operations.

    So that's a significant risk factor there, but certainly we would never want to suggest that consumption of marijuana is not a serious matter in itself.

    Linda.

    Ms. Linda Dabros: Absolutely.

    The Chair: Derek.

    Mr. Derek Lee: Thank you for that.

    This committee, or its immediate predecessor by the same name, provided a report. I don't think there's been a comprehensive government reply as of yet and I know it's in the pipeline. I'm sure it is.

    In any event, the elements of this legislation are pretty close, or analogous, to what this committee had discussed or recommended in our report so I, for one, am grateful for that. And I'm generally supportive, but one of the things we ran into immediately after we reported was public misconceptions about what was in our report.

    Part of the problem is, as you mentioned, a committee of the Senate of Canada had produced a report that called for legalization as opposed to what we're describing here as decriminalization. Can you indicate to us how any of the departments, meaning Health, Justice, Solicitor General, have dealt with those communications issues, the misconceptions that are both in Canadian society--and I won't blame anybody; let's just say they're out there--and also with reference to our closest neighbours, where there is constant back-and-forth chitchat across the border and misunderstanding there. Can you explain to the committee what you've done, if anything, to try to get the message correct?

½  (1935)  

    Mr. Paul Saint-Denis (Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice): I think the communications aspect of what we're trying to do is one of our greatest challenges. We are constantly having to deal with references to “decriminalization”. The problem with using that expression is that it means almost anything to a number of people. It can mean legalization. For some people it means no longer an illegal status associated with consumption. It means a great number of things. So we are constantly trying to set the record straight as to what it is we're doing.

    We've had these kinds of discussions within Canada and we've had these kinds of discussions outside of Canada. Certainly we've had these discussions with U.S. officials and U.S. administration representatives. We've had these discussions with colleagues from other countries. The fact is that I think part and parcel of what we are going to do with this proposal will be to deal with the communications aspect on the one hand. Also, the drug strategy will have a significant component dealing with the whole prevention element, of which a significant portion will be to remind Canadians that we are still dealing with an illegal substance. Not only is it a dangerous substance, not only are there risks to one's health, but it is and remains an illegal substance.

    I don't know if that answers your question.

    I don't know, Linda, if you want to comment.

    Ms. Patricia Hassard: Yes, just to add a couple of thoughts.

    I think Mr. Saint-Denis has covered the fact that we have been having discussions certainly with our international colleagues on this proposed legislation and what it means. But I did want to point out that I believe it is a bit uncertain in terms of how the law is in place right now because of the various court decisions that have occurred over the last, say, year or so. I would also point out that once this legislation is in place, if Parliament chooses to pass it, the police will be very good ambassadors in order to spread that message and to try to make it clear right across the country. As well, there has been some new money given to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for drug awareness purposes, where they go into the schools and talk to youth. So I think there are means by which this can be clarified and messages can be disseminated.

    Mr. Derek Lee: You may not have done this--and when the special committee was working earlier on this, I don't think we had any information on this, because it didn't exist--but by changing the procedure one would use to prosecute, or to charge, by switching it to the Contraventions Act and removing a piece, the small amount possession, from the Criminal Code, we had envisaged some cost savings within the justice system, let's call it some increased productivity--perhaps more charges, but more expeditious treatment of each of the offenders and the processing.

    Has the department done any projection as to what those cost savings might involve?

    Mr. Richard Mosley: Yes, what we have is the simple answer.

    The more complicated answer is that it's very difficult, in discussing the cost to the justice system, to arrive at any consensus as to whether there will be savings. We believe the experience in Australia, for example, does suggest that there will be savings to the administration of justice in the provinces from having fewer cases being processed through the courts. There will be marginal savings to the federal government with regard to prosecution costs. There may be marginal savings with respect to the provincial governments in particular and territorial governments from the occasional person who actually does get some jail time for simple possession of a small amount. But the most significant cost savings would be in the actual processing.

    But I must caution that I doubt the provincial governments would be prepared to accept that those savings will be found, simply because at this stage they would be reluctant to concede there would be savings to the provincial administrations.

    There are costs associated with the full implementation of the Contraventions Act, and certainly we have done projections about what those are. There was funding in the February budget, this year's budget, as well as last year's budget for rolling the Contraventions Act out across the remainder of the country in those jurisdictions where it is not currently in place. That has to do mainly with the delivery of official languages services in the western provinces and in the north.

½  (1940)  

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Monsieur Marceau.

[Translation]

    Mr. Richard Marceau: Thank you, Madam Chair.

    My first question is for Ms. Dabros. I apologize for being late.

