SC38 Committee Meeting
Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.
For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION
Special Committee on the Non-medical Use of Drugs (Bill C-38)
EVIDENCE
CONTENTS
Wednesday, November 5, 2003
| ¹ | 1545 |
 |
The Chair (Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.)) |
|
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Canadian Alliance) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Randy White |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Randy White |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Randy White |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Randy White |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Randy White |
|
The Chair |
| ¹ | 1550 |
|
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Derek Lee |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.) |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Hedy Fry |
|
The Chair |
| º | 1605 |
|
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP) |
|
The Chair |
| º | 1610 |
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance) |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Derek Lee |
|
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis (Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice) |
|
Mr. Derek Lee |
| º | 1615 |
|
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis |
|
Mr. Derek Lee |
|
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis |
|
Mr. Derek Lee |
|
Mr. Donald Piragoff (Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice) |
|
Mr. Derek Lee |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Kevin Sorenson |
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
|
Mr. Kevin Sorenson |
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Kevin Sorenson |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Hedy Fry |
|
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis |
|
Hon. Hedy Fry |
|
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis |
| º | 1620 |
|
Hon. Hedy Fry |
|
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis |
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ) |
|
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Derek Lee |
| º | 1625 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Harold Macklin (Northumberland, Lib.) |
|
Mr. Donald Piragoff |
|
Mr. Paul Harold Macklin |
|
Mr. Donald Piragoff |
|
Mr. Paul Harold Macklin |
| º | 1630 |
|
Mr. Donald Piragoff |
|
Mr. Paul Harold Macklin |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Kevin Sorenson |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Carole-Marie Allard (Laval East, Lib.) |
| º | 1635 |
|
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis |
|
Ms. Carole-Marie Allard |
|
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis |
|
Ms. Carole-Marie Allard |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Derek Lee |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ) |
|
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis |
|
Mr. Richard Marceau |
| º | 1640 |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
|
Mr. Richard Marceau |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Donald Piragoff |
| º | 1645 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Donald Piragoff |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Dominic LeBlanc (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, Lib.) |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
|
The Chair |
| º | 1650 |
|
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
|
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis |
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
|
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Richard Marceau |
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
|
Mr. Richard Marceau |
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
|
Mr. Richard Marceau |
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis |
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
|
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Richard Marceau |
|
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis |
|
Mr. Richard Marceau |
| º | 1655 |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Dominic LeBlanc |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
|
Mr. Dominic LeBlanc |
| » | 1700 |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
|
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis |
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
|
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis |
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
|
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis |
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
|
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis |
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
|
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis |
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Richard Marceau |
| » | 1705 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Richard Marceau |
|
The Chair |
|
Inspector Pierre Lavoie (Officer in Charge of the CPIC Program Policy, Canadian Police Information Centre, National Police Services of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police) |
|
The Chair |
|
Insp Pierre Lavoie |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Donald Piragoff |
| » | 1710 |
|
The Chair |
|
Insp Pierre Lavoie |
|
The Chair |
|
Insp Pierre Lavoie |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis |
|
Mr. Donald Piragoff |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Donald Piragoff |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Donald Piragoff |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Carole-Marie Allard |
|
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis |
|
The Chair |
|
Insp Pierre Lavoie |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Richard Marceau |
| » | 1715 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Donald Piragoff |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
|
Mr. Dominic LeBlanc |
| » | 1720 |
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
|
The Chair |
|
Insp Pierre Lavoie |
|
The Chair |
|
Insp Pierre Lavoie |
|
The Chair |
|
Insp Pierre Lavoie |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
| » | 1725 |
|
The Chair |
|
Insp Pierre Lavoie |
|
The Chair |
|
Insp Pierre Lavoie |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Donald Piragoff |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Hedy Fry |
| » | 1730 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Richard Marceau |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Derek Lee |
|
Mr. Derek Lee |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
| ¼ | 1830 |
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Donald Piragoff |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Richard Marceau |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Richard Marceau |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Donald Piragoff |
| ¼ | 1835 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis |
|
The Chair |
|
Inspector Bob Thompson (Acting Officer in Charge , Canadian Criminal Records Information Services, National Police Services of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Kevin Sorenson |
|
The Chair |
|
Insp Bob Thompson |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Richard Marceau |
| ¼ | 1840 |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Randy White |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Richard Marceau |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Richard Marceau |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
|
The Chair |
|
Insp Bob Thompson |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Donald Piragoff |
| ¼ | 1845 |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Richard Marceau |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Richard Marceau |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Richard Marceau |
|
The Chair |
|
Insp Pierre Lavoie |
|
Insp Bob Thompson |
|
Mr. Richard Marceau |
| ¼ | 1850 |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Derek Lee |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Derek Lee |
|
Mr. Dominic LeBlanc |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
| ¼ | 1855 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Derek Lee |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis |
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
|
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis |
|
Mr. Donald Piragoff |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Randy White |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
| ½ | 1900 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Derek Lee |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Randy White |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
|
Mr. Randy White |
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Richard Marceau |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Richard Marceau |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Randy White |
|
The Chair |
| ½ | 1915 |
|
Mr. Randy White |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Randy White |
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
|
Mr. Randy White |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Randy White |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Richard Marceau |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Randy White |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Randy White |
|
Mr. Randy White |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Derek Lee |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Derek Lee |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Randy White |
|
Mr. Randy White |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Randy White |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Randy White |
|
The Chair |
| ½ | 1920 |
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Derek Lee |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Randy White |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Randy White |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Randy White |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Richard Marceau |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Derek Lee |
| ½ | 1925 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Kevin Sorenson |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Derek Lee |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Derek Lee |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Richard Marceau |
| ½ | 1930 |
|
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gilbert Barrette (Témiscamingue, Lib.) |
|
Ms. Carole-Marie Allard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Richard Marceau |
|
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis |
|
Mr. Richard Marceau |
|
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Randy White |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Randy White |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Randy White |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Randy White |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Randy White |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Randy White |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis |
|
Mr. Randy White |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Randy White |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gilbert Barrette |
|
Ms. Carole-Marie Allard |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
|
The Chair |
| ½ | 1935 |
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
|
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis |
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Carole-Marie Allard |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Carole-Marie Allard |
|
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Randy White |
|
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis |
|
Mr. Randy White |
|
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis |
|
Mr. Randy White |
|
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis |
|
Mr. Randy White |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Randy White |
|
Mr. Derek Lee |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Randy White |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Kevin Sorenson |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Derek Lee |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Randy White |
| ½ | 1940 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Randy White |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Derek Lee |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Derek Lee |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Derek Lee |
|
Mr. Derek Lee |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Derek Lee |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
| ½ | 1945 |
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis |
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
|
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis |
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
|
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis |
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Randy White |
|
Mr. Kevin Sorenson |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Kevin Sorenson |
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Randy White |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
| ½ | 1950 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Randy White |
|
The Chair |
|
Insp Bob Thompson |
|
The Chair |
|
Insp Bob Thompson |
| ½ | 1955 |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Harold Macklin |
|
Insp Bob Thompson |
|
Mr. Paul Harold Macklin |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
| ¾ | 2000 |
|
The Chair |
|
Insp Bob Thompson |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Derek Lee |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Randy White |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Randy White |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Richard Marceau |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Richard Marceau |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Richard Marceau |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Harold Macklin |
| ¾ | 2010 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Kevin Sorenson |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Susan Baldwin (Procedural Clerk) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Richard Marceau |
|
Mr. Donald Piragoff |
| ¾ | 2015 |
|
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Richard Marceau |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Kevin Sorenson |
| ¾ | 2020 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Kevin Sorenson |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Kevin Sorenson |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Kevin Sorenson |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Hedy Fry |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Hedy Fry |
| ¾ | 2025 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Derek Lee |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Hedy Fry |
| ¾ | 2030 |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Hedy Fry |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Kevin Sorenson |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Randy White |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Randy White |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Donald Piragoff |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Randy White |
| ¾ | 2035 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Donald Piragoff |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Randy White |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Harold Macklin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Harold Macklin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Randy White |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Randy White |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Randy White |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Randy White |
| ¾ | 2040 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Randy White |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Randy White |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Randy White |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Randy White |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Randy White |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Randy White |
|
Mr. Kevin Sorenson |
|
Mr. Randy White |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Randy White |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Randy White |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Randy White |
|
Mr. Kevin Sorenson |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Harold Macklin |
|
Mr. Kevin Sorenson |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Donald Piragoff |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Kevin Sorenson |
| ¾ | 2045 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Harold Macklin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Randy White |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Derek Lee |
|
The Chair |
| ¾ | 2050 |
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
|
Mr. Randy White |
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
|
Mr. Randy White |
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
|
Mr. Randy White |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Hedy Fry |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Richard Marceau |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Randy White |
|
The Chair |
| ¾ | 2055 |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Hedy Fry |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Derek Lee |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gilbert Barrette |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Randy White |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis |
|
Mr. Randy White |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
| ¿ | 2100 |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Richard Marceau |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
|
Mr. Paul Harold Macklin |
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Derek Lee |
|
Mr. Randy White |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Derek Lee |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Randy White |
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Derek Lee |
|
The Chair |
| ¿ | 2105 |
|
Mr. Randy White |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Kevin Sorenson |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Kevin Sorenson |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Kevin Sorenson |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Kevin Sorenson |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Randy White |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Randy White |
|
The Chair |
|
The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. Jean-Michel Roy) |
|
The Chair |
|
The Clerk |
|
The Chair |
CANADA
Special Committee on the Non-medical Use of Drugs (Bill C-38) |
|
l |
|
l |
|
EVIDENCE
Wednesday, November 5, 2003
[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
¹ 
(1545)
[English]
The Chair (Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.)): I'll call this meeting to order. This is the Special Committee on the Non-Medical Use of Drugs, and we're considering today, clause by clause, Bill C-38.
We don't have a quorum, but I think Randy wanted to say something, so I shall let him say something.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Canadian Alliance): Just as a matter of focus, Madam Chair, as I've been telling you, I'm committed to some other activities, one of which is the debate in the House on the sex offender registry, which I ought to carry. So I have to excuse myself. The difficulty is we have five amendments here in front of you to speak to. I've written the amendments with our staff, and I think Kevin is going to have difficulty carrying that debate. I want to be here for it, of course. That's one of my difficulties.
The other one is that this meeting was announced on Monday afternoon. Since then we've had meetings Monday evening, Tuesday morning, Wednesday's caucus, and Wednesday evening. I have four more amendments virtually finished. They're not translated, and I don't have extra copies of these.
I want to know how to deal with these things, because we just haven't had time to rush this stuff through. We were still dealing with some witnesses we were getting information from. So I have two issues: about how we're going to deal with this process given that we have to break, I understand, for bells at 5:30 anyway, and about where we're going to go from here.
I have to be out of here in five minutes to carry something in the House for a little bit, so I want to know how we're going to deal with this and how we can deal with the amendments that aren't really late amendments; we just didn't have time to prepare them all.
The amendments we have, by the way, are straightforward. I can tell you what they are.
The Chair: Mr. White, you and I have spoken, and I have appreciated the spirit of cooperation with which you're approaching this whole process. I think all the members around the table, de chaque parti, have been trying to work to accommodate each other's difficulties with all kinds of debates in the House and in committees. You and I had discussed whether, if there were clauses that didn't have amendments you were interested in or that you hadn't proposed an amendment to, we could take care of those and would accommodate your schedule as well as possible. You have that commitment. I think Ms. Davies was quite interested in seeing some flexibility in terms of the order as well.
Are there other clauses you don't have an amendment for yet for which you wanted to have an amendment?
Mr. Randy White: Our amendments, actually, are going to be.... Let me see. The ones you don't have here that we're still working on are all for clause 10—
The Chair: Okay. We won't deal with clause 10.
Mr. Randy White: —and the schedule on page 7. But the schedule is going to be affected by all these other discussions anyway.
The Chair: So we won't deal with clause 10 unless you're here, and I would imagine we won't get to clause 10 until after the break, so that gives you a little bit of time.
Mr. Randy White: Yes. Just for everybody's purpose, the amendments we do have here are for clause 5, clause 6, and the schedule again. I haven't read all the other amendments, but I suspect they're probably on the same clauses, so we don't—
The Chair: And they might be in conflict with each other.
Mr. Randy White: Yes, they may. What I'm saying is that we may have a lot of agreement on many of the clauses that are in here. If we can deal with them and then get down to the real debate of.... We know what the issues are. There are probably three of them.
The Chair: All right. Well, you have my commitment and I think the agreement of all the other members to try to accommodate you. People have been quite good in trying to accommodate.
I think I wish you luck in your radio show; I'm not sure.
Mr. Randy White: It's not just radio. I have to carry this sex offender registry debate in the House. If the government wants it, then you have to give me some latitude, because you ain't getting it without me
The Chair: Mr. Sorenson spoke to me in the hallway as well to say he was tied up with, I think, some Arar media and other things.
We'll work with everybody, and
[Translation]
Mr. Marceau and I have discussed the possibility of changing the order of the clause-by-clause study.
[English]
We'll accommodate everybody.
Okay, let's just make sure we're all working with the same order. Maybe Sean can make sure he has a set of the papers, and Susan is just organizing....
Does everyone have this document in front of them? There are a couple of additional amendments, and Susan is just writing some of them in. I can give you some of them. There's an amendment between clauses 3 and 4, which would be a new clause 3.1—that would be an L-1 amendment. There'll be an L-2 amendment on clause 4. That's all I have so far. If anyone wants to keep track of where there are amendments, that's the deal.
Let me also just identify for everybody that, as you mentioned earlier, Mr. White, there is a vote, Madame Allard, taking place at 5:45. Jean-Michel Roy, le greffier, has arranged that there would be food for the members at 6:30. If anyone has any dietary issues, you need to tell me that; if so, we'll get you something else.
Mr. Lee.
¹ (1550)
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): Madam Chair, I will be moving an amendment to clause 7 of the bill. I don't know whether that's currently marked.
The Chair: She's getting there.
Mr. Derek Lee: Thank you.
The Chair: I think it's worth noting that on the eve of Remembrance Day we have a whole series of World War II paintings that were added to this room.
To give our clerks a break, we're just going to suspend for five minutes.
¹ (1552)
º (1602)
The Chair: I'll call this meeting back to order.
Let me just review what people should have on their desks. Does everybody have a little package that looks like the one I'm holding? It's about ten pages. We'll give the package to you now. Don't do anything with it until I tell you what to do with it; I'll take you through. This will all work so well, once we're all on the same page.
You're also all going to get an amendment that says page 6 at the top. When you get this document, call it “BQ-5”; just mark “BQ-5” on the top and you'll be set.
In the package that Susan just distributed, you should go through the pages and mark the first one L-1 and the second one L-1. Those are L-1 through L-5, but because the first page is English and the next one is French, just write L-1, L-1; L-2, L-2; L-3, L-3; L-4, L-4, and you'll have up to L-5, en anglais et en français.
Then I would suggest you rip off the little paper clip at the top of those L's—
Ms. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.): Excuse me Madam Chair, I have no idea what you're talking about. I don't have that.
The Chair: Hedy, I think you may. It looks like what I'm holding and says, “Moved by....”, and then says, “New clause 3.1”, with a 2.
Hon. Hedy Fry: No, I don't have it.
The Chair: I will get you a set in two seconds, Hedy; you will be all set.
You have three little packages now. You have one that was BQ-5; you have one that was originally on the table that started with, I think, BQ-1; and then you have a new little set that you've just marked L-1 through L-5.
You can either integrate your piles if you want—and I'll tell you how to integrate the pile—or you don't have to integrate your pile.
Let's not? Okay, perfect.
º (1605)
On this sheet that you have, Hedy, the long sheet, if you look at clause 3, between the line that starts “As amended” and the next line, “Shall Clause 4 carry?”, write clause 3.1, and the amendment is L-1.
After clause 4, write L-2.
This is just for those of you who want to keep track. I'm just going to give you the signals for where everything is.
Near the end of the page, between amendments BQ-3 and PC-3, there will be amendment L-3.
On clause 7 there is amendment L-4.
On clause 9.1 there is amendment BQ-5 after BQ-4.
On clause 10, although we do not have them and you do not have them before you now, there will be amendments CA-4a, CA-4b, and CA-4c.
On the schedule there will be amendment L-5.
And then we are going to have some more from Ms. Davies.
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): I'd just like to say something.
We did get amendments in, and for some reason the legislative counsel was not able to complete them or whatever, and they're not here. Some of them might be coming.
In addition, we were still trying to do some amendments at 1:30. I apologize for that. It makes it very complicated. My understanding is--and I just want to clarify this before we begin--that we are allowed to read out amendments--
The Chair: Absolutely.
º (1610)
Ms. Libby Davies: There are some that I can't circulate, so they won't be on this list.
The Chair: That's okay.
Ms. Libby Davies: The clerk has just told us to write them out, but can I just read out a note from what we have? Is that correct?
The Chair: It is possible to do that, and let's deal with them. If they become really complicated, we'll stand them and come back to them or figure it out.
Does the clerk know where they are at, in terms of this list?
A voice: No.
Ms. Libby Davies: There has just been a pile sent off to be copied. We had them back, but for some reason they didn't come back.
The Chair: Here they come, not to worry. We'll sort them out. We'll keep everybody on track.
Ms. Libby Davies: We've all been working overtime to do this. I feel it's going to be difficult and I wish it weren't that way. It is somewhat of a criticism that we've all been under a lot of pressure to get these through very quickly.
The Chair: Before you arrived, I commented on the fact that I appreciated everyone's spirit of cooperation, that we are all going to just take it as it comes, and we're going to be okay because everyone has agreed to accommodate each other. We'll get through this process, and it won't be as hard as it appears at this moment.
Everyone is agreeing that we're all here working on this together, and if we come to something that is complicated, we'll figure it out. It will be okay. We can suspend when we need to. We'll get there. It will be okay because we have history; we've worked together, and we'll get there.
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance): And if it's not okay, we're in the war room.
The Chair: Just to clarify as well, we have with us three witnesses who are able to answer technical questions. We also have Paul Macklin, who is the parliamentary secretary to the minister.
If anyone wants a question, I'll take a list and we'll go in order.
The first clause we have is clause 1. There are no amendments. Does anyone have any questions about clause 1?
If you want a recorded vote, tell me when you want one, otherwise they'll be on division.
(Clause 1 agreed to on division)
(On clause 2)
Ms. Libby Davies: I don't have anything to hand out, but under clause 2 I would like to put forward an amendment that would amend section 7 of the Contraventions Act and to add a section that there be no powers of arrest under subsections (5), (5.1), or paragraph (5.3)(a), which is dealing with cultivation, of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.
Basically, the intent of this amendment is to say that as a result of the cultivation, there are no powers of arrest for the lower amounts.
The Chair: This is the one to whichever....
Ms. Libby Davies: Yes. So this would actually be an amendment to section 7 of the Contraventions Act, but it would come under clause 2 of this bill.
The Chair: Okay.
Does everyone understand what Ms. Davies has proposed?
Mr. Lee has a question for you, Ms. Davies.
Mr. Derek Lee: Not so much for Ms. Davies, but perhaps Mr. Piragoff.
Could you outline for us just precisely what the powers of arrest are as they exist now under the Contraventions Act, and as they would be used in enforcing the new provisions to be enacted under this legislation? It's powers of arrest when a police officer is involved in an incident.
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis (Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice): Under the Contraventions Act, the power of arrest in respect of an offence that has been designated as a contravention is the same. The police can exercise their powers of arrest with respect to a contravention. That's the long and the short of it in terms of the police powers.