    Unless I misunderstood, you said that your studies have shown that in jurisdictions where decriminalization has already been done, there has been no increase in the use of marijuana. Did I understand correctly what you have said?

[English]

    Ms. Linda Dabros: They didn't have. That's right.

[Translation]

    Mr. Richard Marceau: One of the arguments that is often put forward by those opposing the policy of decriminalization is that this sends a negative message, particularly to youth. That feeling is rather widespread. If I understand correctly what came out of the studies that you have mentioned, the idea that this sends a negative message is not a valid argument because there is no increase in marijuana use in the jurisdictions where simple possession has been decriminalized, compared with the jurisdictions where it is still criminalized. Is that a fair statement?

[English]

    Ms. Linda Dabros: The issue is that they could not attribute any change to the actual change in the law.

    Did you want to clarify that, Paul?

[Translation]

    Mr. Paul Saint-Denis: If you will allow me, I will be pleased to do so.

    It is true that you often hear it said that this would give young people the feeling that it is quite acceptable to use marijuana. I don't know if you took note of these statistics quoted by Ms. Dabros, but recent surveys have shown that about 50% of youth have tried marijuana at least once. If there are already 50% of youth who are trying it, either for experimenting or otherwise, I fail to see how we could convey a message that would persuade an even greater number of youth to do so, whatever we may do in this area.

    On the other hand, as you have said, the experience in other countries indicates that there doesn't seem to be any increase in the general use after some form of decriminalization. It is difficult to believe that the message perceived by these youth would be that it is acceptable to smoke more than before, given that there doesn't seem to be any increase in use.

    Mr. Richard Marceau: So the main result of decriminalizing simple possession of marijuana is to remove a sort of stigma that could be linked to it, including the criminal record for a youth who is experimenting with marijuana. In most cases, as you said earlier, the youth is experimenting or doing it because all his friends are doing so.

    So that is the main effect of decriminalizing marijuana. The rap on the knuckles will not be out of proportion with an offence that is, all considered, a minor one. In a nutshell, that is what it's all about, isn't it?

½  (1945)  

    Mr. Paul Saint-Denis: That's exactly it, although personally, I would be reluctant to use the phrase “decriminalize“, because it conveys a confusing message. But I do believe that your analysis is correct and that, essentially, the result will be that this offence will no longer be subjected to criminal procedure. It will rather be processed in a quasi administrative fashion.

    Mr. Richard Marceau: I think all will agree that production and trafficking are among the main problems that we are attempting to solve, given that trafficking and production are often controlled by organized crime.

    By increasing the penalties imposed to a small producer, including someone who is growing only one plant for personal use—we all know such a person, except perhaps Randy—are we not forcing the occasional small user to buy his stuff on the black market and to give his money to organized crime?

    Why have we not allowed growing one plant in order to be consistent with the purpose of the bill and to avoid the user being criminalized and punished rather harshly for an offence that, after all, is a very minor one?

    M. Paul Saint-Denis: That is a very relevant question. You will note, however, that we have really increased penalties for significant grow operations, that is for cultivation of 25 plants or more. For small growers, meaning the people who are growing pot for personal purposes, we have reduced the maximum number of plants allowed. For one to three plants, I believe it is 12 months and $1,000.

    Mr. Richard Marceau: Why not remove any penalty for only one plant?

    M. Paul Saint-Denis: That is something that we have considered. One of the problems is that, depending on the species cultivated, the production circumstances and the skills of the gardener, some plants may produce up to three or even four pounds of marijuana, or almost one and a half kilo.

    Mr. Richard Marceau: In how much time?

    M. Paul Saint-Denis: In three or four months. That is a lot of marijuana. We were so concerned by this that we have chosen not to go down this path.

[English]

    Mr. Richard Mosley: Could I just add one point? You could not decriminalize production of even one plant without running into difficulty with the international conventions to which we are signatories. That is, you could not take it out of the legal framework entirely. That does not preclude the possibility that the same approach of ticketing could not be applied to one plant. It would still have to remain an offence.

[Translation]

    Mr. Richard Marceau: What you are saying is interesting, Mr. Mosley, and I want to make sure that I fully understand.

    You are saying if possession of one plant, instead of being a Criminal Code offence, could be subjected to something similar to what is being proposed in Bill C-38 for possession of 0 to 15 grams, namely a contravention giving rise to a ticket, that would comply with international conventions that are binding for Canada.

[English]

    Mr. Richard Mosley: Yes.

[Translation]

    Mr. Richard Marceau: Okay.

    By leaving it up to police officers to choose the potential punishment for possession of 15 to 30 grams, are we not giving them too much discretionary power, especially that we have been told many times that one of the problems was the “regional” enforcement of the law? In a large urban centre, the police officer has a tendancy to turn a blind eye and to merely advise the person not to do it again, while in a more remote setting, the police officer will have a tendency to deal more harshly with first offenders, because it may not be as widespread.

½  (1950)  

[English]

    Mr. Richard Mosley: I'm going to try to duck a straight answer to your question, simply because I think that's really a question of policy that this committee may want to consider or may want to put to the minister at one point.

    Let me say we were somewhat surprised when we started to look at the actual practice, because over the years we had been told that simple possession was not a priority for enforcement and that generally the simple possession charges were only laid in conjunction with other criminal activity and other charges that were laid against the individual. But as we looked at the actual statistics, that clearly was not the case. In the majority of instances, the simple possession charge was laid independent of any other criminal offence, or it was, in many cases, the most serious offence that was charged against the person: possession of under 30 grams.

    The distribution of the charging practices caused concerns about the inequity of the enforcement practices. Frankly, as I think you're all aware, if you get found in possession in any of the urban centres of Canada, the chances of your actually getting charged are remote. It doesn't happen in downtown Montreal, downtown Ottawa, Vancouver, Toronto, or wherever. But if you're found in possession in rural Canada or small-town Canada, your chances of being charged are much higher.

    The issue of discretion is one on which I know we part company with our friends in the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and the Canadian Professional Police Association. They very strongly believe discretion should be retained with individual officers on the beat, but the conclusion reached was that in order to effect a real change in enforcement practices and to make it more consistent, that discretion had to be removed at least for the smaller amounts of possession.

    The experience, however, in Australia has certainly been that one of the changes that will result is that more tickets will be issued. There will be more enforcement--I don't think there's any doubt about that--but we believe it may be more consistent enforcement. You won't find, as you do now, that possession has a blind eye turned toward it in the urban centres.

    At most, the substance may be seized, ground into the street, or whatever. We know that in perhaps only 50% of those reported contacts with the police do they take any formal action. We have no way of knowing, of course, in how many instances the police simply turn a blind eye and do not report that they have observed somebody in possession of cannabis.

[Translation]

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Mr. Bélanger.

    Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to follow on the line of the questioning of my colleague Mr. Marceau.

    Earlier, when Mr. White asked his questions on the potency of the drug itself and said that there had been an increase of one of its components, Ms. Dabros, you said that studies had been done on several thousands, or even dozens of thousands of plants that had been seized. Are we doing similar studies on the size of plants that are confiscated? Mr. Mosley said earlier that one plant could produce up to one kilogram of marijuana. Do we know the average size of the plants that are seized?

½  (1955)  

    M. Paul Saint-Denis: To my knowledge, we have never done this kind of studies, but if you go to Web sites promoting the sales of marijuana seeds, you will see that some plants can produce up to 900 grams or one kilogram of cannabis, while others produce much less. It all depends on the circumstances. A plant grown outside produces more that a plant that is grown inside.

    Mr. Mauril Bélanger: At some point, they will have to make holes in the floor.

    M. Paul Saint-Denis: That's right. Some plants can grow up to 10 or 11 feet high. So, to our knowledge, there are no studies of this kind.

    Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I want to fully understand this. For possession of 15 to 30 grams, it would be discretionary, but it could be either a contravention or prosecution, is that right? If a ticket is issued, there is no criminal record. For 15 grams or less, there is no discretionary power; it is a contravention and there is no criminal record.

    The fines imposed for possession of 15 grams or less are $150. Am I right to think that they are $100 for a youth, except in some circumstances, for example if the youth is driving a car, an aircraft or a boat, and if there are other offences? In such a case, the fines would be $400 and $250.

    For growing one to three plants, is there any possibility of deciding between issuing a ticket or laying charges?

    Mr. Paul Saint-Denis: No, it is a criminal offence pure and simple; in other words, the Contraventions Act would not apply.

    Mr. Mauril Bélanger: In the case of someone who is growing one plant of marijuana that could potentially produce 15 grams, for example, that person would be charged and would have a criminal record if found guilty. What would then be the amount of the fine?

    Mr. Paul Saint-Denis: The fine could go up to $5,000.

    Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Five thousand dollars?

    Mr. Paul Saint-Denis: Yes, but that all depends on...

    Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Let me finish. Would that person be imprisoned as well?

    Mr. Paul Saint-Denis: Yes.

    Mr. Mauril Bélanger: For how long?

    Mr. Paul Saint-Denis: Up to 12 months.

    Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I want to understand.