Mr. Derek Lee: Can I ask, if the offence is a ticketing offence, what purpose would there be in making an arrest? Is it simply to detain the person until you've written out the ticket?
º (1615)
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis: It could be to detain someone in order to ascertain identity. It could be to detain someone so as to prevent him from continuing to commit the offence.
Mr. Derek Lee: All right. When must the police officer release the person? What does the arresting police officer do under the Contraventions Act after there has been an arrest?
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis: Again, here it's the regular arrest powers under the Criminal Code. So an individual would be released after he's been identified, and if there are other conditions that are relevant to his release, they might be imposed.
The difficulty here is that an individual may be arrested for the contravention plus another offence he may be committing. For instance, if he's committed robbery or if he's committed an assault in a bar-room brawl, for instance, and the police discover a joint on him, they would arrest him for the assault and the contravention at the same time. So whatever they want to do with him with respect to the assault would also carry forward.
Mr. Derek Lee: So these arrest powers exist for all of the other Contravention Act offences across the board, without distinction. Okay, thank you.
Mr. Donald Piragoff (Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice): I'd just like to add that this bill would create, of course, a bit of a hybrid scheme, because some provinces have not signed agreements. So for those provinces that have not signed agreements, they would need arrest powers because they don't have any contravention powers. So the Contravention Act does need arrest powers.
Mr. Derek Lee: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you.
I have Mr. Sorenson and Ms. Davies.
Mr. Kevin Sorenson: Yes, my question is to Ms. Davies.
In this amendment, do you have a problem with the power of arrest for any contravention of substance, or is it specific to the marijuana?
Ms. Libby Davies: No. Is that your question?
Mr. Kevin Sorenson: Yes.
Ms. Libby Davies: If I could explain further, if this bill is dealing, in effect, with decriminalization and it's changing to a fine system, I want to ensure that through a fine system there are not the powers of arrest. So through this amendment I'm not extending this to all other aspects of criminal law; it's basically dealing with the bill that's before us in terms of the regime that's been outlined for the fines.
I just want to ensure that through the fine system, police authorities are not allowed to use the power of arrest. That's what this amendment would do. My amendment would prevent that from happening.
The Chair: Mr. Sorenson, and then Dr. Fry and Mr. Ménard.
Mr. Kevin Sorenson: The problem with that amendment is that it basically builds inconsistency into the law. We already have the power of arrest for contraventions of other substances. I would take it that in an IP, or illegal possession, of alcohol, there is still that power of arrest in that section of the Criminal Code. So why would we be inconsistent with the marijuana part?
The Chair: All right, maybe we'll take the other questions, and then you can answer them all.
Dr. Fry.
Hon. Hedy Fry: I wanted to ask that same question with regard to alcohol. Under the contraventions, are there powers of arrest if you pick somebody up for having alcohol or for being impaired on the street corner or something?
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis: At the moment, there is no federal contravention offence dealing with alcohol. It's a provincial matter.
What we're proposing here, in some instances, is that there will be a limit on the type of penalty. It will be a straight fine and not an option for police. So that may make a distinction between other contravention offences and what is being contemplated in this bill, where a ticket only would be issued for certain quantities.
Hon. Hedy Fry: Given that alcohol is not parallel, if Ms. Davies added an amendment that talked about unless there is an aggravating factor such as assault or whatever, what would that do?
I'm not a lawyer, so I'm asking what would sound like a stupid question. I just want to know what that would do.
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis: For the aggravated factors that are listed here, it would mean that the police would have power of arrest, which means that they would be able to arrest an individual--
º (1620)
Hon. Hedy Fry: Anyway?
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis: Yes, if that's the thrust of her motion.
Ms. Libby Davies: Madam Chair.
The Chair: Libby Davies.
Ms. Libby Davies: To be clear, whatever exists in other areas, such as alcohol--and in fact he said it doesn't exist there, but maybe it does in some other case--that's not before us. What's before us is the marijuana bill. So as it applies to marijuana, as it applies to simple possession under this fine scheme, I simply want to assert that there should not be a power of arrest. That's what this amendment is intended to accomplish, and I think it has been suggested that this is what it would do.
So it isn't open-ended. It's quite limited in terms of marijuana for personal possession, as laid out in the bill.
The Chair: Okay, we have Monsieur Ménard, and then Mr. Lee.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): I want to get this right. The idea is not to incarcerate people, but to fine them, right? But in order to issue a fine, the individual has to be arrested and an officer has to communicate with him. How is the fine going to be issued? And if the offender doesn't pay, then he could go to jail, right?
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis: When the officer gives a ticket, he doesn't arrest the individual; he gives him the ticket after getting his name, address and information that will make it possible to identify him later. When the individual gets the ticket, he can plead guilty and pay the fine, or ignore or fight the ticket. If he ignores the ticket, the court can issue a warrant pursuant to the provisions of provincial procedure. When the individual ignores the ticket, the court can find him guilty; it will convict if it is of the view that the ticket is proper. The individual is then considered guilty and must pay the fine. If he doesn't pay, steps can be taken to collect the fine under the legislation of the various provinces. At that point, civil and more or less social action is taken. In some provinces, it is possible, as a last resort, to jail the person for non-payment of a fine.
Mr. Réal Ménard: So, first of all, we're ensuring that this gives rise only to a fine; people aren't going to be arrested and incarcerated because they haven't—
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis: We distinguish between detention and incarceration. A person is incarcerated after being convicted. A person is detained, especially in this context, to ascertain his identity, for example.
[English]
The Chair: Okay, Mr. Lee and Mr. Macklin.
Mr. Derek Lee: First, could someone confirm that in our law now there must be the ability of a police officer to detain--that is, arrest--when he or she finds a person breaking the law, even if the officer is going to give a ticket? Otherwise, the person can just keep right on walking and never identify who he or she is. So there must be, at least at that point, a power of arrest. Would you confirm that, that all of our statutes that provide for ticketing federally, or whatever, provide for some form of arrest or detention while the processing takes place?
Secondly, the French-English translation here does not distinguish very well between fines and tickets. I don't know whether it's the language itself or the translation.
Thirdly, would you please distinguish for us the difference between putting someone in jail because he or she has committed an offence and putting someone in jail because he or she failed to pay the fine for the offence? There is a difference. In the second case, the nature of the transgression is the failure to pay the fine, which was ordered by the court. It is a failure to follow the court order, whereas in the first case, the penalty is a direct sanction for the offence where the conviction took place.
Could you answer questions one and three?
º (1625)
The Chair: Do you want to take a few more questions and then answer?
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis: I might not remember the questions.
The Chair: All right, answer.
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis: To deal with the third one first, you were correct. The court can impose imprisonment for the non-payment of a fine. Most provinces have legislation that allows for that type of measure in order to ensure payment. That's a distinction to be made from imprisonment imposed by the court as the result of a conviction. What you stated is exactly what it is in terms of the law. You have those two distinctions. So the individual who is in prison for non-payment is in fact not in prison for the conviction; he is in prison for not abiding by the sentence.
In terms of the arrest powers, the Criminal Code provides general arrest powers for law enforcement generally, and through the Interpretation Act, the Criminal Code procedural provisions apply to federal statutes. So a peace officer would have the ability to detain or arrest an individual under certain circumstances. Depending on the nature of the offence, he may arrest and proceed with a longer form of detention, or he may issue a summons if the individual, for instance, is known to him. Under a contravention, if he's able to ascertain the identity and obtain the address and other particulars so as to readily identify the individual for later on, then he will simply issue a ticket.
I can't speak to the translation. I'm sorry.
[Translation]
The Chair: Okay. Mr. Macklin, please.
[English]
Mr. Paul Harold Macklin (Northumberland, Lib.): My question may have been answered, but I just want to be certain.
If a police officer comes up to an individual and has reason to believe the person has this in his or her possession and then asks the person's name, is there any way or means, without this power of arrest, to stop that person from simply walking away? I think that's the rudimentary question we're trying to get to. If it makes, in effect, the enforcement of the bill impossible if people simply walk away, surely we don't want to go there.
Mr. Donald Piragoff: One of the purposes of arrest, as specified in the Criminal Code, is to establish the identity of a person. It's written as a negative, that the police officer shall release the person unless he cannot identify the person. But essentially, although it's written in the negative, you can turn it around to the positive and say you can arrest for the purposes of establishing identity. If the police officer cannot establish identity, the police officer may then continue the arrest and hold the person in detention until he or she determines identity. Without those powers, a person could simply walk away.
Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: So if we adopted this amendment, that would be an available option for an accused at that point, to walk away and refuse to give a name? We would have eliminated that power to the police?
Mr. Donald Piragoff: A person could simply walk away. There's case law under some provincial legislation that this is the actual effect, where offenders under provincial law were walking away because the police had no power to detain and arrest them to determine their identity.
Other reasons for purposes of arrest are to preserve or secure evidence relating to the offence--for example, to actually take the drugs away, you may have to arrest for those purposes, or prevent the continuation or repetition of the offence. So those are reasons why a police officer could effect an arrest.
I said the code is done in the negative. There's an obligation to release unless those conditions exist.
Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: This would make it neuter. This amendment, if adopted, would potentially neuter the ability of the police officer to carry out his duties, even under the ticketing scheme.
º (1630)
Mr. Donald Piragoff: That's correct. We could end up with a situation that existed under some provincial legislation, where people who infringed the law, or were alleged to have infringed the law, simply walked away from the police officer, thumbed their noses and walked away.
Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Okay. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Macklin.
Ms. Davies.
Ms. Libby Davies: In speaking to the amendment, this bill has been held up, and the provisions, particularly the ticketing, as something that's straightforward: you're not going to get into trouble, you'll get a ticket. Whatever people may or may not do as a result of that is something we can only speculate about, whatever people have said in testimony. But what's before us is the fact that there would be a ticketing scheme. I just find it contradictory that if that's the basis on which we're doing this ticketing, included in that would be the powers of arrest because someone wouldn't give their name.
Now, if a person were doing something else that caused the officer to question what they were doing, okay, that's a different situation. But if it's simply a matter of possession for personal use and it's a ticketing, then I don't understand why we would confer a power of arrest. It really kind of gets to the thrust of this bill and really what its intent is. So I think it's actually a very important amendment, which is maybe one reason we're spending a fair amount of time on it, because it actually opens up a number of questions. Is this going more down the side of criminal enforcement, or is it really, as the minister said, an alternate penalty? Well, it's being presented as an alternate penalty, but it's still contained with the whole criminal regime.
I know what I think about it, and obviously other members will make up their own minds, but this is an indication of which side it comes down on.
The Chair: Thank you.
You may or may not want to comment, but maybe I'll go to Mr. Sorenson.
Mr. Kevin Sorenson: Again, we talk about the intent of the bill. Libby, I'm not sure about your intent. Because, really, when it comes to enforcement of the law, every time a police officer makes an arrest, there is a report to fill out. They are held up to scrutiny. As soon as there is an arrest made where perhaps there shouldn't have been an arrest, there are internal investigations, or someone is at least holding it up to scrutiny.
How are you going to enforce a law if people know they can walk away and not give their identification? In some cases they may not have their identification with them. I think in any law it's imperative that we allow the police officers to do their job.
I don't think it's going to lead to mass arrests. We don't have them right now. We don't have mass arrests on marijuana right now. So to suggest that all of a sudden the police officers are going to be given some new authority to enforce the law is totally false. I think we would do this whole bill an injustice if we said, yes, the minister said last night we aren't going to decriminalize it, but we're going to make it so that no law enforcement officer goes in there with the tools to do his job.
We've already heard from witnesses that there are those who will say that they will flood the courts and will not pay their fines. What happens if they, en masse, say, listen, just tell them you don't have your ID and walk away? How are you going to enforce it, Libby?
The Chair: Okay, I have Madame Allard, then Mr. Lee.
[Translation]
Ms. Carole-Marie Allard (Laval East, Lib.): Mr. Saint-Denis, currently, when a police officer arrests a teenager for speeding, he issues a ticket. If the teenager doesn't pay or fights the ticket, he has to appear in municipal court to defend himself. If he pleads guilty, he sends his money and that's that, but if he decides to fight the ticket, he has to go before a judge of the municipal court and argue. If he has a lot of tickets, he could eventually decide to tell the judge he has no money to pay his tickets and that he will do his time in jail. The municipal court judge will sentence him to three hours or three days of jail.
In this case, if a teenager is arrested and has 15 grams in his possession, the police officer could give him a ticket. If the teenager has a bunch of tickets and eventually decides to tell the judge he's not going to pay them and would prefer to go to jail, will he be sent to a youth centre or to an adult jail?
º (1635)
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis: If an individual can't afford to pay his fines, jail is not necessarily the first option. As a matter of fact, under provincial legislation, jail is the last resort. For example, community service orders are an option: an individual can work a certain number of hours for the community. If the individual has certain assets, those can be seized. In the case of non-payment of fines in connection with speeding tickets, the person's licence is suspended until the fines are paid.
Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: Mr. Saint-Denis, we enacted legislation for young offenders with provisions to protect them from arrest and incarceration. What is the overlap between the two laws? That's what I'm trying to understand. Are you familiar with the young offenders legislation?
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis: I have some knowledge of it, but don't forget that in the context of your example, the individual has not been sentenced to jail. The imprisonment is not the result of conviction for an offence. The imprisonment, in your example, would result from non-payment of a fine. As far as I know, the individual would not go to adult jail, but I can't guarantee that 100 per cent.
Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: Couldn't the legislation be drafted so that in the case of a teenager... I think I understand what Ms. Davies is trying to do, she's trying to protect young people.
[English]
The Chair: Sorry, on a point of order, just to bring us back to order, with respect, Madame Allard, you're dealing with someone not paying a fine. Ms. Davies is dealing with the time the ticket is being given. They're completely different circumstances, and it's not the same point in the issue.
Ms. Libby Davies: You should wait for my next amendment.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Chair: Nonetheless, we have heard your point, and nonetheless, there's going to be debate.
So, Mr. Lee, did you have anything to say?
Mr. Derek Lee: No.
The Chair: Monsieur Marceau.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ): I'm sorry, but I catch on quickly when I'm given a lengthy explanation. Here is what I am trying to understand in very concrete terms about the amendment that Ms. Davies is trying to get through. Suppose I'm walking down the street with five grams of marijuana on me, and a police officer sees that. Would the effect of the amendment be that he could give me a ticket, or, since he no longer has power of arrest, that I could keep on walking and pretend not to hear him? Would Ms. Davies' amendment mean that the police officer would no longer be able to give me a ticket?
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis: The situation would be ambiguous at best for the police officer. Without power of arrest, he cannot detain the individual and insist on ascertaining his identity, for example. It's not even clear he could seize the joint in question. If the police officer can't force the individual to stop, the individual can keep on walking.
Mr. Richard Marceau: That was my understanding of the amendment. I certainly don't want to attribute any ideas to Libby Davies that don't accurately reflect what she's trying to do, but if I understand correctly, what Libby is trying to do—and she'll correct me if I'm wrong—is prevent anyone from going to jail for a simple possession offence. If so, could you suggest another way to draft this amendment? I really want to understand what's going on. As far as I understand it, if we decide to give police officers the option of ticketing, they need to be able to stop people and ask them to identify themselves in order to write out a ticket at least, that's the minimum.
You say that Libby Davies' amendment could prevent police officers from doing that. We have to be logical, here. What exactly is the purpose of the amendment put forward by the NDP? Perhaps I misunderstood.
º (1640)
[English]
The Chair: Not to get cuffed and thrown into the back of a cop car.
Ms. Libby Davies: The objective of the amendment is to prevent the power of arrest. I think, as we've heard, that there's a distinction between someone being arrested and someone actually being put in jail. That's another issue. There's also the power of arrest for detention.
I think there's a lot of concern even under security measures. In Canada, we have a basic value where if you're doing something that isn't considered to be in any way criminal, there shouldn't be an ability to detain people. I guess, in the way that I look at it, in this bill and in what is being put forward here in terms of personal use or possession of marijuana, I don't see it as a criminal element. Therefore, I don't believe the police should have the power to detain people.
People have said that it doesn't really happen. Well, it could happen, and it probably does happen. I want to ensure that it doesn't happen because I think it's very much a part of Canadian values. We don't expect that the police are going to go and detain people because they wouldn't give their names. It's really the purpose of the amendment.
The question of actually being put in jail is an additional question that I actually hope to address later on.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau: Could you change your amendment to empower the police officer to stop the person long enough to issue the ticket and identify the person?
[English]
The Chair: If I can help out, I think the point of it is to deal with the situation that the lawyers talked about, Burstein and the others, where some kid is walking down the street and ends up with cuffs on in the back of the cruiser. It is a devastating situation and on a whole different level.
We're trying to talk about it, Kevin. It apparently does happen sometimes.
I think that is the spirit of your amendment. I'm not sure, because of the way in which it's written, if there's a challenge where it creates a problem for police officers and a whole different other set of circumstances.
Is it possible that we can deal with that issue? Is there another way to amend this so that we don't have police officers inadvertently freelancing and putting people in the back of the cruiser with handcuffs on, as opposed to writing the ticket?
Mr. Piragoff.
Mr. Donald Piragoff: Thank you, Madam Chair.
Madam Chair, I understand the sympathy of the proposed motion. I suppose it's trying to ensure that the world can be looked at in terms of black and white, except that I think we have to realize that on the street there are many greys, situations where an individual is uncooperative.
The police officer sees the person actually smoking a joint and asks if it's a marijuana cigarette. The person is abusive to the police officer. The officer may say that it smells like marijuana. The officer may have reasonable grounds to believe an offence is being committed. The officer may want to see some identification or want to issue a ticket. The person again is abusive, starts walking away, and continues to smoke. There we clearly have a situation where a police officer has seen a person committing an offence and is not able to prevent the further commission of the offence.
The Criminal Code, in the law, is very clear. Police officers cannot use force unless they are authorized by law. The Criminal Code makes that clear. The only way the police officer can forcibly take a joint out of the hand of a person who continues to smoke it is if the police officer has some legal power. The only power is provided by the Criminal Code.
I mentioned earlier, I believe to Mr. Macklin, that the Criminal Code on this issue is worded in the reverse, even though it was easier for me to explain it in the positive. There is a presumption in the Criminal Code against arrest. The police officer is presumed not to arrest.
It says in section 495(2) that it's a limitation:
| A peace officer shall not arrest a person...in any case where...he believes on reasonable grounds that the public interest...may be satisfied without so arresting the person. |
Then it says, on public interest, that a police officer shall have:
| regard to all the circumstances including the need to |
| (i) establish the identity of the person, |
| (ii) secure or preserve evidence of or relating to the offence, |
| (iii) prevent the continuation or repetition of the offence or the commission of another offence |
Already there is a presumption not to arrest, but having regard for the public interest. The police officer is supposed to take into account a number of factors.
I think what this motion would do is take away any discretion. It would basically say that the police officer's hands are tied behind his or her back in a situation where a person is totally uncooperative.
º (1645)
The Chair: Can I clarify that? If this were to pass, would it affect other areas other than marijuana because it's an amendment to the Contraventions Act?
Mr. Donald Piragoff: If it applies to the whole Contraventions Act, it will apply to any offence to which the Contraventions Act applies, which includes boating offences, maritime safety offences, not having life jackets, waterskiing, etc., and situations where there may be actual safety situations, such as speeding on a federal highway like the parkway or an airport parkway.
It may not involve situations such as marijuana, but if it applies to the whole Contraventions Act, some of those offences do involve some aspects of public safety.
The Chair: Okay. Ms. Davies.