    It is proposed in the bill that for 15 grams or less, for personal use, the maximum fine in the most severe conditions would be $400 and there would be no criminal record. But if the same person is caught growing one plant, he or she is liable to a prison term of up to one year, a $5,000 fine and a criminal record. Is that correct?

    Mr. Paul Saint-Denis: That is your question?

    Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I want to know if I understood correctly what is being proposed in the legislation.

    Mr. Paul Saint-Denis: Yes, that's correct.

    Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I believe you now understand where I'm coming from.

    It was said earlier that up to 50% of Canadians have already tried marijuana. Do we have an idea of the approximate number of Canadians who are regular users? Do we have an estimation?

    The Chair: We will find that number for you.

    Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Are we wrong in saying that 100,000 Canadians are regular users?

    Mr. Paul Saint-Denis: I cannot tell you how many regular users there are.

    Mr. Mauril Bélanger: But can we say that there are many of them?

    Mr. Paul Saint-Denis: Yes, there are many of them.

    Mr. Mauril Bélanger: So if they want to continue in their habit, they will have to get their marijuana from criminals, because it will become riskier to grow it at home. Is that not what we are telling people with this bill?

    Mr. Paul Saint-Denis: No, I do not believe so. You have chosen the example that serves you best by using maximums. But in fact, if someone was caught growing one plant, especially a smaller plant that would produce about 15 grams of marijuana for personal use, it is very likely that this individual would not be charged with cultivation, but rather possession.

¾  (2000)  

    Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I understand that, but my job is not to guess what the judge or the police officer would do. My job is to create a legislative framework and you cannot tell me that I am wrong in giving such an interpretation of the legislative framework that I have before me.

    Mr. Paul Saint-Denis: No.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Is my time finished already?

    The Chair: Yes, sorry.

    Mr. Mauril Bélanger: One last question?

    The Chair: You're pushing me.

    Mr. Mauril Bélanger: One last question, please? You're wonderful, Paddy.

    The Chair: You don't have to do that.

    Quickly, your last question.

[Translation]

    Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I missed the beginning of your presentation, Mr. Mosley. Does the government intend to introduce amendments to the bill?

[English]

    The Chair: It's up to this committee to decide.

[Translation]

    Mr. Mauril Bélanger: But it is a government bill. Does the government intend to introduce amendments to it?

[English]

    The Chair: It's up to the minister.

    Mr. Richard Mosley: I think you've probably all noted that the Minister of Justice indicated a short while ago that he was open to amendments to this bill. That was, of course, one of the reasons it was referred to the committee prior to second reading, but I'm not in a position at this point here this evening to suggest amendments to the bill.

    The Chair: Merci beaucoup.

    Just before I turn to Ms. Davies, I just want to clarify to M. Saint-Denis, if you have one plant, it's a summary conviction. That doesn't mean you necessarily have a criminal record.

    Mr. Paul Saint-Denis: You do.

    The Chair: No, you do not. It's a summary conviction.

    Could you just clarify the rules here?

    Mr. Richard Mosley: You have to be very careful about this, because the problem is that there is no standard definition of “criminal record”. There is a Criminal Records Act. Unfortunately, even that isn't terribly helpful on this point.

    You do not get put onto the CPIC national database, generally speaking, when you are convicted of a summary conviction offence. You can be on there if you have other convictions already recorded or your conviction for the summary conviction offence is linked to indictable convictions that are registered at the same time. However, there is a record in the local constabulary, a record in the crown attorney's office, and a record in the local courthouse.

    So I think one has to be careful to suggest that it is not a criminal record. There are certainly records kept of the conviction.

    The Chair: Okay, thank you.

    Ms. Davies. I apologize for cutting in there. It was an important point.

    Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): As long as you didn't use my time.

    The Chair: I did not use yours. I probably used Paul Macklin's, but don't worry about it.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    Ms. Libby Davies: First of all, thank you for coming.

    Like everybody else, I'm trying to understand the logic of the bill from the government's point of view, because that's where it was introduced. I think Mr. Saint-Denis said earlier that the message is confusing, even around decriminalization, and then Mr. Mosley said that clearly this bill is about more enforcement, but it's also about more consistency, from your point of view.

    I have three questions.

    In terms of enforcement, I remember the day the bill was introduced and we had the briefing. You were very clear that it was more enforcement. I think what we've seen in the bill is that there's a widening of the net in terms of this fine system. The question I have around this is, from the government's point of view and the logic of what you're trying to do here, are increased enforcement and/or consistency, whether through the fines or the other measures, something you see as a deterrent? Is that something you actually see as lowering consumption?

    I think there's a very key question here as to whether there's any evidence that using the Criminal Code and law enforcement actually solves the issue of whatever we believe to be the problem around drug use. What evidence is there that the measures you're proposing are actually a deterrent, that they will lower consumption?

    Second, on the issue of criminal records, which I think is very important, if somebody ends up in a database, even if it's not a “criminal record”, what assurance do we have that this information is not going to be shared with, for example, U.S. authorities? Right now I have constituents who, for minor possession, have criminal records and cannot go across the U.S. border. I think there are huge issues around what these records actually will be. So could you answer what the sharing of that information will be?

    Also, why has there been no provision around amnesty? I think there are something like 600,000 Canadians who currently have records for simple possession and are really feeling the punitive effects of those records.

    Third, if there's time to follow up on Mr. Bélanger's question, from the logic of this bill, why is there a measure of decriminalization, if I can use that word, around possession but not around cultivation? You're saying to go beyond that would be in violation of these international agreements. Okay, that's another debate for another day. But even on the same basis as possession, this committee, in its earlier life, did recommend some measure of decriminalization for cultivation. The government chose not to take that up. I'd like to know why and what the logic of that is.

¾  (2005)  

    Mr. Richard Mosley: I would certainly not want to suggest that the evidence would support a significant deterrent effect from charging and prosecution or the issuance of ticketing. Certainly that wasn't the case, for example, in the early 1970s, when the rate of consumption of marijuana in Canada rose very high. It was at that time a straight indictable offence, and that did not discourage Canadians, particularly youth, from experimenting with or consuming it on a regular basis.

    We do believe there is more to be gained from the education and awareness programs the government is funding as part of the comprehensive strategy. There is some evidence--and this is one point on which I would agree with John Walters--that consumption rates do decline when you inform people about the health effects of consuming marijuana and that this is perhaps the best way to discourage use. The reality is, however, that we have signed on to these international conventions to help control the production, trafficking, sale, and use of cannabis around the world, and that requires that it remain an offence.

    The reality is also that if you want to send a message, I think, to young persons that they shouldn't begin to consume it, it should remain illegal as part of that overall strategy. It has to be part of the strategy along with the awareness and education programs.

    Now, on the question of sharing with the United States, the Contraventions Act as it reads today provides that if you're convicted of a contravention, it is deemed not to be a criminal offence. So the practical effect of the issuance of a contravention ticket as opposed to prosecuting somebody through the normal process today is that this will not be treated as a criminal conviction. There is no provision at present that I'm aware of for sharing contravention information with any other country, including the United States.

    On the question of an amnesty, there are mechanisms in place that allow people who have been convicted of summary conviction offences to apply for pardons--

    Ms. Libby Davies: On an individual basis.

    Mr. Richard Mosley: On an individual basis, that's right. It was a policy decision of the government to rely on that amnesty mechanism, which is in place. It's virtually automatic for anyone who wants one who has been convicted of a summary conviction offence.

    We don't know what the effects of an amnesty would be. How far back do you go? Do you go back to the changes in 1994 that provided for the summary conviction offence? Do you go right back to 1961, I think it was, when the last major changes were made? How do you distinguish between people who are perhaps involved in serious criminality? That kind of decision-making can be more effectively made through the pardon application process.

    I think we've already addressed the cultivation issue through the questions asked by several of the other members of the committee. I'm not sure we could add anything new.

¾  (2010)  

    Ms. Libby Davies: I'm not sure you did, though, because you said we couldn't get into cultivation because of these international agreements. But it could be done on the same basis as possession, in terms of a measure of decriminalization for personal use, as this committee recommended.

    Why did the government choose not to do that? It seems a strange contradiction. You know, it forces people to go and buy illegally, yet on the basis of personal use, under a certain amount, you'll end up with a fine. So there's a contradiction there.

    Mr. Richard Mosley: I'm not in a position to either agree or disagree with you as to whether there is a contradiction in logic. Now, this was a choice made by the government. It's a policy matter. We're here to explain what's in the bill, not to account for those decisions.

    Ms. Libby Davies: Do I have a little bit more time?

    The Chair: One minute.

    Ms. Libby Davies: Just to clarify, then--

    Mr. Richard Mosley: My colleague has something to add.

    Mr. Paul Saint-Denis: I would comment, with respect to amnesty, that one of the things we have to appreciate is that the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act created a new regime for a possession offence. Prior to the implementation of this legislation, we had just a general possession offence, and it dealt with any amounts that police chose to target and lay a charge of possession for. So it was possible for people to be charged with possession of a pound, or two kilos, depending on where you were in the country. The new regime, where we're talking now about 30 grams or under, dealt with a very small amount. So by giving amnesty to everyone who has ever been charged with possession, we would never know whether or not we were targeting people who were much higher than 30 grams.