Ms. Libby Davies: To clarify that, I think the sections that we highlighted only apply to simple possession of marijuana or cultivation of small amounts. It's not applying to all those other situations. This amendment is not a blanket coverage of the whole act, if you check the sections.
The Chair: Are there any other questions or can I call the question?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Ms. Davies, do you have another amendment on clause 2?
Ms. Libby Davies: No.
(Clause 2 agreed to on division)
(On clause 3)
The Chair: On clause 3, there is an amendment, Liberal-1.
Mr. LeBlanc.
Mr. Dominic LeBlanc (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Chair: Sorry, I apologize. On clause 3 there are no amendments. The effect of your amendment, Mr. LeBlanc—sorry, yours would be new clause 3.1.
Ms. Libby Davies: Could we hear it?
The Chair: No, because his comes afterwards. Yours is to clause 3; his would create a new clause 3.1. I apologize.
Ms. Davies has an amendment on clause 3. We do not have it before us, so everyone just pay attention.
Ms. Libby Davies:
Basically this amendment seeks to amend section 58 of the Contraventions Act--it's not written out properly--
| No person shall face imprisonment for default of a fine as set out in Subsections 5, 5.1 or 3a of the Act. |
Again, those are the sections dealing with simple possession and what I hope will be cultivation.There's the fine system, which we've yet to get to, but this amendment is saying that in default of a fine you cannot be jailed. We can ask officials. There are other provisions that could apply that are not in terms of incarceration, but what I want to see is that people would not face imprisonment as a result of default on fines.
The Chair: Does anyone have a question? Do the officials want to comment?
º (1650)
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis: Could I hear the amendment again, please?
The Chair: Yes, you can ask for a repetition.
Ms. Libby Davies: This seeks to amend section 58 of the Contraventions Act:
| No person shall face imprisonment for default of a fine as set out in Subsections 5, 5.1 or 3a of the Act. |
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis: So that would apply, then, to 15grams or 1 gram, and cultivation of 1 to 3?
Ms. Libby Davies: Yes, so for the lower measures.
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis: Yes.
The Chair: Monsieur Marceau.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau: I'm just trying to understand. I get stopped because I have five grams on me. I get a ticket and don't pay. I get stopped again and get another ticket and don't pay. Does non-payment of the fine have any consequence?
[English]
Ms. Libby Davies: Some provincial jurisdictions may have other consequences. Because this is under a federal statute, I'm saying that the consequence of a default should not be imprisonment.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau: Okay, but what would that consequence be?
[English]
Ms. Libby Davies: There might be other mechanisms, but not jail.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau: Mr. Saint-Denis, what do you have to say?
[English]
Ms. Libby Davies: There might be a civil action result, there may be other programs, but I'm simply saying that because it's under a federal statute, it should not be imprisonment.
The Chair: Okay.
Could I just get the officials to talk about what other measure there are, like not getting a federal licence or things like that, that might be important?
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis: Under the provincial statutes, most--I think all--of the provinces have fine collection measures. Ultimately, in most provinces, they lead to imprisonment, but it's something they actively try to avoid. But there are things such as suspension of licences or driving permits, or other kinds of permits. There's denial of permits--fishing or hunting permits, for instance. There are civil measures they can take, such as seizure and sale of goods. There are community service orders that may be imposed, in which you would work off in time the amount owed. So there are other measures available before a province will go to imprisonment.
Ms. Libby Davies: Those are under provincial jurisdiction, and it may vary from province to province.
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis: That's correct.
The Chair: Monsieur Marceau.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau: Mr. Saint-Denis, you're saying that to your knowledge, most provinces would ultimately be able to jail people. Is that right? Very well. Obviously, since it's a minor offence, imprisonment is to be avoided. Would it be possible to find another way of expressing Ms. Davies' intent? Could we say that before sentencing a person to jail for non-payment of fines, alternative punishments have to be explored and a person can only be sentenced to jail as a last resort? Could it be drafted that way?
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis: That's a policy that the provinces already follow. They have no interest in jailing individuals for non-payment of fines as their first line of attack. If that were so, there would be no point in having less severe consequences. Is there a way to do what you are suggesting? Maybe. I think that should be considered. However, it might impose certain obligations on the provinces. It could be quite complicated, and further consideration would have to be given to that.
Mr. Richard Marceau: Indeed, we should take more time. You're not the only one to say that this is moving fast. Would Ms. Davies be willing to suggest wording to the effect that, without ruling out a possible jail sentence, because it appears that all of the provinces allow for that, only after all other action has been taken would a person be jailed?
º (1655)
[English]
The Chair: Can I make a suggestion? Can we stand down this clause so you can have a little more time for discussion?
Ms. Libby Davies: I would like to clarify that if this amendment were approved, it would not preclude or take away from what provinces may do in terms of other consequences. They exist under other statues, so it's not exclusive of them.
The Chair: No.
Ms. Libby Davies: Shall we stand this one?
The Chair: Let's just stand that clause. We'll come back. It'll be okay; you'll have a chance to discuss, and the witnesses will have a chance to figure out, whether there's another way around this.
(Clause 3 allowed to stand)
The Chair: Now I come to new clause 3.1, which would be an amendment from Mr. LeBlanc.
Mr. Dominic LeBlanc: Thank you, Madam Chair.
I believe colleagues have circulated what are the Liberal amendments. This would be L-1, and there's a consequential amendment, L-2.
On L-1, colleagues can read the text—vous pouvez le lire en anglais et en français, évidemment—but, Madam Chair, officials have suggested that what we're seeking to do here, in the interest of clarity, is deal with the disclosure of information on various police information systems such as CPIC. We had a long discussion about this one evening, when witnesses were here from the RCMP, with respect to Contraventions Act offences ending up in the hands particularly of, for example, the United States authorities. This amendment would seek effectively to seal these records and make the disclosure of that information in and of itself an offence.
But, Madam Chair, I would like to add one clause and two words to the text colleagues have in front of them. If you're in agreement, I'd like to read it. It would be:
| 64.1 Every person who has access to the automated criminal conviction records retrieval system |
and then I want to add a comma and the words “or other police information systems,”—we would add the words “or other police information systems” to make sure it's not narrowly interpreted at one point to exclude other police information systems—“maintained”, and I would then add “or managed”, again in the interest of making it broad enough that we don't find some technical excuse not to respect it, and then the text would continue:
| by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and who knowingly discloses to a foreign government or its agent information contained in that system respecting an offence under subsection 4(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act as described in subsection 4(5), (5.1), (5.2) or (5.4) of that Act or an offence under paragraph 7(3)(a) of that Act is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction, unless they are required by a court order to disclose the information. |
Madam Chair, the intent here is to seal effectively these records, which were a source of concern for many members, particularly with respect to, for example, American authorities having access to Contraventions Act offences at some point using it to cause problems at the border. I think we've all had constituents come to us with that type of situation.
I would move that amendment, Madam Chair.
The Chair: Are there any questions or comments?
Ms. Davies.
Ms. Libby Davies: I had a similar amendment—actually, it was under section 63, and this one would be under a proposed section 64.1, of the Contraventions Act—that no official shall share information relating to an offence that is prosecuted by means of a fine. Are the sections that are outlined here all the ones that relate to a fine?
Mr. Dominic LeBlanc: I don't want to mislead you, Libby. I want to make sure that—
» (1700)
The Chair: Yes, make sure you do it with the officials.
Ms. Libby Davies: Are “subsections 4(5), (5.1), (5.2), or (5.4)” the ones that deal with simple possession? Is it the 15 or the 30 grams?
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis: Both. It's one gram; it's five grams; it's 15 to 30 grams.
The Chair: And for cultivation?
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis: It's one to three plants for cultivation.
Ms. Libby Davies: The question I have is this. When it says “every person who has access”, did we not hear in the testimony that this is basically relating to CPIC? Or is it going beyond that?
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis: It's more than that. That is why the other words were added, to cover off CPIC and “any other police information systems” that are “maintained or managed”.
Ms. Libby Davies: We heard that basically this information goes into CPIC, or whatever other systems there are, and then provincial forces or local forces can access that information and put it on their database. So would this apply to local officers, provincial forces...?
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis: It would apply to everyone who has access to the system.
Ms. Libby Davies: When we say “who knowingly discloses to a foreign government”, the question I have is, since we're not exactly sure how that information is communicated—we don't know whether it goes into some gigantic package and goes to other U.S. authorities—would this actually cover it off, to say someone “who knowingly discloses”? If information about someone's marijuana use and a fine is part of a record—not a criminal record, but a record—in CPIC, and it's downloaded to one of those police computers in a car and is out on the street, and then somehow information is assembled somewhere else and goes into something to do with our cross-border agreement, I just don't know whether this amendment adequately covers it, because it says “who knowingly discloses”.
This information is moving around. To me it doesn't seem that it's actually sealed. This just says there has to be some reasonable belief that the person who would then be prosecuted “knowingly” gave this information to a foreign government. But it's the system itself where information is being routed through probably hundreds of different avenues. Does this cover it off?
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis: My understanding of the system is that there's information that is uploaded onto the system, and then either the RCMP or the local police can access it through computer linkups. The information is not transmitted; it's people who have access to it via their computers. That's how the information is obtained.
Ms. Libby Davies: How do U.S. authorities get it, then? How does it end up at a border crossing and become part of the information that's there? How does it end up there?
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis: My understanding is that there are arrangements whereby that information is shared with Customs. I believe this would prevent that sharing.
I believe there is a gentleman from the RCMP here who may be able to provide you with additional information on that. I don't know if you wish to....
Ms. Libby Davies: I know that Mr. Thompson was here at the earlier meeting, and he sent us a brief. He outlined the problem, but he didn't exactly tell us how to correct it. Maybe he can be helpful.
The Chair: I think they've sought some input on that for this amendment Mr. LeBlanc put forward.
Mr. Marceau has a question. I'm not sure if the RCMP officer wants to come forward. Mr. Marceau, you may want to ask your question at this point too.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau: I have two questions. First, if we adopt this amendment, I would like to add after the words “knowingly discloses to a foreign government or its agents”, the words “or international organization”. I'm thinking of organizations like Interpol, because Interpol is neither a foreign government nor an agent. I would like us to explore this option, because we wouldn't want that information to wind up in Interpol files, to which American police, for example, could have access.
Second, it doesn't say who has access to the automated system. Madam Chair, I don't want to confuse everyone, but I have to say that amendment BQ-5 had the same objective as Dominic LeBlanc's. By the way, there was a mistake in the French: in subparagraph (2)(b), it said “the young person”, whereas it should have said “the person”.
» (1705)
[English]
The Chair: D'accord, une seconde. For everybody, Mr. Marceau is just identifying that his amendment BQ-5 is trying to achieve the same thing. So if people want to pull that forward, he's just going to tell you where there were some changes to it.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau: In the French version, in proposed subparagraph 9.3(2)(b), it says “the young person's counsel”, but it should be “the person's counsel”. The English version is correct.
The proposed amendment specified who could have access to the record of the person who got a ticket. The goal is the same. I think that by stating who has access to the system, it is even more specific.
[English]
The Chair: Can I just clarify?
Monsieur Roy, do you mind making sure that Mr. Saint-Denis, Mr. Piragoff, and Mr. Lavoie have a copy of BQ-5. I had an extra copy here at one point.
We're getting you BQ-5, which if you read it in English is fine, but we'll get you the French.
I think I was going to ask Mr. Lavoie if he would like to comment on Ms. Davies' question with regard to L-1, which you hopefully have as well.
Inspector Pierre Lavoie (Officer in Charge of the CPIC Program Policy, Canadian Police Information Centre, National Police Services of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police): I'm not quite sure what the question was.
The Chair: There are two parts to it. One, if L-1 passes, does this adequately cover the situation where records are ending up in the hands of the Americans at the border that were never intended to end up in their hands? And specifically around the whole issue of “knowingly discloses”, which I think from my time on the justice committee is normal language, someone may want to address that as well. Will this adequately control the access to information of people who just received a fine?
Insp Pierre Lavoie: From this, obviously we'll have to have either internal policy or technological means to make sure this doesn't occur. But it's only for systems that are controlled by the RCMP.
The Chair: Mr. Saint-Denis, or Mr. Piragoff, on the mens rea, on “knowingly”, can you just clarify that, because not everyone has had time on the justice committee.
Mr. Donald Piragoff: Thank you.
The proposal in L-1 is creating a summary conviction offence. Offences usually require some aspect of mens rea. The committee has to decide, if we're creating an offence, then is there some type of moral or mental culpability on the part of the offender, in other words, that the person is acting knowingly, that they know it will go to foreign authorities?
We're not talking about negligence, where accidentally it was sent. We're talking about their knowing; they know the system is configured, or they know the material contains information and it should not be sent. I think that's what we're trying to convey to people, not to send material to foreign governments or their agents if they know the material is of a type covered by the amendment. That's why the word “knowingly” is in there, so it doesn't make criminals out of people who negligently do it, because they maybe should have exercised more care, but they didn't. So it's a question of creating offences.
» (1710)
The Chair: And there's a test for that in the courtroom, obviously.
To Mr. Lavoie, I think Ms. Davies' issue was also addressed. To clarify, it will force some internal changes, perhaps, within the organization to how the lists are kept, but it wouldn't necessarily prevent a border patrol person, because we may not have the capacity to prevent this scenario that I'm going to describe, where they actually call up the Montreal police--a record that you don't manage, a record that you don't keep-- and ask if there is a fine registered somewhere.
Insp Pierre Lavoie: No, this would only apply to the systems that we can actually manage.
The Chair: The federal systems.
The INTERPOL question, how would that work? Is that something we could add to this?
Insp Pierre Lavoie: I'm not sure that I can really speak to that, but to me the word “foreign” is....
The Chair: INTERPOL is foreign.
Mr. Saint-Denis, and Mr. Piragoff.
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis: Adding the proposal by Mr. Marceau is not problematic. So it would be “foreign governments or its agents or an international organization”.
The Chair: Or “other international organizations”?
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis: I think “or international organizations”, but not “others”.
Mr. Donald Piragoff: I think you'd want to make it clear that the agent can be either an agent of the foreign government or an agent of an international organization.
The Chair: So it would be “to a foreign government or international organization or”--
Mr. Donald Piragoff: Comma, “or its agent”, comma.
The Chair: Actually, I think it still has to be “its”, doesn't it? It's an “its” there, or “their agents”. We'll clarify the language on that.
Mr. Donald Piragoff: In the singular, because the Interpretation Act says that the singular includes the plural. So it would be “to a foreign government or an international organization, or their agent”.
The Chair: I see.
Madame Allard.
[Translation]
Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: Madam Chair, if the purpose of the clause is to prevent disclosure of the information, I don't see why we're taking this approach.
In Quebec, recently, there was the case of an employee of the Régie de l'assurance automobile (motor vehicle bureau) who disclosed certain licence plate information, including a journalist's, and the Hells Angels subsequently attempted to murder that journalist. For that to be punishable only on summary conviction is not enough when someone might try to kill someone else.
I'd like to know if you're aware of that case in Quebec. How is the Automobile Insurance Act drafted? Perhaps we could go by that.
I find it insufficient to punish that on summary conviction. When someone does that, it's serious.
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis: Since I don't know that case, I can't comment.
[English]
The Chair: Maybe Mr. Lavoie could identify what the effect of this would be on his organization and the individuals within it. Would life imprisonment make you any more careful than a summary conviction, for instance, or six months in jail? Summary conviction, of course, is six months in jail.
Mr. Lavoie, could you clarify for Madame Allard the effect of this passing within your organization?
Insp Pierre Lavoie: Personally, it's certainly more than I would want to face.
[Translation]
Personally, it's more than I would want to face.
The Chair: Mr. Marceau.
Mr. Richard Marceau: Madam Chair, in order to calm any fears Ms. Allard may have, look at proposed subsection (2) in my amendment BQ-5, which lists the persons who may be given access to the records.
It refers to the person to whom the record relates, the person's counsel, certain persons from the federal government under certain conditions, a peace officer and an attorney general.
» (1715)
[English]
The Chair: Technically, amendment BQ-5 isn't moved, but I'm willing to have us talk about it, and perhaps the legal advisers can tell us our components of this. Would it improve it? Is there a way that we should be further amending amendment L-1?
Sorry, I was going to ask the legal advisers for their advice on amendment BQ-5.
Mr. Donald Piragoff: Thank you, Madam Chair.
Amendments BQ-5 and L-1 adopt totally different approaches.
Amendment L-1 tries to address what I understand was the concern raised in the committee that information would be disclosed to foreign law enforcement authorities, thereby subjecting Canadians to problems under the law of those other authorities.
Amendment BQ-5 is a broader proposal that essentially says the records first shall be kept separate and apart from other criminal records. I don't know what that does in terms of the costs to the RCMP and other information systems, where on CPIC now they may have to have a two-CPIC system, a CPIC for criminal and then a CPIC system for everything else, whereas now they may be able to call this material up for domestic purposes all on one record system. So there is a potential cost issue there.
The other issue is that essentially it tries to create an absolute prohibition for disclosure for all purposes, including all domestic purposes, except in the circumstances specified in proposed subsection (2). So it's a broader purpose.
The question then arises whether that is necessary, given the fact that we have the Privacy Act, which does prohibit disclosure of information except for authorized purposes, for domestic purposes. So are we duplicating the Privacy Act?
Another question is, are the exceptions in proposed paragraphs (2)(a) to (2)(g) sufficient for Canadian law enforcement and administrative and other lawful purposes?
Those would be my technical comments on the differences between amendments L-1 and BQ-5. I believe Mr. Saint-Denis has a comment as well.
The Chair: Mr. Saint-Denis.
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis: The way I read this amendment BQ-5, it seems to suggest that it would not be limited to the offences contemplated in Bill C-38. It refers to an offence under subsection 4(1), which is the general possession offence, and then limits it to schedule II, which is cannabis offences generally. So it's not limited to the offences here, where there are subcategories of offences defined by weight. For instance, a possession offence of over 30 grams would fall within this category of offences being contemplated.
The Chair: All right, just to clarify then....
Sorry, Ms. Davies and then Dr. Fry.
Ms. Libby Davies: To get back to amendment L-1, I think Monsieur Lavoie spoke about systems that are maintained by the RCMP, but I think the amendment by Mr. LeBlanc has included “or other police information systems”. So presumably it will cover what goes beyond the RCMP.
No?
Mr. Dominic LeBlanc: No, I'm sorry, it would be “conviction records retrieval system or other police information systems maintained or managed by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police”.
» (1720)
Ms. Libby Davies: All right. So there still may be an issue, then, of other systems managed or maintained by other forces. Okay.
The problem I have is that the idea of “knowingly discloses” is good as far as it goes, but I think one of the issues here is that these systems are vast, and we heard testimony of how your marijuana history may be included with a whole bunch of other stuff. A whole bunch of material may be going to a whole bunch of places, so I think how you separate that out becomes very difficult, becomes a huge logistical and management question.
So on the idea that someone knowingly would do that, yes, I can accept that. Hopefully people wouldn't knowingly do it, but I think the possibility of someone unknowingly doing it, because these systems are so vast, is problematic. So from that point of view, I think amendment BQ-5 is actually better, in that it is saying “be kept separate and apart”. Wouldn't that give greater assurance that these records are not going to be mixed up? I think that's part of the problem.
If there was an interest in amendment BQ-5, and to blend the two, maybe the Bloc would be open to defining their amendment by weight as well, so that it's on a similar level as amendment L-1.
The Chair: Ms. Davies, maybe I can help you out by turning to Monsieur Lavoie again, because I think he can address that issue.