    Ms. Libby Davies: Then how would you know through an individual thing, then? How would you know differently?

    Mr. Paul Saint-Denis: The individual may have to indicate.

    Ms. Libby Davies: You can't separate out records?

    Mr. Richard Mosley: They would apply in respect of a specific conviction, and I'm not sure that the process would allow for that determination to be made. You're quite right.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. White.

    Mr. Randy White: I do apologize, I do have to go. I didn't know we were going to sit this late and I have some people waiting. I apologize to the witnesses for leaving. There were very good responses to the questions.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    There could be other MPs who might have to leave because of the late start. I appreciate that.

    Ms. Libby Davies: How late are we going to go?

    The Chair: Could we stop at 8:30?

    I think I should be able to get through. I have Mr. Macklin, Dr. Fry, and then we might get a second round.

    Mr. Macklin.

    Mr. Paul Harold Macklin (Northumberland, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, witnesses.

    One of the questions that I'm thinking about here is, is it possible that a grown plant would not be more than 30 grams? Can you give me an answer to that?

    In other words, I'm trying to get to the idea of why we start identifying plants being up to three within the legislation, because, in fact, wouldn't one plant, if I had it in my possession and it didn't have a weight of more than 30 grams, be defined as simple possession whether it was in a bag or whether it was in a flower pot?

    Mr. Richard Mosley: I don't think we're really qualified to answer that question.

    I can tell you that in the Christiana district of Copenhagen I saw openly displayed on market stalls plants that ranged from four inches high to six feet tall. I gather that in the open air they can grow ten feet or more. In the hydroponically grown conditions, the object there, I suppose, is to increase potency as opposed to height. So they try to control the height in the growing culture.

    So there's an enormous variation in these plants, and it's really difficult for us, because we're not botanists and we're not trained in these sciences, to give you a straight answer on that question.

¾  (2015)  

    Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: It appears there might be in theory the ability to have a plant growing in my home that wouldn't have more than 30 grams of weight to it. Yet, if it's in a bag, I get a much lesser penalty than I would if in fact it was growing in a flower pot. I find that difficult to rationalize.

    Mr. Richard Mosley: I understand that you're having difficulty. That was the thrust of Mr. Bélanger's questions as well.

    I think we can say with some confidence that it's very unlikely that a police officer would charge someone with production for one plant. There may be circumstances surrounding who that person is; if it's a biker who is involved in other criminality they may be inclined to do that, but I would expect that they would exercise their discretion to charge possession and simple possession, and perhaps even possession below the level of 15 grams, and issue a ticket if they took action on that one plant. That's always open to them.

    I would expect that certainly among my colleagues who prosecute these matters, if an officer showed up with a charge for production of one plant, they would likely say, get out of here, I'm not wasting the court's time or my own time to pursue that case. There are going to be circumstances in which they will. If they go into a known target's home and it's the only charge they can lay against that person, there's a very good chance that they will charge that person with production of that one plant. But for the average person it's highly unlikely.

    Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Going to a different area, part of the reason, or at least the theory of the case, seems to be that we're going to a regime of this nature because it's simplified. Officers won't feel any major problem concerning their time and effort by just writing a ticket, yet when we're dealing with a youth, it requires a notification of parents. Is this not going to be a deterrent in some respects for an officer to issue a ticket to a youth?

    Mr. Richard Mosley: Very much so. I would expect that would be, in fact, more of a deterrent to the youth than the fine that is attached to the ticket.

    Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: I'm suggesting it might be a deterrent to the officer laying the charge, because now he has this other problem of having to locate a parent for the purposes of service.

    Mr. Richard Mosley: I'm sorry. Yes, however, that is a requirement of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, and we would expect that officers will become quite accustomed to doing this as a matter of course. When they're dealing with youth, if they are going to proceed with charges or to take any other formal action against the youth, notification of the parent or guardian will be part of that process.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Ms. Hassard.

    Ms. Patricia Hassard: I would add one thought. In our consultations with the police community surrounding this bill, I would say that they look forward to having the ability to do that and this would be seen by them as an effective means of dealing with the real problem. This is another alternative for them.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    How about this? I have Ms. Fry for five minutes, and then you can each have two and a half extra minutes. That will bring us to 8:30 p.m. You can go right after each other.

    Dr. Fry.

    Hon. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.): Actually, I suppose Paul Macklin and everyone else has been asking the same question, which is really, for me, that this issue of the plant creates such an inconsistency and gives such a mixed message. So we're back to the old plant.