What would the result of this passing be, Monsieur Lavoie?
Insp Pierre Lavoie: Which one, the new proposed section 64.1, or the other one?
The Chair: Amendment L-1, new proposed section 64.1.
Insp Pierre Lavoie: Essentially what the new proposed section 64.1 means is that any information, any reference to any offence under this new law, would have to be kept from being made available to foreign authorities.
The Chair: But in terms of your internal processes, as Ms. Davies is saying, if you have this information, let's say on Dominic LeBlanc for three frauds and five marijuana possessions, you're allowed to circulate that information on the frauds, obviously, but internally you're going to have to watch the three marijuana possessions so they don't inadvertently get attached to that record, because that bigger record is going over to the Americans.
Wouldn't you have to have a separate column for his marijuana convictions?
Insp Pierre Lavoie: Today we have situations where we have to segregate information. We can address this either by internal policy, or if we have to, we can address it through technological means.
You have to be careful when you talk about criminal records; that's Inspector Thompson's shop. But we have to remember that if there were no prints taken, there may not be a criminal record, in most cases.
The Chair: Then to clarify Ms. Davies' point about the Bloc amendment versus this one, this is more specific to and more inclusive of the cultivation and possession charges?
Mr. Saint-Denis.
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis: I just wanted to point out that CPIC and the other information systems that are maintained or managed by the RCMP are investigative tools. Amendment BQ-5 would open access to this information to a host of people who don't have access to it now. This may be a good thing, depending on your point of view, but it would become a less effective investigative tool.
My concern here is that if you open it up to people like Statistics Canada and persons' counsels and so on, it may reduce the effectiveness of this investigative tool.
The Chair: Ms. Davies, do you have another question?
Ms. Libby Davies: Yes, there was another part to it. I agree the two motions are different, and the BQ one does go further. We've been raising this from the point of view of what's shared with other governments, but I think there was also a very strong concern about people's records when they relate to simple marijuana. That shouldn't be shared generally. I do think the BQ motion also reflects what we heard.
In terms of your saying that more people would have access, under the current CPIC, a person's counsel, or Statistics Canada...I mean, we could look at ruling those out. We have a judge down here, an attorney general, or a peace officer.
Who would have access now?
» (1725)
The Chair: Mr. Lavoie.
Insp Pierre Lavoie: Currently, CPIC access is restricted to law enforcement agencies, and there's a formal application process. They have to demonstrate that they're enforcing the law and they have a legitimate need for the information.
If I can make a quick comment here, when you talk about a peace officer for the purpose of investigation, you have to remember that not every employee of a police department is a peace officer. There are a lot of civilians who manage records. So you have to be careful not to restrict it so much that the records can't be managed by the people who are employed.
The Chair: And you're saying Mr. LeBlanc's includes everyone?
Insp Pierre Lavoie: Well, proposed section 64.1, in my mind, would address the concern, which is to make sure the information doesn't reach beyond our borders.
The Chair: Okay. I have Mr. Piragoff first.
Mr. Donald Piragoff: Thank you.
I just want to follow up on the point that Mr. Lavoie made, that access to CPIC is very restricted. Various investigative agencies have to apply to a board composed of members who belong to CPIC. Not all law enforcement investigative agencies have access to CPIC.
The BQ amendment would carve out a certain part of a person's record, that is, the record relating to contraventions, and give it broader disclosure than currently under the CPIC system.
The Chair: I have Dr. Fry, then Mr. Marceau.
Keep in mind that amendment BQ-5 is technically not on the table, so that's fine.
Hon. Hedy Fry: I know BQ-5 isn't on the table, but I think we can't really not refer to it.
I have some similar concerns. I accept the concerns with regard to foreign governments and agencies, etc., that you would not want to be stopped at borders, etc. I do think, however, that in our society marijuana still carries with it a sense of prejudice with regard to the people who use. I think it's really important that agents, people who are non-RCMP, who are non-government agents, have access to these records, as Mr. Marceau pointed out, in terms of the exceptions to the rule. But I do think also it's really important we don't have information available to others who might be able to prejudice any opinions about that young person who once used this substance. This information could be prejudicial to them if they tried to get a job or if, for instance, something has happened and someone wanted to prove they were not a person of good character. It could be used against them, and I think that is a huge concern.
I know that in medicine, for instance, we have often had to fight very hard in spite of the Privacy Act against access to patient records, which could prejudice the courts against a patient. I'll give you an example. If a woman who had been to a psychiatrist was complaining of headaches and other problems relating to a particular incident, they could use that to say she's mentally unstable or problematic. That is one of the reasons we've worked very hard with regard to medical records.
I think the prejudicial nature of this kind of use of marijuana could be used against the person in a manner that would prohibit them from getting a job, would make it worse for them as an aggravating factor if they were to be accused of something else, or even in terms of medical instances, such as damages caused by something, seeking damages for something totally different.
I like Mr. Marceau's amendment. I think to change it so that it fits in with the specificity of amendment L-1, so that it isn't as broad, would be important. But I do like Mr. Marceau's better. I just want to say that, because it covers a lot.
» (1730)
The Chair: Let me just clarify. I'm going to turn to Mr. Marceau. He's going to make a comment. Then I'm going to suggest we go vote. Some people may want to do a little checking on a few things as they leave.
Mr. Marceau.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau: Madam Chair, I have a suggestion. It appears that everyone is quite interested in the idea of filing these records apart. Clearly, as you know, I'm a flexible man. Would it be possible to add to proposed clause 64.1 a paragraph saying that records of people who've been ticketed for a simple possession offence and perhaps for the offence of growing less than three plants will be filed separately, and that whoever has access to that information cannot disclose it? That would cover what I was trying to do with my amendment and could be included in Dominic's proposed amendment. We could sort of merge the two amendments.
[English]
The Chair: The rest of us will go and vote. These guys will huddle and figure out how to take the spirit of what you're trying to achieve.
Let me say that I had spoken with Mr. White before this, and he was also interested in being supportive of this kind of amendment. The question is, how do we make sure we achieve what we want, that everyone gets what we're trying to do, and what's the best vehicle?
We'll leave you guys to discuss and perhaps come up with another solution. We'll come back after the vote. I'm not sure how long the vote is going to take. Food is arriving at 6:30. We'll vote, and depending on what the timing is, there may be some people who will want to have some discussion with some of these guys beforehand. Come back as soon as you can. You can talk to some of these guys, and hopefully we can work a little more speedily.
Thank you. I'll suspend.
» (1732)
¼ (1827)
The Chair: Perhaps I could have everyone come back to the table. Mr. Lee has suggested that we might get some work done before they bring in the food.
Mr. Derek Lee: Colleagues, I don't want to spend the rest of the night on points of order, but I did want to ask you all to direct your minds to the normal procedure for dealing with clause-by-clause. Some of us, including myself, sometimes think that we're back in our old status as the Special Committee on the Non-Medical Use of Drugs, and in that format we traded many ideas and suggestions and we all got along very well. This is not the Cheyenne Social Club, so when an amendment is put I would ask the chair to see that the discussion is on the amendment. There certainly can be questions asked and answers given, but I'd like to see the question put when the issue is cleared.
Also, if members have amendments they want to put, they're free to draft them up. If they want to collaborate with other members, they can do that, but let's do it the right way. The way we're proceeding now, with all due respect, we're going to be here until midnight as we trade ideas, thoughts, and suggestions. We can't get through clause-by-clause properly if we do that. So that's my suggestion.
An hon. member: Hear, hear!
Mr. Derek Lee: So I'll be the bad guy here, but I want to see us stick closely to an order of process here, and we're in the hands of the chair.
Thank you.
The Chair: Okay. Mr. Lee, I appreciate that things didn't move quite as quickly as some people might have liked before the break, but I think there were some important issues on the table. It was my impression that during the break we had some more definition and perhaps some suggestions on how to make some improvements.
Ms. Davies.
Ms. Libby Davies: Well, through the chair, you are the bad guy. With all due respect, we have heard witnesses and really rushed through this and gotten to the point where we had virtually no time for amendments, so we are scrambling a little. I think a number of us on this committee, on both sides, are of a similar view. We are trying to work it out. So I actually appreciate the fact that the chair is giving us some leeway and scope to do that. We don't have to go on with an endless debate, but it is a little different from a regular bill, where we've been studying it for months and we've all had our amendments in for two weeks.
So we need a little leeway here.
A voice: “Lee-way”?
¼ (1830)
Ms. Libby Davies: Well, “non-Lee-way”, then.
I think it would be helpful to know what you think about this. Are you anticipating that we're going to go until we drop and we finish, or is there an expectation that we have a reasonable hour of shutting down? We have people here who have families to go back to, etc., so what is your feeling on that?
The Chair: It depends on what time we finish. Look, I think we've covered two really big issues. If we can get some closure on those, if we've found the right things, I think some of the other ones will move fairly quickly.
Food has arrived, and I would anticipate that we can move quite expeditiously. At nine o'clock we'll have to figure out if we're almost there or not there. There are only about ten clauses, so I suggest we go forward.
Mr. Piragoff, I think you have some suggestions on amendment L-1.
Mr. Donald Piragoff: Thank you, Madam Chair.
There are some suggested changes to the language in amendment L-1, which would address many of the concerns raised by members around the table.
Let me read the first part of my new proposed section 64.1, and I'll read it in English:
| Every person who has access to the automated criminal conviction records retrieval system or other law enforcement information systems, maintained by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or by an organization having a law enforcement role, and who knowingly discloses to a foreign government or an international organization, or their agent, |
and then the rest, I think, is the same.
[Translation]
The Chair: Mr. Marceau, are you in agreement?
Mr. Richard Marceau: Yes, for that part. Is there anything else after?
The Chair: It says that the Privacy Act
[English]
covers all these things already, the Privacy Act.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau: I want to get this right. I thought that Officer Lavoie, who has gone, told us that it could be in the CIPC system and could inadvertently, because it might be the same computer system, be unintentionally transmitted to others. Mr. Piragoff, do you see a problem with the addition of the words
[English]
that “the judicial record of conviction of the person shall be kept separate and apart from other criminal records”.
[Translation]
Do you see a problem with that?
The Chair: Mr. Piragoff.
[English]
Mr. Donald Piragoff: The problem with a requirement that these records be kept separate and apart is that we've expanded the scope of new proposed section 64.1 to include not only systems maintained by the RCMP, but also any organization having a law enforcement role. It could be federal, customs; it could be provincial. If we start indicating how they will keep their records and manage, we're now into a situation that will have costs for the provinces, for municipalities. That then puts costs on them.
The provision right now does not put costs on them. It simply says do not disclose. It doesn't say how they will keep and manage their systems.
¼ (1835)
The Chair: Mr. Saint-Denis.
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis: The other factor is that the amendment does not look only at criminal conviction records, but also at other law enforcement information, so there would be information that is not necessarily of a criminal record nature. It may be the fact that someone has been issued a contravention and there's no indication that the person has either pleaded guilty or has been convicted, and so on.
So you're talking about information that's more than just the record of criminal conviction, so that does not get addressed either by Monsieur Marceau's concern.
The Chair: Mr. Thompson.
Inspector Bob Thompson (Acting Officer in Charge , Canadian Criminal Records Information Services, National Police Services of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police): Thank you.
As a matter of record, when someone is going to be ticketed under this opportunity, it would not constitute a conviction of a criminal offence. This does not constitute a criminal offence. A criminal offence, by law, is an offence for which you have been found guilty...for something whereby you could be charged, either by indictment or through a dual procedure, and this particular charge we're speaking of is outside of that purview.
The Chair: Mr. Sorenson.
Mr. Kevin Sorenson: The Canadian Public Safety Information Network is something that's fairly new and coming out. I understand it's a consolidation of a registry for the key justice areas as well as for police data systems, including CPIC. And it provides information sharing between the provinces and the federal government, but also there is the ability to have the Americans access that Canadian Public Safety Information Network.
What type of information is on that? I know that, for example, with CPIC, the gun registry is on there, anyone who would register a firearm.... Is this something that would normally be put on there?
The Chair: Mr. Thompson.
Insp Bob Thompson: I think we need two chairs here, because my colleague will have to answer in part, but CPSIN is still in its infancy. It's clearly in an embryonic stage.
The area for which I declare a direct responsibility is the Canadian criminal records of Canada, and that is a conviction-based environment.
When we're talking about CPSIN, we're not necessarily talking about the consolidation of records management systems or information systems, but we're talking about the potential sharing of information held individually by these systems. There will be a series of parameters governing what can and cannot be exchanged, and I'll simply cite one example.
Regardless of any CPSIN initiative and any understanding as to what kind of information we would be sharing with our colleagues in the United States, the Youth Criminal Justice Act precludes any information relative to a young offender being shared with any foreign country. So if you have a young offender in Canada who has been convicted of a series of offences, and I receive the fingerprints in Canada and a question asking if we have a criminal record for that person, the response to the Americans, given our laws in Canada, is that we have no knowledge of that person.
So CPSIN is an information sharing, not a consolidating, opportunity. It is in its infancy, but it does not speak to those issues that relate to the sharing of information governed by law. So if I use that Youth Criminal Justice Act, regardless of how we choose to share that information domestically, we are not allowed by law to share it with anyone outside of Canada—excluding by ministerial authority.
The Chair: Okay, but just to be clear, we've addressed the subsections that are important for possession and possibly for cultivation. We've included all law enforcement information systems as they exist today and into the future. Correct? And we've addressed foreign governments, international organizations, such as Interpol, and their agents. So we've included all the concepts that everybody wanted.
Mr. Marceau, one last round, and then Mr. White.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau: Madam Chair, I understand that this could entail greater costs. I would like to move an amendment to proposed clause 64.1 because I would like these records to be separated from other records. So I move that we add the wording of proposed subsection 9.3(1) to amendment BQ-5 to complete it. I am proposing a subamendment, so we vote on the subamendment and then on the amendment.
¼ (1840)
[English]
The Chair: Okay. Please propose your subamendment.
Does anyone want the amendment as it stands to be reread? Does anyone need clarity on the main amendment?
Some hon. members: No.
The Chair: Mr. White, Mr. Marceau is going to put a subamendment forward, but do you have a question on the main amendment?
Mr. Randy White: No, I'm clear.
The Chair: Mr. Marceau, could you put your subamendment, please.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau: Madam Chair, I move that we use the wording of proposed subsection 9.3(1) in amendment BQ-5; I'm dropping proposed subsection (2) completely. I repeat that I'm sorry this is being done so quickly, but what's important is that these records be kept separate. There are probably people with greater expertise than I have, who could put it better, but the important thing is that these records be filed apart from other records. That's what I'm trying to do.
If proposed subsection 9.3(1) in amendment BQ-5 is properly worded—I think it is, but perhaps there are problems—that is the wording I suggest for a new subsection 64.1(2).
The Chair: That's not a subamendment; it's another amendment.
Mr. Richard Marceau: The main amendment is 64.1, as read by Mr. Piragoff. I'm moving a subamendment that would insert the wording of proposed subsection 9.3(1) in amendment BQ-5, which would become subsection (2) of that section.
[English]
The Chair: Yes, but if I could just clarify procedurally, you could pass L-1 and then you could have an additional clause that would be BQ-5, which would be a new clause 3.2. Right?
Okay, Libby, you have a question.
Ms. Libby Davies: Yes. My question is actually on the main amendment. Do you want me to wait?
The Chair: All right. Why don't we call the question on Mr. Marceau's subamendment, or you want...? Fine.
Libby, why don't you pose your question.
Ms. Libby Davies: Well, I don't know whether I missed this earlier, but it suddenly struck me that the government's main amendment says “Every person who has access to the automated criminal conviction records”. In our earlier discussion, we actually heard a lot of information about how it was beyond the actual conviction records; it was records.
The Chair: It says right after that, after “system”, there's a comma and then it says “or other law enforcement information systems”, which is very comprehensive.
Mr. Thompson.
Insp Bob Thompson: I'd just like to make this comment as I was probably not clear enough earlier. In order to hold a record separate and apart, it would have to have been a record in the first place. It is not. We cannot hold something separate and apart if it is doesn't exist as a record.
The Chair: That goes back to Mr. Marceau's question. We actually were going to deal with the subamendment. Call the question on the subamendment.
Mr. Piragoff, did you have a comment on Mr. Marceau's subamendment?
Mr. Donald Piragoff: Yes, thank you.
The effect of Mr. Marceau's subamendment is to incorporate BQ's proposed subsection 9.3(1)—the whole subsection (1). The effect of that would be to create an absolute prohibition to disclosure without any exceptions whatsoever, because we've deleted all of subsection (2). It'll be an absolute prohibition. Even Canadian policemen wouldn't be able to access it. That would be the effect of it.
The second point is that to keep records separate and apart, if records existed--and they said that there may not be a situation, because the records may not exist as the RCMP won't keep the records--would impose cost implications on the provinces and municipalities and others. We haven't consulted them at all as to what this entails.
Thank you.
¼ (1845)
The Chair: Okay.
Ms. Libby Davies: It seems to me that all we have to do is to end that first section after the term “criminal records” and take out “and shall not be disclosed except in accordance with this section” and where all the rest of it is. The main point is to keep them separate and apart. It would be a part of this main amendment in terms of how that is done.
The Chair: Okay. First I have Mr. Marceau's subamendment, and then Ms. Davies' is an amendment to the main amendment.
Mr. Marceau.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau: Madam Chair, to make things clear, I'm going to withdraw my subamendment and we'll vote on the main amendment, the proposed section 64.1 that was read. Then I will move a completely different amendment and we'll deal with that. Would it be easier that way?
The Chair: Yes, it would be easier.
(Amendment agreed to on division)
The Chair: You have the floor.
Mr. Richard Marceau: It's time to turn to what I was trying to propose earlier.
I understand what Mr. Piragoff said and I apologize again. I have a procedural problem because I'm feeling a bit pressured. We're taking snippets of sentences left and right. Are there any drafters who can help me come up with a sentence to say that the records have to be kept separate? Maybe someone else would feel more comfortable doing that than I do. I feel really awkward and we're moving fast. Can someone suggest a sentence that would say that a person's record of having been fined for simple possession or cultivation of one to three plants, if there is such a record, should be filed apart from other records?
The Chair: That is already part of Mr. Leblanc's amendment.
Mr. Richard Marceau: “Separate and apart” isn't there.
[English]
The Chair: The bottom line, I think, in what they were trying to tell you is that how they force their own internal systems to make sure it doesn't get transmitted is up to them. So the effect of it is that it is separate and apart, because otherwise they would perhaps inadvertently send something.
Am I wrong, Mr. Lavoie?
Insp Pierre Lavoie: Yes, the amendment reads that there is an obligation on us to make sure the information is not transmitted.
Insp Bob Thompson: The analogy I can give is that with our present system within the Canadian criminal records system, all records associated to youths must be kept separate and apart. Separate and apart can mean a variety of things. What it really is intended to do is to ensure that we manage the record properly according to that particular statute. But at the end of the day, if the statute says simply that I am not in a position to share this youth's record with any international police service, then that's where it stops, because I have no authority to share that information with anyone outside of Canada. I have no authority.
And today that's exactly what exists within the Youth Criminal Justice Act. I can cut it every which way to Sunday, but at the end of the day I cannot send a youth record to the United States, because the statute says I cannot do that.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau: Am I to understand that the amendment as it stands would have the effect of that being de facto because we're talking about contraventions? If that's the case, I will withdraw my amendment. Okay. I withdraw my amendment.
¼ (1850)
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Ms. Davies, does the NDP have an amendment to clause 3?
[English]
Ms. Libby Davies: No.
I did have a similar one, but I think it's been basically taken up by the amendment we just voted on.
(Clause 3 agreed to on division)
(On clause 4)
The Chair: We have amendment L-2. Oh, sorry, L-2 is deemed to have been adopted because it's consequential to L-1. So it's done. Amendment L-2 is carried.
An hon. member: It hasn't even been moved.
The Chair: You don't move it; it's consequential.
All right, move it and we'll pass it.
Mr. LeBlanc.
Mr. Derek Lee: We haven't carried clause 3.1.
The Chair: We did just carry clause 3.1.
Mr. Derek Lee: We did? Okay.
Mr. Dominic LeBlanc: We carried clause 3 as amended.
Madam Chair, amendment L-2 of course is consequential to the amendment we just approved, “that Bill C-38, in clause 4, be amended by replacing line 24 on page 2 with the following”, and proposed section 64.1, obviously, is what we have just passed. So that would be included in the list in L-2.
The Chair: Okay, we are on amendment L-2.
(Amendment agreed to)
(Clause 4 as amended agreed to on division)
(On clause 5)
The Chair: There are several amendments to clause 5, and for those of you who came at various points in the day, there are NDP amendments 1 and 2. For those of you who have your package in order, BQ-1 should go to the very last page—just put it on the bottom—because it's the title.
On clause 5 we have these amendments: NDP-1, NDP-2, CA-1, BQ-2, CA-2, PC-1, CA-3. Bingo!
And there's another one, NDP-3. Can we just see where that goes, because we have to do these in the right order?
What line is it on?
Ms. Libby Davies: Well, it would actually be the very first part of clause 5.
The Chair: Okay, what line does it start on?
Ms. Libby Davies: After line 33. Sorry, I couldn't see the line numbers.
The Chair: So it's an additional amendment.
Ms. Davies, do you want to read your amendment, please.
Ms. Libby Davies: This is an amendment that deals with the issue of what is considered to be trafficking. I did raise it last night, so I think people who were there last night will be familiar with it. The officials did agree that under existing provisions, if you basically pass a joint to a friend, it can be considered to be trafficking.
I have to read it out. The amendment we submitted was actually written up incorrectly, so I can't pass it around.
The amendment is that clause 5 be amended by replacing line 31 on page 2 with the following:
| 5.(1) The definition of “traffic” in subsection 2(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act is replaced with the following: |
| ... |
| ...except in respect of a substance referred to in subitem 1(1) |
--which deals with hashish--
| in an amount that is not more than 1 gram or 1(2) |
--which is marijuana personal possession--
| çç | of Schedule II in an amount that is not more than 5 grams. |
The intent of this is that if you had 5 grams or less, it could not be considered trafficking if you were passing it around. That's why we've limited it to 5 grams. I hope that explains it. That's the intent of the amendment.
I have it handwritten, if that's helpful to the clerk.
¼ (1855)
The Chair: I'm just not sure that....
Mr. Lee.
Mr. Derek Lee: While the clerk is taking down the written amendment, could we ask Mr. Piragoff or Mr. Saint-Denis to comment on whether, based on current practice or elsewhere in criminal procedure, there's a need to actually make this type of amendment, and whether police and prosecuting attorneys would actually regard the passing of a marijuana joint as trafficking, technically or practically.
The Chair: Mr. Saint-Denis
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis: I listened to what Ms. Davies was saying. If I understand correctly, she wants to extract the lower amounts of possession and the giving of that substance from the definition of trafficking.
Ms. Libby Davies: In fact, I've actually lowered it to 5 grams, because presumably if you're at a small gathering, you wouldn't necessarily be passing around more than that.
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis: The question was whether or not giving is incorporated in trafficking. The answer is yes, giving is part of the definition. If you give a joint, or if you give an ounce, or whatever amount you give, that is considered as being captured by the definition of trafficking.
Now, to the question of whether or not that is prosecuted as trafficking, I can only think that this is an exceedingly rare occurrence, particularly with respect to a joint being passed around from person to person.
The difficulty, I guess, is that if you exclude the giving, even for small amounts, you will have people who will offer for free—they will give a joint or a couple of joints to someone—in order to help someone experiment or perhaps encourage someone to try marijuana or cannabis. So you would not catch the trafficker who may be giving with a view to establishing or broadening his clientele. If you extract that possibility, then you can't deal with it. I think that would be a fairly considerable loophole.
Mr. Donald Piragoff: It would also be contrary to the policy that I heard expressed yesterday by many members of the committee, that part of the drug strategy was to dissuade usage of marijuana. The committee wanted to give a break to people who possess marijuana for personal use, but the overall drug strategy was to dissuade usage. To exclude giving from trafficking and to then promote giving to other people is contrary to the policy, I think, which is to dissuade people from usage.
Thank you.
The Chair: Mr. White.
Mr. Randy White: I think this is minutia, and I don't think the street-level policeman would deal with such a thing as trafficking, passing it from one person to another. To me, this is just fodder for lawyers, and I don't think we should go with it.
The Chair: Ms. Davies, do you have any other comment?
Ms. Libby Davies: Yes, I do. I think the interpretation given by the official is much more conservative that what even the minister has been saying.
It's clear that we're not talking about encouragement. To characterize this amendment in that way, I think, is really missing the point of what I understand the Minister of Justice is trying to do here, and that is to not criminally penalize people. But at the same time, of course, we're not advocating or encouraging drug use.
I think it's addressing a pretty important point. That is, under the current act, the definition of “traffic” includes “to sell, administer, give, transfer, transport, send or deliver the substance”. If the intent of this bill is to de-penalize or provide alternative measures, I think this is right in line with the overall intent of the bill.
So it's not a huge issue, but I think it's an important one. It helps, again, to separate out people's personal behaviour in a social setting where no harm is being created, and to say, just to be clear, that you're not engaged in trafficking.
½ (1900)
The Chair: If I recall, this issue came up when we were in other jurisdictions. I think in Germany and in Holland they talked about the situation where they still had on their books that if you pass it to the next person, you could get in trouble, but if you put it down on the table and the other person picks it up, you wouldn't get in trouble.
Does anyone else recall that issue?
Mr. Lee.
Mr. Derek Lee: I recall the issue, and I don't think we should engage in too much debate here. I think the point has been made that not only does the law currently constructed impose a trafficking prohibition on one who simply possesses one joint of marijuana now, even before we change the law, but the same double or triple jeopardy scenario exists for a person who possesses a marijuana joint now and passes it on to another party, just as it would under the proposed legislation.
I don't see a huge problem with it in the sense that, from a practical point of view, it's inconceivable that a prosecutor is going to waste time on a trafficking charge. The judge would be rather confused by that kind of scenario--unless you had what Mr. Saint-Denis was calling a trafficker-trafficker doing trafficking, in which case the one-joint scenario might be occasion for a charge.
So I appreciate Ms. Davies' objective.
The Chair: Mr. White, is it okay if I call the vote?
Mr. Randy White: I just want to make one last comment.
Think of the practicality. Ask these folks here what any judge in this country would do with something like that. He would just throw it right out.
The Chair: Okay, why don't I call the question?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Ms. Libby Davies: Could I make a request that we suspend for five minutes to get our dinner? You guys have a lot of people who could monitor what's going on.
The Chair: Why don't I suspend for a few minutes so that you can grab your food and come back?
½ (1903)
½ (1911)
The Chair: We will resume. We have before us amendment NDP-1--which is on a long piece of paper, for those of you who are interested.
Libby, do you want to move it?
Ms. Libby Davies: Actually, amendment NDP-1 is consequential. Amendment NDP-2 is a substantive amendment, so you can just look at it.
What this amendment would do is increase the amount allowed for personal possession. Amendment NDP-2 would increase the amount allowed for personal possession from one gram of cannabis resin hashish to 2 grams, and 15 grams of marijuana to 30. Then amendment NDP-1 would be consequential to this.
Basically, the intent of this motion is to say that the fine system that is currently contemplated in the bill, which is applied to 0 to 15 grams, would apply to 15 to 30 grams. That would mean that for 15 to 30 grams, there could be no consideration of a possible imprisonment term, or...I forget what the fine is. How much?
Mr. Randy White: It's $1,000.
Ms. Libby Davies: Yes. So it's basically saying that it would be 30 grams and under. This is based on what the committee originally recommended. As we heard last night and in other testimony, 30 grams is somewhat of an arbitrary figure, but I actually think for between 15 and 30 grams we should not be applying the possibility of imprisonment. It's a discretionary thing, but it is there. So I just put that forward.
The Chair: Okay. I'm asking the clerk to clarify, if this were passed, what would happen to amendments CA-1 and BQ-2.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau: Madam Chair, the purpose of amendment BQ-2 is to increase the quantity to 30 grams. It comes back to the committee's first suggestion. I don't understand how they drafted it, but it's exactly the same thing.
[English]
The Chair: I appreciate that, but if we were to pass amendment NDP-2, you couldn't put your....
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau: No...
[English]
The Chair: So then you would lose yours.
I think it would be the same for amendment CA-1, if--
An hon. member: And amendment CA-2.
The Chair: Just to clarify, if amendment NDP-2 were passed, amendments CA-1, BQ-2, and CA-2 would not be allowed to be put. Okay?
So does anyone want to speak to amendment NDP-2?
Mr. White, I know you haven't put your amendment yet, but the effect of this passing would be that you couldn't put yours.
Mr. Randy White: I guess I'd more prefer to speak to mine than this one, because they're at opposite ends of the pole.
The Chair: It's sort of the same thing.
½ (1915)
Mr. Randy White: This basically doesn't leave any discretion at all. It might have been the recommendation of the group at one time or another, but obviously we've had a lot of time to think about it, and I won't even agree with the breakdown of 0 to 15 grams. So obviously we're opposed to it.
The Chair: Does anyone else wish to speak to amendment NDP-2?
Mr. White.
Mr. Randy White: By the way, what the NDP are saying is that this provides a minimum fine for up to, basically, 50 or 60 joints. I don't think it will be bought in this country.
Ms. Libby Davies: Or it could be 30.
Mr. Randy White: It could be. It could be 60.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Now we're on amendment CA-1.
Mr. Randy White: This is here by popular demand. We know where this is going, don't we?
We've always had the position that 5 grams is minor possession--which is 5 to 9 or 10 joints, I guess. What this amendment does is make the category 0 to 5 grams, and the second part of it, 5 to 30 grams.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment BQ-2.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau: Madam Chair, given the decision that was made earlier, I think my amendment has to be considered defeated because it's the same as NDP-1.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you.
Amendment CA-2.
Mr. Randy White: Wasn't this defeated by virtue of the first one being negatived?
The Chair: No, you can put it again. It's entirely possible that someone might pass it.
Mr. Randy White: We'll try. I'm really naive, you know.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
An hon. member: Don't start laughing until after we have read the amendment.
Mr. Randy White: Between 15 and 30, the offence is a higher fine.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Does anyone wish to put forward amendment PC-1?
Mr. Derek Lee: Have you got a copy of it?
The Chair: It's in your pile.
It doesn't have to be put, as they're not here.
Mr. Derek Lee: In a weak moment last night, Madam Chair, while speaking with Mr. Mark, I agreed to put all of his amendments if he were unable to be here.
So at this time, I would move amendment PC-1, which has to do with convictions of a person for a second or subsequent offence. Mr. Mark's amendment would allow a fine to double on a subsequent conviction under the Contraventions Act; in other words, it's an escalation of penalty for subsequent convictions for possession.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Mr. White, on amendment CA-3.
Mr. Randy White: I'm still on amendment PC-1.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Randy White: This is what happens when you get to be 55. When you get to be old like me, it's very hard.
The Chair: We're more than willing to help you out.
Mr. Randy White: This amendment attempts to address the problem, I guess, of the Prime Minister's statement about having a joint in one hand and a fine in the other.
What happens with all of the subsequent events? You just don't keep going like that. So this amendment attempts to increase the fines for subsequent convictions by $100 for each conviction after the first.
The Chair: Just to respond to one of your comments, I've put the Prime Minister through a mini-dare program, and he won't be making those comments again.
Mr. Randy White: Good for you.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 5 agreed to on division)
(On clause 6)
The Chair: There are several amendments.
Libby, do you know where or in what order yours goes, or what line it affects?
½ (1920)
Ms. Libby Davies: Actually, it was handed out as NDP-3.
The Chair: Yes, I have it in the right order.
So the order for this clause is amendment PC-2, CA-4, BQ-3, L-3, NDP-3, NDP-4, and PC-3. All of those deal with clause 6.
In order, Mr. Lee.
Mr. Derek Lee: Mr. Mark's amendment, PC-2, would address the circumstance of having not more than two marijuana plants, and the amendment sets out a specific fine amount of not more than $5,000, or imprisonment. So it's a special category of offence for being in a possession of plants.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Mr. White, on amendment CA-4.
Mr. Randy White: This one is interesting, yes. Pay attention to this.
I'm not sure whether we discussed this, but it is an anomaly. The original section of the CDSA actually deals with the punishment--and I'm reading--for growing cannabis, which is currently an indictable offence with a maximum sentence of seven years. But when we brought this over to the penalty under Bill C-38, it says the penalty could be up to five years plus a day on an indictable offence, or 18 months. What this amendment is doing is changing that five years to seven years, and the 18 months to 20 months, just as it is in the CDSA.
The Chair: Officials, did you want to comment?
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis: The five years less a day was to remove the possibility of having jury trials involving small amounts of plant cultivation. By going back to seven years, you are ensuring jury trials for all of that category, 4 to 25 plants.
The Chair: Mr. White.
Mr. Randy White: That was what I was doing. I'm just saying--
The Chair: Okay, that's fine.
Mr. Randy White: --Bill C-38 is lowering that boundary, basically, from where it is today.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We'll go to amendment BQ-3, Mr. Marceau.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau: Madam Chair, you'll be surprised to hear that I repeatedly asked this question about people who cultivate cannabis for personal use. So instead of going to jail, these people—we're talking here about people who cultivate three plants at most—would be subject to a penalty under a contraventions or ticketing system. We just have to be consistent and avoid criminalizing people who consume small quantities. We have to avoid forcing them to turn to a black market controlled by organized crime for their supply.
[English]
The Chair: I'd just draw to members' attention that the effect of passing amendment BQ-3 would be that amendment L-3 would not be able to be put.
Mr. Lee.
Mr. Derek Lee: Thank you.
Mr. Marceau is heading in the same direction as Mr. Barrette. Mr. Barrette's amendment is worded slightly differently, but as I read it, it would have the identical result, with a consequential amendment required to be put along with it.
So from a purely technical point of view, Mr. Barrette's amendment L-3 is the version I would want to support, but it has the same effect as Mr. Marceau's. So the credit is with Mr. Marceau for introducing it, but technically, the best wording, as I see it, is in the one Mr. Barrette will move later.
½ (1925)
The Chair: Did Mr. Saint-Denis or Mr. Piragoff want to comment?
Mr. Saint-Denis.
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis: I think Mr. Lee has managed to encapsulate the difference. The major difference is that in amendment L-3, there is the additional provision stating that in those provinces where there is a contravention agreement, the police would only be able to issue a contravention ticket. Of course, there's a distinction in the penalty as well, which is $500 in L-3 versus the amount contemplated in BQ-3.
The Chair: Which is what?
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis: $150 for adults and $100 for youth.
The Chair: Ms. Davies.
Ms. Libby Davies: So would they both have fines of $500, then?
The Chair: No.
Ms. Libby Davies: Then they are different.
The Chair: No, no. Derek was just identifying that. That's why I asked the question to Mr. Saint-Denis.
So the debate is on the fine, and if we pass Mr. Marceau's, we would probably want to add the second half of amendment L-3 somehow.
Ms. Libby Davies: They both deal with the same number of plants, so if one of them were approved, it would rule out mine, which is on the existing fine.
Is there a hierarchy in which you do this, you start and then work your way down? Otherwise, you would have completely precluded mine.
The Chair: Ms. Davies, just one second, please.
I'm sorry. All that training on CEPA.... In fact, Ms. Davies' is the first amendment, because it is on line 37 on page 4. So amendment NDP-3 comes before BQ-3.
Well done, Ms. Davies.
I apologize, Mr. Marceau.
Ms. Davies, would you like to put forward your amendment? Why don't I suggest we consider all three of them at the same time? People could talk to all three of them, since they are roughly around the same neighbourhood. Is that fair?
Mr. Kevin Sorenson: Is this clause 6?
The Chair: It's amendment NDP-3 and clause 6.
Ms. Davies.
Ms. Libby Davies: Amendment NDP-3 is basically saying that for personal cultivation, you could have up to five plants, and the fine would be $150. We've debated this, so I think people are clear that's where we're at with it.
The Chair: But the effect of this is that if we were to pass Ms. Davies' amendment, we could not put amendments PQ-3 or L-3.
I'll call the question on Ms. Davies'.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Derek Lee: I thought we were going to talk about them all first.
The Chair: Oh, fine. Sorry.
Mr. Derek Lee: That's what you had said. I thought it would be fair to compare penalties.
The Chair: So now we're down to the same number of plants, but we're talking different penalties in amendments BQ-3 and L-3.
I apologize, Ms. Davies. I did say that.
Mr. Saint-Denis.
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis: Just a small correction, Madam Chair, in amendment BQ-3, the fine being contemplated is $300 and $200 for adults and youth respectively, whereas in NDP-3 the amount is $150 and $100 for adults and youth respectively.
The Chair: So now we have amendments BQ-3 and L-3.
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis: Amendment L-3 has $500 and $250 for adults and youth respectively.
The Chair: Mr. Marceau.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau: Madam Chair, if you compare L-3 and BQ-3, for an adult, there's a $200 difference, and for a young person, there's a $50 difference. Right?
½ (1930)
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis: Between your amendment and amendment L-3.
[English]
The Chair: Okay.
Mr. Barrette, I thought you wanted to say something.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilbert Barrette (Témiscamingue, Lib.): I'd just like to point out that in the case of L-3, it's $500 for adults, and in the case of BQ-3, it's $250.
Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: Madam Chair, a person who has three plants is liable to a fine. Why is there a lesser penalty for someone who only has one or two?
The Chair: No, the category includes from one to three plants.
Mr. Saint-Denis.
[English]
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis: Technically, if someone is prosecuted by way of a summary conviction offence in a non-contravention province, then a lower amount could be imposed by the court than the maximum fine, which would be whatever you choose to be here, whereas on the ticket it's a fixed amount. It would be the fine.
The Chair: Monsieur Marceau.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau: If I understand correctly, Mr. Saint-Denis, six out of the ten provinces, including Quebec, have entered into agreements with you, and the other four are preparing to do so also.
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis: The four provinces and the three territories are at various stages of negotiation. Some are closer to a conclusion than others.
Mr. Richard Marceau: If I understand correctly, one way or another, that's where we're heading.
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis: That is certainly what we expect.
[English]
The Chair: Let's just clarify. In both amendment BQ-3 and and amendment L-3, it's one to three plants, and the difference is in the fine amounts.
Mr. Saint-Denis, could you repeat what the fine amounts are?
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis: The fine amounts in BQ-3 are $300 and $200 for adults and youth. In L-3 it's $500 and $250.
The Chair: And the second difference between BQ-3 and L-3 is to deal with the provinces we don't have an agreement with on the Contraventions Act.
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis: It deals with provinces that do have the Contraventions Act.
The Chair: Do have, sorry.
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis: Yes, that is to say that in those provinces where there's a contraventions agreement the police can only proceed by way of a ticket. In the provinces where there is no agreement, they will be left with the summary conviction approach.