    I'm not going to ask you the question. You've answered it over and over. But I want to point out that I think it is an inconsistency. I know you're saying it's highly likely, but we're back again to suggesting that the bill is going to make more consistent the ability for police to be able to deal with the issue across the board, whether it be in a rural area or an urban area, in the same way. It's still going to be inconsistent, because you still leave it up to the police officer with regard to the plant while you don't leave it up to the police officer with regard to the cannabis in a bag. I don't know, you are the lawyers, but to me, that could cause a lot of problems down the road for you.

    Coming from the committee that originally recommended that this option be taken, I do want to ask Health Canada a question, because I know there is a huge problem with the smoking of cannabis--not the cannabis per se, but the smoking of it--that there is a larger amount of tar and benzopyrenes in cannabis when smoked than is in tobacco right now. There is a huge anti-tobacco effort going. How are you going to be consistent with the message? The minute this bill is passed, will that message be going out, loudly and clearly, that this is dangerous because of the tar and the benzopyrenes, that this is on a par with tobacco? Because if you don't do that, again there will be an inconsistency. While I agree with it, there is that huge problem. I know the medical profession is really concerned about that particular piece of the problem.

¾  (2020)  

    Ms. Linda Dabros: Absolutely, and Health Canada is very much concerned about the issue around the health impacts, in particular because of smoking. Our public education campaigns, on which we have begun to do research, as I mentioned earlier, will examine the best way to get those messages out and we will learn also from the experience of the rather successful tobacco program, which has targeted youth as well.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Is there anybody else?

    That was so good. Do you have another quick question?

    Hon. Hedy Fry: Yes, I have a very quick one.

    We talked about the international conventions, etc., and that one of the problems about the plant has to do with the convention. I want to know if the Netherlands are in contravention of the convention, because when we were in the Netherlands we found that it not only had coffee shops but it also had the ability for people to grow a couple of plants in their houses and it never did see that as a problem. Is the Netherlands in violation of the contravention? If it is not, why can't we simplify the plant issue here?

    The Chair: Mr. Mosley.

    Mr. Terry Cormier: I'll take a stab at it. As I understand the regime in the Netherlands, the possession of cannabis remains a criminal offence. Simple possession of cannabis is a criminal offence; it's simply not applied. And I would assume the same with respect to the growing of several plants—that it is a criminal offence, but the law is not applied. And in that regime, the Netherlands remains in compliance with its international obligations.

    Hon. Hedy Fry: It's far more open than that in the Netherlands. We were told that you could grow two plants at your house. That is why we looked at that model very clearly. And the coffee shop is like a liquor store. You can go in, you can sit down, you can buy your joints, you can use it there, or you can eat the cake or you can do what you want. It's a shop and it's licensed, etc. So I just wondered about that, that's all.

    Mr. Richard Mosley: It's a regime of tolerance. Mr. Cormier was suggesting the law remains on the books. So long as it remains on the books, they are not technically in violation of the conventions.

    Several of the other European countries have adopted a similar approach—Germany, for example. Although there, the constitutional court went so far as to say you should not enforce the law for simple possession of small amounts of cannabis. As a result, they don't. But Germany remains in conformity with the conventions, because the offence is still on their statute books.

    There is one point that a colleague on the sidelines reminded me of that I should have made with respect to questions from your colleagues, but you also alluded to it. The officer would, in fact, retain the discretion to charge, if the pot were in a bag as opposed to on the stem, if the amount were in excess of 15 grams. At 15 to 30 grams, the discretion is still there to charge under the offence, as it is currently set out in the books. And, of course, above 30 grams, that is the only action the officer could take, if he chose to charge.

    Hon. Hedy Fry: But we couldn't we do the same thing as Germany and not enforce?

    The Chair: Okay. Thank you.

    Hon. Hedy Fry: That's all.

    The Chair: Okay.

    Mr. Marceau, you have one question, and Ms. Davies.

[Translation]

    Mr. Richard Marceau: Ms. Dabros said earlier that a significant percentage of youth are smoking pot with their friends. It was said as well that 15 grams could represent some 30 joints, and finally that we would not decriminalize the traficquing. So these are the three premises.

    So let us imagine a youth who is going to a party and has with him a small amount, for example 15 grams or some 30 joints. At the party, he shares this amount with his friends, and he is liable to being charged with traficquing, even though the drug have been given as a gift in a setting of occasional use. On the one hand, growing one plant constitutes a problem, and Mr. Bélanger alluded to it far more eloquently than I have. On the other hand, each of the youth does not come equipped with his own packet of 30 grams; rather, it is one of the youth who is offering it to everyone else. In such a situation, this youth could be charged with traficquing and would then be liable to spend five years less one day in prison.