The Chair: Mr. White.
Mr. Randy White: We're into the growing part, right?
The Chair: That's right.
Mr. Randy White: It's $300 as opposed to what?
The Chair: To $500.
Mr. Randy White: So $500.
The Chair: And $200 versus $250.
Mr. Randy White: Is that amending (3)(a)? Are we saying that--
The Chair: Yes.
Mr. Randy White: --“not more than three plants is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine of not more than five thousand dollars”?
The Chair: It would be--
Mr. Randy White: It's not $500, it's $5,000.
The Chair: The amendment L-3, in the schedule--
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis: We refer to a schedule, which shows $500 for every adult and $250 for youth.
Mr. Randy White: Yes. You lost me, because what they're both doing is amending (3)(a), right? One is saying $300 as opposed to $5,000, and the other one is saying $500 as opposed to $5,000.
The Chair: Yes, bingo.
Mr. Randy White: All right. You said it incorrectly and I got lost.
The Chair: Just a second. I have Mr. Barrette and Ms. Davies.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilbert Barrette: We all agree that we're talking about three plants.
I move that we vote on an amount between $500 and $250 or between $300 and $200.
Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: Madam Chair...
[English]
The Chair: Just a second. You're not next.
I have Madame Davies, Madame Allard, and Mr. White.
Ms. Libby Davies: It always was one to three plants, so we weren't changing that. But the clarification I'd like is that the government amendment, the way it is now proposed, is it's $5,000--
The Chair: Sorry, excuse me. Just a second. I'm sorry.
[Translation]
Ms. Allard, Ms. Davies is saying exactly the same thing as Mr. Barrette.
½ (1935)
[English]
Ms. Libby Davies: So the way it is proposed in the bill it's $5,000 or the possibility of imprisonment?
The Chair: Yes.
Ms. Libby Davies: So the government amendment is dropping imprisonment altogether, and you're dropping the $5,000 down to $500?
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis: Yes, or $250 for youth.
Ms. Libby Davies: Right.
The Chair: I have Madame Allard and Mr. White.
[Translation]
Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: In the case of a young person who lives with his or her parents, how, in terms of the penalty, will you distinguish between adult and young person?
[English]
The Chair: The amounts again are $500 for adults and $250 for youth, or $300 for adults and $200 for youth.
[Translation]
Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: Are you going to take into account the actus reus?
[English]
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis: The distinction will be made on the basis of who gets charged. If they charge the youth, he will get charged with the lower amount or he will be liable for the lower amount.
The Chair: Ticketed.
Mr. White.
Mr. Randy White: I was looking through your schedule, but I don't have it here. However--
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis: It's L-5. I believe that's the consequential amendment.
Mr. Randy White: Hang on a minute now. Just to clarify, a young person's age is 12 to...?
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis: It's less than 19; it's 18 or less.
Mr. Randy White: Zero to age 17.
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis: It's 18 or less.
Mr. Randy White: All right, you're the lawyer.
The Chair: You're a lawyer, he says.
Mr. Randy White: If you were going to move in that direction, then you wouldn't say a maximum of $500, surely; you would say it is $500.
Mr. Derek Lee: That's what we say: it is $500.
The Chair: In the schedule it is in fact--
Mr. Randy White: It's $500, or in the case of a young person $250.
The problem I have, and it's one of my amendments down the way here, is this differentiation between young person and adult on these issues. It's gets to the whole fine schedule on the original schedule. I question why we're really making that differential between a young person and an adult. I hear comments like, young people won't have the money to pay for it, but they seem to have the money to buy marijuana, so they must have money for it.
I don't think we should get into the differentiation. I think we should just have a fine of.... I don't agree with the differentiation.
The Chair: Mr. Sorenson.
Mr. Kevin Sorenson: I don't think we're doing the young people any favours by lowering the amount to $250. I think it's going to be harder to prove in court. For example, you have a family with some teenage kids, and the father, who has some of these plants growing, says they're the kids', and then it's not a criminal conviction any more and they're putting the blame down on the young people.
Also, what it's going to do is it's going to have these 21-year-olds recruit kids to go water the plants, recruit kids to be the caretakers of some of these marijuana plants, and it's not doing them a favour. In fact, you may be burdening them with something that is quite objectionable down the road.
If they generally understand that the fine is going to be $500, it doesn't matter if you're 17 or 20 years old, doesn't matter if you're 19 or 16, the fine is going to be $400 or $300, whatever, but the same, you aren't going to unduly harness that young kid with problems down the road.
The Chair: Mr. Lee.
Mr. Derek Lee: Isn't it a fact, Mr. Saint-Denis, that the schedule already exists and the schedule already distinguishes between the $500 and $250 for youth? The youth and adult distinction already exists in the act. We're not inventing it for purposes of this section; it already exists. So we're simply following the same paradigm, the same fining structure that already exists, that's already been adopted by Parliament.
The Chair: Mr. White.
Mr. Randy White: With all due respect to that argument, why change anything, then, if it already exists? We don't necessarily have to follow what is.
½ (1940)
The Chair: But you have an amendment to that effect later?
Mr. Randy White: Yes.
The Chair: So the question is on Mr. Marceau's amendment, BQ-3.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Now on L-3, Mr. Barrette's amendment.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: On NDP-4, Ms. Davies.
Ms. Libby Davies: Is this dealing with clause 7?
The Chair: Dealing with clause 6, and it's on line 42: it would be not more than six plants.
Ms. Libby Davies: That was a consequential.
The Chair: Sorry, we won't put forward that one.
Did anyone want to put forward PC-3? Mr. Lee.
Mr. Derek Lee: I'm obligated to do that, and it's my great pleasure to put forward amendment PC-3. I know it's in my package here. Yes, there it is.
This is a very noble attempt on the part of Mr. Mark to deal with the two-plant issue, which I think we've already resolved. You can read his amendment, make your own conclusions.
Having had discussion, call the question, Madam Chair.
The Chair: Thank you.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 6 as amended agreed to on division)
(On clause 7)
The Chair: On clause 7, there is amendment L-4. Mr. Lee, on amendment L-4.
Mr. Derek Lee: Thank you.
The Chair: Is this for Inky?
Mr. Derek Lee: No, this is a legitimate attempt to improve the bill beyond its already excellent state.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Derek Lee: It's actually an addition to the existing clause. This is about laying a booby trap, device, or whatever. The current wording does not cover the situation where the person who occupies the location allows it to be done or permits the trap to be put there. He or she doesn't actually put it there, but allows it to be there, so the amendment provides for that. It says that “if they occupied or were in possession of the location” and they allowed the trap or device to be there, then that's also part of the offence.
As for the second part of the amendment, the current provisions deal with a jail sentence or sentence of imprisonment, but they don't include various types of new conditional sentencing that are coming down the pipeline. So by the addition of the words “a custodial”, the section will use the term “custodial sentence” to distinguish and be more comprehensive in describing that.
The Chair: That would be related to subclause 7(3) on page 6 of the bill, where it says “not to sentence”.
Mr. Derek Lee: Did everybody understand that?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: I have another amendment on clause 7. Ms. Davies.
Ms. Libby Davies: I just lost it.
The Chair: Your mind or the amendment?
Ms. Libby Davies: I know I'm doing really well on my amendments.
That was a joke.
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
½ (1945)
Ms. Libby Davies: You're just supporting them so well. Thank you to the Bloc.
This one has to do with warrants. Again, this one was written up, but there was a technical error during the writing up, so it couldn't be circulated. So if people want me to read it, I will, though I could just tell you what it is.
The intent of this amendment is that there have to be reasonable grounds to get a search warrant on the belief there is more than 30 grams on the premises for commercial purposes. So it's basically saying that you just can't bust into someone's place, but there has to be some sort of demonstration or understanding or documentation that what's in existence there is for commercial purposes or trafficking, meaning it would be over the 30 grams.
The Chair: Could you tell me what line it starts on?
Ms. Libby Davies: This amendment would add after line 10 on page 6.
The Chair: So it's basically a new clause 7.1.
Ms. Libby Davies: Yes, it would be a new clause that a controlled substance or precursor in respect of which this act has been contravened.... I don't even understand it the way it's written, but the intent of it is that you have to have reasonable information before you can get a search warrant and go in. It would have to be over 30 grams, with the reasonable belief that amount would exist there.
The Chair: Okay, no problem.
Mr. Saint-Denis.
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis: First of all, in order to obtain a search warrant to enter a dwelling house, a peace officer has to provide reasonable grounds to demonstrate that an offence is being committed there.
Ms. Libby Davies: Yes, but as it stands now, it could be for any amount, right?
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis: You're talking about 30 grams, and this section deals with the number of plants. And even if one tries to do what you were suggesting, Ms. Davies, the problem is that you can have several people in one house, each possessing or growing three plants, so cumulatively you would end up with a possible commercial enterprise, with each person claiming only three plants.
Ms. Libby Davies: If it were one premise and if it were clear that within a premise that was jointly owned or was a co-op or something, this is what was taking place, it would be different, as opposed to if they were individual premises. So I don't understand how that's relevant.
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis: Even in a dwelling house, even in a single family home, you could have four or five people renting the place and each person growing three plants and using that as the basis for a commercial enterprise.
Ms. Libby Davies: Okay, so if there were more than 30 grams, one could argue that the police would be able to say they have reason to believe that all of this collection together is for commercial purposes, and it would allow them to go in. But if they couldn't gather that, then they wouldn't be able to do it.
A voice: Yes, they would.
Ms. Libby Davies: Well, not if this amendment....
The Chair: Okay, let's huddle for a secod.
Mr. White, did you have a comment?
Mr. Randy White: No.
Mr. Kevin Sorenson: Can I ask a question here? Is there anything in the bill that says that if someone has three grams you can't get a warrant to go in and seize it?
The Chair: Mr. Yost.
Mr. Kevin Sorenson: No, there isn't, is there? It's still illegal. Marijuana is illegal. You can go in for one plant; you can go in for one joint. There's nothing that would say that the police can't go in for one joint, and that's good.
So leave it alone, Libby, eh?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Ms. Libby Davies: I think you just made my point. Thank you.
The Chair: Mr. White.
Mr. Randy White: In all seriousness, I think if you check with the police you'll find that in many cases major drug busts and other crimes are found as a result of getting in the door; it's something small, and they're looking for the bigger things. The police aren't out there looking for one or two joints; they're looking for bigger stuff, and that's how they get it.
The Chair: Ms. Davies.
Ms. Libby Davies: In this amendment it does talk about 30 grams, but I think the key part is it says in respect of which a commercial transfer is taking place. That's the key point, right? If there is evidence that suggests or intelligence that's being gathered that this is about a commercial business or trafficking, then that's the only way they can get a warrant.
½ (1950)
The Chair: Mr. Saint-Denis, do you want to comment? And then I'll call the question.
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis: The difficulty there is that it's almost impossible to demonstrate what the intent of the grower is. You could traffic with one plant. You could traffic with five plants. You could have personal cultivation with five plants or less. That onus would make it virtually impossible for police to get a search warrant.
The Chair: Okay.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings]
(Clause 7 as amended agreed to on division)
(Clause 8 agreed to on division)
(On clause 9)
The Chair: Clause 9 is on the schedules.
Ms. Libby Davies: I have something on clause 9. It has to do with the fines, so I'm not sure whether you want to do it under clause 9, which refers to the schedule, or under the schedule.
The Chair: You do it under the schedule.
Ms. Libby Davies: All right.
And I do have one amendment, though, on clause 9 itself, which is new.
The Chair: All right.
Ms. Libby Davies: So we'll come back to the schedule one.
I didn't quite know where to put this, but hopefully this is the right place. It reads as follows:
| Within one year of the passage of this Bill, a commission be established to consider and implement a pardon process for people with criminal records for possession of up to 30 grams of marijuana. |
If I could speak to this, this has to do with the so-called amnesty provision. We had some debate about it last night, and the minister told us that it was a very complicated issue. There may actually be some people who are present, like Inspector Thompson, who can clarify what the process is and just how complicated or not it is.
I took the minister at his word, and he seemed to be somewhat sympathetic to the idea, but just couldn't quite figure out how to do it. So I thought this was a possible course of action, that within the bill we could say that this was a follow-up to actually establish a body or a commission to consider and implement it.
I had a brief conversation with Inspector Thompson, and it is actually something that can be done. This is not rocket science. I think we should seriously consider it.
Perhaps we could ask Inspector Thompson.
The Chair: I also have Mr. White, who has a question on this. Before I go to Mr. White, I'll also ask if Mr. Thompson or somebody else could tell me whether that would be within a bill or whether that should be something that we tag with our bill when it's passed as a recommendation to the House.
Mr. White, and then Mr. Thompson.
Mr. Randy White: I've talked to a lot of police about this, and to lawyers. One of the difficulties with this is that upon conviction, yes, people have gotten in for what we would consider today minor possession; however, during the plea-bargaining process there were many other charges that were dropped. In many of those cases, where we think, well, a person's in for minor possession, they had robbery convictions, they had assault convictions, they had all kinds of other convictions prior to that.
I think you're asking for some major complications on this. It's going to turn into a mess if you start granting amnesty for individuals who get away with some fairly big crimes and who are sentenced for the minor ones.
The Chair: Mr. Thompson.
Insp Bob Thompson: I'll need my glasses because I can't read this. Excuse me.
The Chair: I know the lighting is very unusual.
Insp Bob Thompson: The only thing I'd like to make a comment on is how I manage pardoned records. In the event that someone is found guilty of having committed a criminal offence for which we have the record in Ottawa, in our central repository, where it is a summary conviction offence, the person is in a position to make a request for a pardon after three years, and in the case of an indictable offence, after five years.
When there are several offences attached to convictions, in the example you cited, and a pardon is granted, the pardon is granted from a date backwards. So any offence for which that person has received a pardon would, in essence, clean all associated charges to that person from a date backwards.
In the event that this person recommits an offence after having received a pardon, under the RCMP criminal records management system, we have the authority to cease a pardoned record and the National Parole Board has the authority to rescind it.
Since 1997, when possession of marijuana became a summary conviction offence, we would not see that within our criminal record system anyway, because you do not have the authority to fingerprint. So from 1997 to today we do not have any criminal records for persons having been charged with having committed that kind of an offence. It is a summary conviction. You cannot take fingerprints. There is no criminal record.
In respect of this particular amendment, one would have to assume that a criminal record exists for which you would have to exercise a pardon, and there would be no criminal record to be able to expunge and/or pardon. If you were charged today with fewer than 15 grams, there would be no criminal record; therefore, we could not pardon.
½ (1955)
The Chair: Ms. Davies.
Ms. Libby Davies: Madam Chair, I'm sorry, I should have made it clear. This amendment deals with what has happened in the past, not with what happens from now on. As I understand it, the justice system could, if it wanted to, go through all the records and separate out all the marijuana charges and just say they're wiped out. The minister said he would probably have some difficulty with that.
I was hopeful people would see this as at least a way to look at this issue and say it could be a follow-up as a result of the passage of this bill.
The Chair: I wonder if there is a way we could tag a note with our report to the House that this is something we want examined further.
Mr. Macklin.
Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Well, I tend to agree with Mr. White about the officer, because quite frankly.... Well, occasionally we can agree--though it's rare. Quite frankly, I think Mr. White's point is well taken. I know from my past experience in dealing with some of these issues that plea bargaining is a regular occurrence, and it does end up with certain of these offences being tagged in, and it would form a criminal record--it would be part of a criminal record.
I think what we're hearing from the officers is that the people Ms. Davies would be interested in are those who are caught on a simple summary conviction basis. There isn't a criminal record, as I understand it, because they never would have been fingerprinted under the fingerprint...whatever that act is.
Insp Bob Thompson: The Identification of Criminals Act.
Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Yes.
Therefore, in this case I think the people you would feel the most concern for, meaning those who are just in the summary conviction category, not doing other illegal activities for which they've been convicted, aren't going to have a record.
If we believe there is some way you could go back.... It looks to me, quite frankly, like a dog's breakfast, to figure out how on earth you'd ever separate those issues where in fact plea bargains have occurred as part of the ultimate sentencing, distinguish that little piece of it, and say it was fair and reasonable.... The pardoning process strikes me as a far better process for people to pursue.
The Chair: Okay, Ms. Davies and Mr. Lee.
Ms. Libby Davies: I think we obviously don't have a lot of information about this situation. To say we shouldn't do this because a vast majority of people...and just throw it out--only plea bargains, so therefore.... We don't know that. We could be talking about a very small number of people. I don't know that. If you go far enough back, there may be all kinds of records there that weren't necessarily summary convictions, that weren't associated with anything else.
Again, I think it's a very important principle, and I don't know why we wouldn't attempt to make some headway on this instead of finding reasons it can't be done or saying it's too complicated. It isn't. It is something that could be done.
¾ (2000)
The Chair: Mr. Thompson.
Insp Bob Thompson: To make it clear, anyone who's been charged with a simple possession of marijuana offence between 1997 and the passage of this law does not have a criminal record to begin with. So you cannot ask for a pardon on those offences. On those offences pre-1997, where the person has a criminal record for possession of marijuana, they are clearly within their right to apply for a pardon.
That said, in that process, relative to the complexity, when we receive a criminal record to be created in Ottawa through fingerprints, where the person was charged under the old statute, we'll say, of the Narcotic Control Act, subsection 3.(1), possession of a narcotic, it did not differentiate between two caps of heroin, a gram of cocaine, or fourteen grams of hash. What it did say was that a person was charged under subsection 3(1) of the Narcotic Control Act.
In the absence of information--the actual charge, where it says “possession”, and then in brackets what the substance was--we would not know that as part of the criminal record construct. The person simply had been found guilty of having committed a criminal offence--possession of a narcotic.
The Chair: Mr. Lee.
Mr. Derek Lee: This is a very complex thing, which we're not going to be able to resolve tonight, because there are pre-1997 convictions and post-1996 convictions, and then we have the problem that Mr. Thompson says someone currently convicted, or whatever, wouldn't have a criminal record because they don't do fingerprints.
Well, that's his view from the system that he operates, but in fact in law the person does have a criminal record. They may apply for a pardon, and they'll write them back saying they can't find any record, but a criminal record is a criminal record. It's not because you have it or don't have it in your system that there's a criminal record.
Yes, you call it a criminal record, and Mr. Thompson, in his system, calls it a record.
So I agree with where Ms. Davies is going on this. It would actually save us hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars if we could, by statute, wipe out all these small-amount marijuana convictions going back 30, 40, or 50 years. The problem is that it will probably cost us hundreds of thousands of dollars to find them all, and it's a real mess.
I wouldn't mind if this came back to the justice committee or another committee to try to deal with it later, but we'll never succeed in crafting something for this bill tonight. It's too complex.
The Chair: Okay, I have Mr. White and Ms. Davies.
Mr. Randy White: You can see where this is going. I think it may be a place for a private member's bill or something. But you can just imagine that if we even sent from this committee a note or a letter attached to all of this to the House of Commons, the next day you'd have probably 7,000 or 8,000 people in prisons writing you letters saying, “I expect my turn now; all I'm in here for is a little bit of marijuana.” It would turn into a regular nightmare. Be very, very cautious of that. I like my nightmares, but not this kind, because we'll all be inundated with “Well, gee, you know, I should have amnesty for mine; mine was really just marijuana.” That really is not the case, so I think a private member's bill or something--
The Chair: So do I take it, Mr. White, that you don't want 8,000 letters from the people who are in our prisons?
Mr. Randy White: You know you'll get them. You're laying out an expectation here, all of a sudden, from Parliament, that you're going to have amnesty.
The Chair: Okay, I have Ms. Davies and Mr. Saint-Denis.
Ms. Libby Davies: Could I suggest that we go off the record for a moment so that I can actually raise the possibility of doing it another way, and just get advice?
The Chair: We'll suspend for two minutes.
¾ (2004)
¾ (2006)
The Chair: So, just to be clear, clause 9 could carry, because Mr. Marceau's amendment is to add a new clause 9.1.
(Clause 9 agreed to on division)
The Chair: We're on new clause 9.1, or amendment BQ-4.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau: Thank you, Madam Chair.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Marceau, let me explain the challenge we have.
In the eighth line in the English--where is it in French?--where it says “a drug in the person's body,” the clerk is advising that, strictly speaking, a drug includes antihistamines, heroin, and so on, and that this bill is strictly about marijuana, so this could be out of order.
Mr. Richard Marceau: It could be, or it is?
The Chair: Well, her advice is that it is out of order, so I'm trying to see if there's a way to fix that.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau: Madam Chair, repeatedly, before this committee, we have dealt with the problem of drug-impaired driving, or more specifically, marijuana-impaired driving.
I'd really like to know why this is out of order. In my opinion, it is completely consistent with the marijuana bill. I am not convinced by your argument—even though it was eloquently presented—that this proposal should be ruled out of order.
[English]
The Chair: I'm just allowing a little discussion on this.
Mr. Macklin.
Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: My contribution to the debate would be that this is an important area. First of all, with respect to the code, of course we clearly already have a section that deals with impairment by a drug or alcohol. There is a consultation paper that has gone out now as a result of the most recent federal-provincial-territorial meetings, and the consultation paper is to develop ways and means of ultimately achieving what you're trying to do here.
I think, from the government perspective, we'd be loath to short-circuit that process that's ongoing and seemingly making some progress and certainly does have the support of the provinces and territories in trying to come up with something that everyone is prepared to support. So in that sense it's quite a laudable goal that you're setting here, and I think everyone shares it, but we're trying to work it through in a cooperative and consensual manner at this point.
As was mentioned, I believe, by at least one witness, in fact they're still trying to perfect a test using a machine that will deal with the saliva, which will ultimately achieve part of your goal as well. So I would suggest it might be slightly premature.
I'm assuming that the government is going to continue this and pursue it, and I have no reason to doubt that it would not continue to pursue it. So for what it's worth, I add that to the debate.
¾ (2010)
The Chair: Mr. Sorenson.
Mr. Kevin Sorenson: I guess what we want to know is, is this in order or is it out of order? There's no use debating an amendment that is out of order.
The Chair: I'll encourage the clerk to explain it.
Ms. Susan Baldwin (Procedural Clerk): We received this bill before second reading, so scope is not a problem. If we had a scope problem, then I would say that the whole driving-test stuff is beyond the scope of the bill. But this bill is about marijuana, and we got it before second reading, so I think all the driving stuff, anything that's related to marijuana, would be relevant.
The problem here is this bill deals just with marijuana. Your amendment is talking about “a drug”. That would mean any drug, and that means a huge multiplicity of drugs, illegal and legal. So if we could change the amendment, in my opinion, it would be in order. If we could do something like use “marijuana or one of its derivatives”, or some phrase like that throughout this amendment--I'll don't know, perhaps the justice department can advise us on the right phraseology--and substitute that for “a drug”, or “the drug”, or whatever else is in here, then I think it would be perfectly in order.
That's from a procedural point of view. Policy is somebody else's--
The Chair: Then, as I see it, there are three options. One, if you amend this amendment to say “marijuana and derivatives”, or whatever the correct terminology is, you're still going to have a challenge that there's already a process in place. Two, if this isn't put now, you would have perhaps the option of trying to get it into the House, although again you'd probably have to make it an even tighter scope. Or three, you can put it and we could put it to a vote, and we'll figure it out. Those are your options.
I have Mr. Piragoff, and then Mr. Sorenson.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau: Will Mr. Piragoff be the only one to respond?
[English]
Mr. Donald Piragoff: Thank you.
Hypothetically, let's assume the amendment is made as described by the legislative clerk so that it is in order. Now we can talk about the policy of the amendment as well as the technical proposal.
First, if the bill is amended to make it in order, which is to restrict it to only marijuana or its derivatives, whatever the phrase would be, we have then excluded a significant number of drugs that the consultation paper addresses, such as cocaine and other kinds of illegal substances, as well as legal drugs. So this is deficient; it doesn't capture the whole problem of drug impairment. That's the first part.
The second problem is it's creating a mandatory system for a standardized field sobriety test, but only for drugs. You would then have a situation where for alcohol, you would have to get the consent of the person to walk the straight line and touch their nose, but for drugs, you could force them to do it. Again, that doesn't make much sense when the biggest problem, we know, is alcohol. So for the biggest problem, you can't force them to touch their nose, but for the smaller problem, you can force them to do it. That's again why the consultation document looks at the whole problem, alcohol and drugs and tests.
Third, if we look at the actual bill, it raises one option of a number of different options that the consultation paper is looking at. We don't have the benefit of everyone's views in Canada on which is the best option. We have a number of scientific advisers from across the country, from the leading police forensic labs examining these questions.
The first question refers to a standardized field sobriety test. This is in subsection (1). There's no definition of what is a standardized field sobriety test.
Subsection (2) says a peace officer is qualified if the peace officer completes a course approved by the Attorney General. So then we assume, I suppose, in each course a police officer would be taught what a sobriety test is. But that then means that in each province we may have different tests.
Now, we have a penalty for refusal at the end of this provision. So it might be a crime to refuse to touch your nose in one province, but not a crime to refuse to touch your nose in another province. We don't have a national standard setting out what is a crime because we don't have a national standard as to what the test is. With alcohol testing, we have the approved device. We have the Attorney General of Canada approve the devices. And it is clear, if you refuse to provide a sample to a device that is approved nationally, it is an offence anywhere across this country. So that's a problem.
Again, on the next page, where we talk about the drug recognition expert program, we have the same problem. What is a drug recognition program? We have a definition in subsection (5), but again, it's very subjective: physical examination, including taking of saliva, vital checks, and other steps of attention, coordination, and concentration. It's built into subsection (4), which again is the attorney general of a province. We lose the national standard, and we again create a criminal offence in subsection (7) based on a definition of an offence that could change from province to province.
Subsection (6) talks only about the taking of blood. I believe the scientific community is saying there may be other substances that are better than blood. So depending on the drug you're looking for, other substances might be better than a blood sample to determine a presence or concentration.
As I said, the proposal raises a number of issues, and these issues are the subject of the consultation paper. So I think, as Mr. Macklin has said, we might be short-circuiting the process by proceeding without the benefit of expert advice as well as the advice of Canadians and the provinces on the consultation paper.
¾ (2015)
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis: If I could just add one other comment, the overall proposal seems to have one major flaw, in that it simply addresses a drug--or cannabis, if you were to change it to that. It addresses the presence of the drug or cannabis in the body, not impairment. So it's possible to have a certain quantity of cannabis in the body without being impaired at all, and that amendment doesn't deal with this at all.
The Chair: Before I turn to Mr. Sorenson, Mr. Marceau, can I just check if it's your intention to move this amendment?
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau: Even though I know it will be defeated, I would like it to be voted on. By the way, I wonder whether Mr. Piragoff is looking for a job as a legislative assistant. If he's interested, he could send me his CV.
I would still like to put forward my amendment, given that I feel very strongly about it.
[English]
The Chair: Assuming that you've amended it to say marijuana or cannabis, or whatever.
A voice: No.
The Chair: The advice is that if it isn't specific to cannabis and its derivatives then it is out of order.
Mr. Sorenson, I'll let you talk to it, and then I think I'll put the question.
Mr. Kevin Sorenson: Mr. Piragoff, you've explained to us why we can't have it. I commend my Bloc colleague for bringing this one forward.
Whether you've only been here the last two months on this committee or if you've been here for all last year when we went through this, this is one of the issues that kept coming home: that until we have the ability to do roadside testing, many said we shouldn't even look at a bill that would so-called legalize marijuana.
I don't know. As far as the process, the clerk says that it's not in order. I think that when a police officer pulls someone over, the intent....
Mr. Piragoff, you've explained, as Mr. Marceau says, why we can't do it. We need some help in how we can do it. This amendment basically says that when a police officer reasonably suspects that someone is operating a vehicle and is not sober--it says right here, “sobriety test”, the standardized field sobriety test--that would indicate that they must show that they're sober or not sober. No one knows when they pull that guy over if he's intoxicated with alcohol, with marijuana, with cocaine, or whatever. That's why I like this amendment the way it is, because it's putting the onus on somebody to give the police officer.... Even if it's only an instruction course on how to recognize some of the drugs and the impairment, at least they have that for the time being.
We hope, as the minister said last night, that the movement of this bill will prompt those individuals to build the technology to address the concerns we've heard time after time in this committee.
I like this amendment. We can deal with the marijuana part of it, but I think it's all drugs.
¾ (2020)
The Chair: Just to be clear, Mr. Sorenson, Mr. Marceau has moved the amendment as if it reads, instead of the word “drug”, “cannabis and its derivatives”. Otherwise, it would be out of order. We've agreed it is in order because it is moved with “cannabis and its derivatives”.
Mr. Kevin Sorenson: Can I follow that up?
The Chair: Yes.
Mr. Kevin Sorenson: When you put cannabis in there.... When this police officer is pulling someone over, now you're saying that he must reasonably suspect that he's been smoking cannabis. The police officer has no idea what that guy is impaired by. It begins where a police officer or a peace officer reasonably suspects that a person who is operating.... And you're taking out “drug”, because he doesn't know; he sees that he's impaired, but he doesn't know if it's by alcohol, by cocaine, by marijuana, you name it.
The Chair: Mr. Sorenson, just to be clear, this bill is about cannabis, so it can only be in order and Mr. Marceau is only able to move this amendment if it reads “cannabis and its derivatives”. It's not his fault; it's a legislative thing.
So if you would prefer that there is something that includes a sobriety test around drug use, that is Mr. Macklin's point and Mr. Piragoff's that there is work being done to make a Criminal Code amendment to deal with all drugs. It just isn't quite there yet, because the Province of Alberta is being consulted, the Province of Quebec is being consulted, and they are working on a deadline very quickly.
Mr. Kevin Sorenson: Okay. If that's happening, then that's good.
The Chair: Ms. Davies and then Mr. Lee.
Ms. Libby Davies: I was actually going to remind us of Dr. Fry's comments last night, when she said impairment is impairment is impairment. It seemed to me that it was a reasonable argument.
I think this is a very good amendment. Lots of people raised it, and to his credit, Mr. Marceau is the only one who has actually tried to come to grips with it and put it together in the form of an amendment.
I'm just wondering if we could change it by having, after “of a motor vehicle, vessel, aircraft or railway equipment, whether it is in motion or not,” the words “is impaired by the use of cannabis”. So it's not saying it's in your body, but it's focusing on the fact that somebody is impaired. Then it goes on to the other ideas, that you need to have enforcement officers who are trained in observation and evaluation. The amendment lays out how they would make that evaluation.
So if we could change it to “is impaired by the use of cannabis and its derivatives”, or whatever, would that make it a bit clearer?
The Chair: I'll turn to Dr. Fry, Mr. Lee, and Mr. Macklin, if he wants to comment.
Hon. Hedy Fry: I'm interested in this, and I agree that you have to limit it to cannabis. But if you have to limit it to cannabis, then it doesn't hold any more, because if you agree that an impairment is an impairment is an impairment, you need to find a way of looking at impairment in all of its many facets, including a person who is taking cough medicine. It's not a criminal act to take cough medicine, but you can be terribly impaired if you had a couple of swigs of a cough medication, or you had Robaxacet—as some of us would take for back problems—or you've been taking Valium, as prescribed to you by a physician. So you have to find a generic way of dealing with impairment and testing for it.
The case about cannabis is that we were told very clearly here—and I think I have read—that there is no definitive test for cannabis. Saliva tells you only one thing; it tells you that the person had been smoking. Now, that person could have been smoking cannabis; they might have had half a joint or dragged on somebody else's joint. The test tells you that, but it doesn't tell you what has impaired them. They could be impaired by something else, by cough medicine or antihistamines or cocaine, or whatever.
So you can't go around convicting somebody of something, when you can't really tell definitively. The blood test for cannabis doesn't work; it works well on alcohol, but it doesn't work well on cannabis.
So I think this whole issue should be dealt with in a totally different way. If there is nothing in this bill on cannabis, what I would like to see is something that just speaks basically to impairment and the submission to just a basic impairment test—but not for cannabis—if somebody who was driving refuses.... I don't think this bill does this. If you were driving a motor vehicle, and there is reason to suspect that you're impaired and you're pulled aside and you've been found with a couple of joints in your car, what does that mean? Can you refuse to submit to a test? You can do a breathalyzer and find nothing. That's the only thing that bothers me.
I'm just thinking of a very small thing, so that the words “Every one commits an offence who, without reasonable excuse, fails or refuses to comply with a demand made to him or her by a peace officer under this section” could be shifted to the impaired driving section of the code and not be in the specific cannabis section. So then we could maybe just have two little clauses saying that you should be able to submit if you're pulled over for seeming to be impaired, and that you fall under the usual impairment legislation, until the legislation is better defined, which we've been working on with the provinces. Of course, it is impractical or unworkable having different offences in different provinces.
The Chair: Thank you, Dr. Fry.
I hear that you might be proposing an alternative amendment. I would just caution you that if it is not limited to cannabis, our legal counsel is advising us that it would be out of order.
Hon. Hedy Fry: I know, I know.
¾ (2025)
The Chair: So we're really going in a circular direction here.
Mr. Lee.
Mr. Derek Lee: I am really impressed with the motivation of colleagues on these issues. There was the earlier issue of the criminal records, and then there's this one.
I point out that we are not a legislative committee. For some strange reason, we've simply been reconstituted as a special committee to which the bill was given, and now we're about to complete our work on that. The reason I say that is that I believe, for that reason--because we're a special committee and not a legislative committee--we could probably report to the House on these two matters separately.
We would have to give instructions and craft a report urging the government to do work on the criminal record issue and report back to the House and to do work on the impaired driving issue and report back to the House. We've already been told they're working on it, but at least causing them to report to the House will provide us with an update on it, and it might be a catalyst in some other respects.
We can also mention that two members raised these matters as amendments to the bill, but we found they were just beyond the bill and not quite ready for prime time--whatever words we use.
I would recommend that we do that. We don't have to put the amendment and defeat it; you can withdraw it or whatever. But I would prefer to do something like that as soon as we've finished with the bill.
The Chair: Let me suggest to both of you that I think we're getting general agreement on that front, and the amendment hasn't been proposed. I would encourage you to start writing something around that, something we could come back to at the end, because as I have just been advised by our wise legal counsel and clerk, this committee ceases to exist when we report the bill. So if we want to include that information, we need to tag it onto the report on the bill and the two comments.
So we'll just have to write those. We can write them and we can deal with them in a minute.
I'll go back to the bill, then.
Hon. Hedy Fry: I just wanted to comment.
¾ (2030)
The Chair: Yes.
Hon. Hedy Fry: I don't know about you, but we've all received letters from MADD, Mothers Against Drunk Driving. I just think we want to make sure that all of us speak to this, because we would be subjected to a huge outcry saying that we have just gone ahead and passed a bill that doesn't take into consideration the fact that it can impair a driver.
The Chair: Okay, we'll work on that in two seconds. I think everyone is on the same page. Two members have brought it forward, or....
Mr. Kevin Sorenson: It was in our minority report.
The Chair: We're all in agreement that we're going to tag it. I don't know if you guys can help us with it.
Okay, we're there, so amendment BQ-4 has been withdrawn.
Amendment BQ-5 is gone.
Ms. Libby Davies: Are we still doing the schedule?
The Chair: No, just a second. I'm on new clause 9.1. There is no clause 9.1 now.
And on clause 10, I think there are amendments CA-4a, CA-4b, and CA-4c. I don't have them.
(On clause 10--Order)
Mr. Randy White: I'll go through them.
Amendment CA-4a basically says...let me see, it replaces line 26 on page 6. Essentially what this does, and it works right in line with what we've just been saying, is it says this is not to be implemented before a roadside assessment program is put in place. That's basically what everybody is saying here.
We're bringing in a bill well ahead of the issue of roadside assessment, so the amendment is “which day shall not be before the technology is in place to do roadside checks for cannabis consumption along the same lines as contemplated by the current section 254 of the Criminal Code”.
That is in line not just with MADD Canada, but with the Canadian Police Association and virtually everybody we've talked to, and the members of the original committee as well.
Our motion is to not implement Bill C-38 until such time as a roadside assessment program is put in place.
The Chair: Can I just read the language? It says to replace line 26--which right now says “Council”--with the following.
Mr. Randy White: After the word “Council”, it adds: “which day shall not be before the technology is in place to do roadside checks for cannabis consumption along the same lines as contemplated by the current section 254 of the Criminal Code”.
The Chair: Okay. Did everyone understand the amendment?
I'll ask Mr. Saint-Denis or Mr. Piragoff to deal with the technology issue and the cannabis consumption.
Mr. Donald Piragoff: Thank you, Madam Chair.
The amendment says “which shall not come into force before the technology is put in place”, and basically in a manner similar to what exists in section 254. Section 254 deals with a scheme whereby there is a technological device that someone can blow into. We may never have a technological device for drugs, or cannabis, specifically. However, with the consultation paper and the options that have been put forward in the consultation paper, we may have alternative investigative techniques to a technological device, such as standardized sobriety tests, such as a drug recognition program, such as an ability to demand particular bodily samples that are pertinent to particular drugs, which are not the same as what is in section 254, but it achieves the same results.
So this essentially, Madam Chair, could result basically in this bill never coming into force.
The Chair: Mr. White.
Mr. Randy White: It says “along the same lines”, and if that's such a hard position, then take out the words after the word “consumption”, if that's the hang-up.
The technology is in place to do roadside checks for cannabis consumption. The last portion of it, “along the same lines”, doesn't indicate that you have to blow into anything.
¾ (2035)
The Chair: It does say “technology”. It would rule out, for instance, a standardized sobriety test that was not based on technology.
Mr. Donald Piragoff: The end result is that in a few months a bill could be put before Parliament that could provide for a scheme of sobriety tests similar to what Mr. Marceau had proposed that addresses some of the questions I had put forward. Parliament might adopt that provision for sobriety tests and drug recognition, but the government would still not be able to bring this bill into force, because, as you pointed out, it's not technology-based. It's not along the same lines as what's in section 254.
Might I suggest, Madam Chair, that this might also be something that could go into Mr. Lee's recommendation. He had indicated that the government should give serious consideration to bringing this into force at the same time as another bill concerning impaired driving.
The Chair: Mr. White.
Mr. Randy White: That's fine. You get the point here. We as a responsible committee are all concerned about the roadside assessment process.
We're bringing in a major bill here, and we have to put a check and balance in place. I think we should put the warning out there that we have to have a roadside assessment system, not five years from now, but when this bill comes in.
The Chair: Mr. Macklin.
Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: We could easily change the word “technology” to a “process”.
I think we're back to where we were on Mr. Marceau's position. We want to get something that's comprehensive when we come to testing. The second point is the evidence before this committee isn't that this particular bill, if enacted, will increase in any meaningful way the use of marijuana. So our goal is still the same today, whether this bill is enacted or not.