    Would there not be a way to change the scope of the word “traficquing” in order to avoid this youth having more problems that he deserves?

¾  (2025)  

    Mr. Paul Saint-Denis: Indeed, the definition of the term “traficquing” includes the word “gift”. In the case at hand, the issue is determining what is really happening. In some circumstances, it is a gift pure and simple, while in other cases, it could be an apparent gift that is followed by some form of payment.

    During an investigation, it is very difficult for a police officer to distinguish between the two situations. That is one of the reasons why we have included the word “gift” in the definition. In this way, police officers are called upon, up to a certain point, to use their judgment. If there are only a few joints and no other aggravating circumstances, it is quite possible that the police officer would only charge the person with possession and not traficquing.

    Mr. Richard Marceau: So it is discretionary.

[English]

    The Chair: Madame Davies.

    Ms. Libby Davies: I want to come back to the fines, because I think there's been acknowledgement that there's not really any evidence that fines as a deterrent are going to lower consumption. They're there simply to show that these substances still are illegal, while meeting international obligations—although this is contrary to what happens in the Netherlands.

    The other question is, how much money will increased enforcement through fines generate? Has there been any estimation of what kind of revenue it will generate for various law enforcement authorities? Somebody must have done a little bit of calculating.

    Mr. Richard Mosley: The law enforcement authorities, of course, don't get the fine revenue. It accrues to the jurisdiction that is responsible for the prosecution of the offence. Normally in drug cases, for example, the Government of Canada gets the fine revenue, because we prosecute these cases.

    With respect to the fines resulting from contraventions, we are currently engaged in discussions with the provinces on that point, as to where the revenues would go.

    Ms. Libby Davies: I didn't say where they would go, just how much would be collected. We can sort out later where it would go. What's the cumulative estimate of what will actually be generated?

    Mr. Richard Mosley: It will, of course, depend on how many contraventions are issued. I think you can do the math....

    Ms. Libby Davies: I'd need a calculator, then.

    The Chair: We'll do it after.

    Ms. Libby Davies: But he should know.

    The Chair: No, he'll do it after.

    Mr. Richard Mosley: The costs of processing the contravention will of course have to be taken into account, and that will reduce the actual net amount, depending whether costs are added to the fine. Some of the provinces currently are adding costs to the contravention tickets they are processing. There are about 2,000 federal offences that are currently prosecutable by contraventions, and in the Atlantic provinces through Quebec and Ontario the practice varies as to how much is added to the fine to recover the cost of processing. I think in Ontario it is about $5.

    Mr. Paul Saint-Denis: Yes, or $4.

¾  (2030)  

    Mr. Richard Mosley: It's $4 or $5. In Quebec, I believe it's around $28. It's not entirely clear to us that those amounts actually cover the entire cost of processing the tickets.

    Ms. Libby Davies: That's not really the question, though. It's rather, what is the net income—

    Mr. Richard Mosley: I was trying to avoid—

    Ms. Libby Davies: I know you are.

    The Chair: We'll try to get you an answer.

    Ms. Libby Davies: What is the net income? Then we can do all the subtractions. Could we get that info?

    The Chair: Whatever numbers you can provide would be very helpful.

    Mr. Richard Mosley: I'm afraid those calculations were made as advice to ministers.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    The Chair: I'll try to see what we can get, Ms. Davies.

    With your indulgence, Mr. Bélanger wants one really quick question, which hopefully has a quick answer.

    Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Are there any provisions to prevent sharing of contravention conviction information with other jurisdictions internationally? You said there was nothing forcing us to; is there anything to prevent us from doing it?

    The Chair: Such as the Privacy Act?

    Mr. Richard Mosley: The Privacy Act, I think, would apply—

    Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Do we know for sure?

    Mr. Richard Mosley: We'll have to look into it. I would expect the Privacy Act applies. There are exceptions under the Privacy Act. We have reciprocal arrangements for sharing information with other countries. For example, the CPIC system is accessible through the United States, but these contraventions would not go onto the CPIC system.

    Mr. Mauril Bélanger: My question was, is there anything to prevent sharing?

    Mr. Richard Mosley: Can we get back to you on that?

    The Chair: It's something that has concerned the committee members in the past.

    Colleagues, thank you very much.

    Mr. Cormier, Ms. Hassard, Mr. Mosley, Mr. Saint-Denis, Madame Dabros, thank you all very much for staying with us so late. And to all of the teams that are behind you as well, thank you very much. We really appreciate your information. We may have further questions and we'll get back to you.

    The meeting is adjourned.