I thought the purpose of this bill was to in some way deal with the issue of criminalizing those who have a simple possession charge. And if we lose sight of what the original principle is because we're still concerned about trying to find a test, which we're out there actively doing for all drugs, then I think we've missed the point of what we were trying to accomplish in the original bill.
So I don't think we should be distracted.
The Chair: I also have to warn you, Mr. White, that in fact this amendment is out of order according to Marleau and Montpetit. An amendment to alter the coming-into-force clause of a bill and make it conditional is out of order.
Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: That was my next point.
The Chair: I think you've hit on an important issue, and we're going to cover that.
I would also suggest to you that in terms of substance for Libby's kids in downtown Vancouver, they want now that they can get a ticket and they can have their plant and pay a price. And you would suspend all of that benefit that's in this bill--or lack of benefit, depending on your perspective--until something else. But those guys don't own a car and don't drive. So we'd have a problem.
Mr. Randy White: More than likely....
The Chair: I'm teasing. I just was getting to Libby before you did, Mr. White.
Mr. White, do you have CA-4B?
Mr. Randy White: Hell, I have the same success rate as Libby. What's going on?
The Chair: Commonality.
Mr. Randy White: The next one is out of order.
The Chair: The CA-4C.
Mr. Randy White: But I did want to make the point on it that we had 42 recommendations from the original committee--
¾ (2040)
The Chair: There were 41.
Mr. Randy White: Yes, 41. We had 41 recommendations from the original committee. And I know, because the government went on its way and threw some money at CFC and Health Canada, that you have to go out there and say we have a drug strategy, but you do not. There's no strategy that's out there on the streets. People don't understand where it's going. I wanted a commitment from the government to implement a real drug strategy. Lots of things were left out of it: the prison issue, the drug commissioner, and on and on it goes.
The Chair: So you want to provide some direction.
Mr. Randy White: That was my point. But I withdraw it because you're going to say it's out of order.
The Chair: We'll try to find some way to encourage the government--
Mr. Randy White: You have to do a lot of PR on that drug strategy, because there's nobody who believes you have one.
The Chair: You're right. And CA-4C might be out of order too.
Mr. Randy White: I think CA-4C is important. I think I'm going to get lucky here at the table.
The Chair: Does it involve Libby? Because I might....
Mr. Randy White: Listen, when you're 55--
The Chair: Does it involve the bedrooms of the nation?
Mr. Randy White: We have talked tonight about a number of things that have to occur, and I think we would all agree with that.
This recommendation is saying that we review this whole process three years from now. If we don't, what I'm afraid of is we're just going to go on our merry way, and people will be begging for various programs they've been looking for, assessment programs, and the fines may not be working.... It just could be a real mess.
I think we've had numerous warnings from witnesses that there are going to be problems.
Mr. Kevin Sorenson: Bad news: look who's checking over your shoulder.
Mr. Randy White: Hell, go away. I thought she said this looks good.
The Chair: Good.
Mr. Randy White: Come here, my dear.
The Chair: She didn't say you looked good, she said your amendment looks good.
Mr. Randy White: I'm going to read this:
| “The Solictor General shall, no later than three years after the day this Act comes into force, appoint one or more persons to carry out a comprehensive review on the effects of the reductions in penalties proposed under this Act to determine if they had an overall positive effect on Canadian Society.” |
Now, you can broaden that or whatever, but we have to come back and look at this thing, because there's.... I take into consideration even some of the positions Libby had, that if she is right, perhaps we have to look at it; if we are right, perhaps she has to look at it. I'm talking about the two sides of the fence there. So there are a lot of people who are saying there are problems here, and if we don't look at this in three years--I would say two years, but three years--we're going to be making a mistake.
The Chair: I have Mr. Sorenson and Ms. Davies.
Mr. White, I think that when you read that amendment it should say “alternative penalties” rather than “reduction in penalties”.
Mr. Randy White: Yes, all right.
Mr. Kevin Sorenson: To any of the witnesses, Mr. Yost or Mr. Piragoff or Mr. Saint-Denis, it's not uncommon to do a review of some bills, is it? We have review of certain parts of Bill C-36, I think, and we have reviews of other bills. For a little accountability this is exactly what Mr. White says: let's show accountability here and let's do a review and commission Parliament or the minister, as I think it's mentioned here, not to reassess but to review.
The Chair: I have Mr. Macklin and Mr. Lee. Mr. Macklin.
Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Mr. Sorenson is looking at Mr. Piragoff like he has a vote.
Mr. Kevin Sorenson: Is it uncommon to do a review of some bills?
The Chair: That depends on your perspective on “common”.
Mr. Piragoff.
Mr. Donald Piragoff: It's not common, but it's not rare; it's not unheard of. Most bills do not have review mechanisms; some bills do.
I also know that other committees have said that they feel burdened by the fact that they are reviewing past Parliaments' work, as opposed to doing their own work. This is really a question of whether you want to review it or not.
The Chair: Okay.
Mr. Sorenson wanted one more crack at it, and then Mr. Macklin and then Mr. Lee.
Mr. Kevin Sorenson: It could be argued that this is a certain degree of...I don't know if it's social engineering, but it's certainly dealing with the social fabric of our country and what's happening in society out there.
I'm not sure who Mr. White says should be in charge of the review, if it's the Solicitor General department or who--they can pick whoever, but somebody, just to look at the impact this has had. It's not going to be something that's a million-dollar review or anything like that; this is a short....
¾ (2045)
The Chair: Okay, look, it's getting late.
To clarify things, this would be a new clause, 9.1, so we're actually backtracking slightly, but it's not the end of the world. And we need to do some work on this amendment if it's about to go forward, because you introduced some concepts in there. If you want to institute a review, we have to use the language that usually goes with the review and who might do it.
Mr. Macklin.
Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Thank you, Chair.
I'm of the opinion that reviews are something that should happen on an ongoing basis with respect to all legislation, but I'm not certain that it's appropriate to start tagging in numbers as to when these reviews should occur. I say that because my brief experience here has indicated that these don't seem to mean much. In fact I've seen them with two-year reviews, and four years later there's been no review. There doesn't seem to be a will generally to heed those.
I know that's not necessarily a reason not to put it in, but the reality is, I think, that we simply need to encourage overall policy reviews of all legislation. I'm not sure that just putting in time, in particular, three years.... How are we going to have statistics?
Right now we have a great deal of difficulty in collecting data on criminal events or occurrences, and I know that's one of the criticisms. I know we're trying to get better data so that we can do better analysis, but to this date it hasn't been demonstrated, I think, in the broad perspective that we can do that and properly analyze the effects, let alone within three years. I think it would be far too short a period of time.
I just make the general statement that I'm not sure that's an effective way of reviewing existing legislation.
The Chair: Can I maybe solve this for everybody and suggest that in the report on the two items that we wanted that we encourage there to be a timely review of these changes? Because even in terms of some of the details of the way it was written, you've got overall positive effect. If it has a negative effect, then we'd want to change that too.
Could we put it, Mr. White, in the report?
Mr. Randy White: I really can't believe you guys, you know that? I really can't believe what you've just said. We have so much administration dealing with this kind of thing, and to merely turn down the philosophy that three years from now you should look at this is really hard to believe.
I have the motion on the table. You defeat it.
The Chair: Okay, I just wanted to check.
Mr. Lee and Ms. Davies and then Dr. Fry. Oh, you're on the list, don't worry; Ms. Fry was there before you. It goes like this: Lee, Davies, Fry, Marceau.
Mr. Derek Lee: I'm probably not going to support the amendment. Mr. White will not get that lucky with me.
A lot of us have seen these reviews provided for in statutes. All of our committees are capable of reviewing whatever they want within the envelope they deal with. I would agree if we did a major turn in the road somewhere, where we were real cautious and real worried and said you might want to take a look at it, but I don't regard what we're doing here as a major turn in the road.
I'm sure Libby will agree that it's not a major turn in the road, but it is a change in public policy. It's a very small step. I don't want to saddle another committee with another piece of work three years from now, because I know that committee can readily undertake the work itself if it wants to. What I am really interested in is having statistical data that will track certain things from here on in, when and if this bill is adopted. I'm pretty sure that data is going to be tracked anyway, but if we're going to do a report I would want it there. I can't see the point of putting that provision in the bill.
The Chair: Can I just draw to everyone's attention that in fact the amendment says, in a new 9.1, that the Solicitor General shall, no later than three years after the date that comes into force, appoint one or more persons--it could be in the department--to carry out a comprehensive review of the effects of the alternative penalties proposed under this act to determine what effect they have had on Canadian society.
Ms. Davies.
¾ (2050)
Ms. Libby Davies: I support the amendment.
I think this has been a really good committee. We haven't always agreed, and we've dealt with some really difficult issues. I think we've actually gotten the government to make progress on those issues, whether it was the original drug report, and noting that we had different.... Just think of the spectrum we represent. Yet I think we were able to convince the government to do a number of things.
This particular bill is obviously going to go forward, but there's still a lot of debate out there. I would like to have some sort of process where there would be another opportunity for people who wanted to be heard this time, or maybe were heard, because I think it is an ongoing debate.
I would even add that whatever the results of that review are, it should be reported back to the House or a committee, so that it's not just within the department. I don't know whether Mr. White would consider that as a friendly amendment....
Mr. Randy White: I'm sorry, what was the amendment?
Ms. Libby Davies: Well, instead of just saying that it would be one or more persons to do the review, that the results of that review be reported to the House or a committee.
Mr. Randy White: Yes, it should be.
Ms. Libby Davies: Are you willing to say that, then?
Mr. Randy White: Yes, I'm willing to say that. And also we've got from Derek the Minister of Health, which is probably--
The Chair: Can I suggest that we have general agreement on the principle now--because I'm seeing everyone nodding--that it should say, if you're starting to add a bunch of ministers, since it's a justice bill, technically....
Mr. Saint-Denis.
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis: Thank you, Chairman.
The kind of review that is being contemplated, the thrust of where this review would go, would be better undertaken, I think, by the Minister of Health, who has a lead on the national drug strategy and on matters relating to health issues.
If I understand correctly, we're looking at the effects of this bill, which are going to be felt more along the lines of health-related matters.
The Chair: Dr. Fry, and then Mr. Marceau if you want, and then Mr. White.
Hon. Hedy Fry: I support the principle of what Mr. White is saying.
I think we remember very well when we started this committee that we were astounded at how many things went on in a so-called national drug strategy with no evaluation, no review. We sat there with our mouths open. And we made some pretty far-reaching recommendations, specifically with regard to the fact that nobody knew what was going on. We didn't have databases, and we didn't know what the effect of any strategy was.
I think if good public policy or good legislation is going to be worth its while, it has to be reviewed. I agree, though, that it's better reviewed under the drug strategy as part of the health, sort of the minister's review of the drug strategy that we talked about, and have it looked at like that.
I think the answer may not be what at the end of the day Randy likes. It may turn out that this is a good move. But the point is that I really think it's important to do the review. I would like to suggest that we put it under the health strategy review within three years.
The Chair: Okay.
Mr. Marceau.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau: Madam Chair, in French and with a less pleasant accent than Ms. Fry, I'm saying just about the same thing.
The Chair: It's a better accent than mine.
[English]
Mr. White.
Mr. Randy White: Well, I'm sure Mr. Harper will have the Minister of Health and we'll have the Solicitor General at the same time.
Is there a problem with both of them? I mean, we're dealing with assessment. Is the Minister of Health responsible for that? As Hedy says, that's one of the problems we had in this whole two-year assessment, that these two departments didn't talk to each other. We didn't know where they spent the money. They didn't know whether they did things. So if the Minister of Health alone does this in his branch, what does the Solicitor General do? He's got just as big an action in this.
My concern is that it get done, quite frankly.
The Chair: Can I just add that it should then say “The government”:
| The government shall, no later than three years after the day this Act comes into force, appoint one or more persons to carry out a comprehensive review of the effects of the alternatives in penalties proposed under this Act, to determine what effect they have had on Canadian society. |
Mr. Macklin wants to make it five years. Is there any support for that around the table? No. Everyone is going with three years.
Have we gone with the words “the government”?
Did you want to identify Justice, Health, and Solicitor General, or not?
An hon. member: After the word “government”.
¾ (2055)
The Chair: Madam Fry.
Hon. Hedy Fry: Just to remind us, when we made our recommendations in our report, we said that the Minister of Health was the coordinating person. We also asked that the Minister of Health begin a new way of working with all of those other departments. So saying “the Minister of Health” brings the Minister of Health into place as the coordinator of the drug strategy. But I don't know about saying “The government”, as Environment Canada could do it if they wished.
What I'm saying is that I think it's better to specify the department.
The Chair: Why don't we say “The government, under the auspices of the drug strategy, shall...”.
An hon. member: That's good.
The Chair: Okay, I see unanimity, which is great. That's the new clause 9.1.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 10 agreed to)
The Chair: With regard to the schedule, I've got four amendments: CA-5, NDP-5, NDP-6, and L-5. I'm just trying to clarify which is the first one is.
Thank you to our RCMP representatives. Merci beaucoup, monsieur Thompson; c'est beaucoup de travail.
Schedule 1, L-5.
Mr. Lee.
Mr. Derek Lee: I'd be happy to move this, but was somebody else going to be moving this?
The Chair: Mr. Barrette is moving L-5.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilbert Barrette: We're talking about $500 for adults and $250 for young persons.
[English]
This is just catching up on what we already discussed. It was the consequential amendment.
The Chair: It was the consequential amendment that he wanted on his earlier amendment.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Now, I think that knocks out amendments CA-5 and NDP-5 and NDP-6.
Ms. Davies, are you okay with that?
Ms. Libby Davies: I'm not sure it does entirely, because amendments NDP-5 and NDP-6 don't just deal with cultivation, but also with possession.
Were they knocked out because of earlier amendments then?
The Chair: I'm trying to figure that out. We're just trying to clarify what these amendments are: CA-5, NDP-5, and NDP-6.
Mr. White, are you moving CA-5?
Mr. Randy White: Yes.
The Chair: Mr. Saint-Denis or Mr. Piragoff, do you have a comment on amendment CA-5?
Mr. Paul Saint-Denis: We don't have amendment CA-5.
Mr. Randy White: That was one that we just brought in.
Basically, I know where it's going to go, so you might as well decide now.
It's for higher fines on the schedule: $500 in the case of any person, including a young person, and then $300 and $700.
The Chair: So you're getting rid of the differential for young people versus older people.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We are now on NDP-5.
Ms. Libby Davies: Amendment NDP-6 brings it down to zero in two cases, and failing that, to $25.
¿ (2100)
The Chair: We have amendment NDP-5.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We have amendment NDP-6.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall schedule 1 carry as amended by amendment L-5?
(Schedule 1 as amended agreed to on division)
The Chair: With regard to the title, I have BQ--
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau: Madam Chair, that has to drop.
[English]
The Chair: Shall the title carry as it currently is, without amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
The Chair: When shall I report this bill?
Ms. Libby Davies: I have another amendment at the beginning of the bill.
The Chair: I'm sorry.
Ms. Libby Davies: In the event of a failure to pay a fine, there is a suggestion of whether imprisonment could be used when all other means have been exhausted. I don't agree with that. I think it's contrary to my amendment. So I want my original amendment to stand. We actually didn't vote on it. I can't remember what number it was.
Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: It's clause 3, I believe.
Ms. Libby Davies: We didn't actually vote on it; we stood it down.
The Chair: Can you move your amendment, please, on clause 3? I think we've already carried it, but I'll let you move it.
Ms. Libby Davies: It was basically that no imprisonment would result from the default of paying fines.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 3 agreed to on division)
The Chair: Should we order a reprint of the bill?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: In terms of the report to the House, we had two issues we wanted to cover. I think Mr. Lee has the language.
Mr. Derek Lee: I tried--and remember, this report has to be prepared and delivered at the same time. We don't have much time, but it's really short.
I'm going to read something that's like a draft. Ms. Davies and Mr. Marceau can have a look at the draft that comes out tomorrow.
Mr. Randy White: It's an amendment to the report stage, is it?
The Chair: It was an addition to the report. In addition to reporting the bill, this committee wanted to report two things to the House.
Mr. Derek Lee: I'll just read it. I don't know what the heading says. The amendment says:
| During clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-38, two members wished to put amendments which were relevant but which could not technically or practically be incorporated into the bill. They relate to criminal records and testing for driving impaired by a drug. |
| The committee concurs in the objectives of the moves as reflected in the proposed amendments attached hereto. Number one, they involve public policy issues.... |
The Chair: Can I make a suggestion? Why don't we report back that the committee has approved this bill on division, but the committee remains concerned about several issues: one, that the government further the work on the national drug strategy; two, that it proceed forthwith on dealing with drug-impaired driving; and three, that it examine a system to remove from the records those who were convicted of simple possession in the past? Is that fair?
Mr. Randy White: That was an amendment to the report stage, wasn't it?
Ms. Libby Davies: Well, yes, it was.
Now, there is a suggestion that we do it as a letter.
The Chair: So you don't want to do that last one, is that what I'm hearing, the one being the amnesty issue? I had unanimity on further work on the drug strategy. And whether or not there was one motion or more, there was unanimity on the encouragement to the government to resolve the issue of drug-impaired driving as quickly as possible.
Mr. Derek Lee: And not the criminal record amnesty or...?
The Chair: I tried on the amnesty.
Okay, so you'll do a second motion? Does everyone agree with that?
Mr. White.
¿ (2105)
Mr. Randy White: That is a motion Libby is going to go to the Speaker with. He's going to decide whether it's in the report stage, and we basically agree on that. That's fine.
The Chair: Okay. But on the others, that we want the government to do more on the drug strategy and we want them to do more on drug-impaired driving as quickly as possible.... I have unanimity on that?
Some hon. members: Yes.
An hon. member: No.
The Chair: You don't want work on the drug strategy or on drug-impaired driving.
Some hon. member: Yes
The Chair: Yes, you do.
Mr. Kevin Sorenson: Do you need unanimity?
The Chair: Why not? It makes it stronger. Kevin, do you want me to say you weren't in favour of resolving drug-impaired driving?
Mr. Kevin Sorenson: I'd have to see the way it's written. I'm not going to give unanimity unless I see the exact wording.
The Chair: Talk to your wise leader there.
Trust me on this one, Kevin.
Do we have unanimity that we want further work on the drug strategy? Okay, there was....
Mr. Kevin Sorenson: How are you wording this?
The Chair: That we have reported this bill back to the House, that the committee is unanimous that it wants further work done on the national drug strategy, implementing the recommendations of the committee, and two, that we want the government to proceed as quickly as possible with instituting a framework for a drug-impaired-driving strategy.
Mr. Kevin Sorenson: That's all right.
The Chair: Okay. Agreed?
Mr. Randy White: Is it a motion that we can read tomorrow?
The Chair: No, I think it comes in as--
Mr. Randy White: What did we just do? Pass a motion?
The Chair: Just a second. We'll ask the clerk.
The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. Jean-Michel Roy): You only report amendments to the bill. That's it. So you need a separate report. This one will be your first report, because the minute you report the bill the committee ceases to exist.
The Chair: So I'll do the two at the same time in the House.
The Clerk: This is report number one, one paragraph, and you report the bill as report number two.
The Chair: Okay, we are agreed.
Might I just say, since it has been a really interesting process, that we appreciate all the wise counsel we've been given by the departmental witnesses, by individuals in this committee process, by various staff members, by the team of people who have made sure we could understand each other, and by our researchers, our legislative counsel, and our clerks. Thank you very much, everybody.
We are adjourned.