SC38 Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

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

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, October 28, 2003

½

1920

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

Deputy Commissioner Garry Loeppky (Operations , Royal Canadian Mounted Police)

The Chair

Mr. Pierre Lavoie (Officer in Charge of the CPIC Program Policy, Canadian Police Information Centre, National Police Services of the RCMP)

The Chair

½

1925

Ms. Line Beauchesne (Associate Professor, Department of Criminology, University of Ottawa)

½

1930

The Chair

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

D/Commr Garry Loeppky

½

1935

Mr. Randy White

D/Commr Garry Loeppky

Mr. Randy White

D/Commr Garry Loeppky

Mr. Randy White

D/Commr Garry Loeppky

Mr. Randy White

½

1940

D/Commr Garry Loeppky

Mr. Randy White

D/Commr Garry Loeppky

Mr. Randy White

Ms. Line Beauchesne

Mr. Randy White

Ms. Line Beauchesne

Mr. Randy White

D/Commr Garry Loeppky

Mr. Randy White

D/Commr Garry Loeppky

Mr. Randy White

D/Commr Garry Loeppky

The Chair

Ms. Line Beauchesne

½

1945

The Chair

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

Ms. Line Beauchesne

Mr. Richard Marceau

D/Commr Garry Loeppky

Mr. Richard Marceau

D/Commr Garry Loeppky

½

1950

Mr. Richard Marceau

D/Commr Garry Loeppky

Mr. Richard Marceau

Ms. Line Beauchesne

½

1955

Mr. Richard Marceau

The Chair

D/Commr Garry Loeppky

The Chair

Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, PC)

D/Commr Garry Loeppky

¾

2000

Mr. Inky Mark

D/Commr Garry Loeppky

Mr. Inky Mark

D/Commr Garry Loeppky

Mr. Inky Mark

D/Commr Garry Loeppky

Mr. Inky Mark

D/Commr Garry Loeppky

Mr. Inky Mark

D/Commr Garry Loeppky

¾

2005

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP)

D/Commr Garry Loeppky

Ms. Libby Davies

D/Commr Garry Loeppky

¾

2010

Ms. Libby Davies

D/Commr Garry Loeppky

Mr. Robert Thompson (Acting Officer in Charge , Canadian Criminal Records Information Services, National Police Services of the RCMP)

Ms. Libby Davies

Mr. Robert Thompson

Ms. Libby Davies

Mr. Robert Thompson

¾

2015

Ms. Libby Davies

Mr. Robert Thompson

Mr. Pierre Lavoie

Ms. Libby Davies

Mr. Pierre Lavoie

Ms. Libby Davies

Mr. Pierre Lavoie

Ms. Libby Davies

The Chair

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin (Northumberland, Lib.)

¾

2020

Mr. Pierre Lavoie

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Mr. Pierre Lavoie

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Mr. Pierre Lavoie

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Mr. Pierre Lavoie

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Mr. Pierre Lavoie

Mr. Robert Thompson

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Mr. Robert Thompson

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

¾

2025

Ms. Line Beauchesne

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Ms. Line Beauchesne

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

The Chair

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

¾

2030

D/Commr Garry Loeppky

The Chair

Mr. Randy White

D/Commr Garry Loeppky

Mr. Randy White

¾

2035

D/Commr Garry Loeppky

The Chair

Mr. Randy White

D/Commr Garry Loeppky

The Chair

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard (Laval East, Lib.)

¾

2040

Ms. Line Beauchesne

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

Ms. Line Beauchesne

¾

2045

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

The Chair

Ms. Line Beauchesne

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

Mr. Richard Marceau

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

Mr. Richard Marceau

Ms. Line Beauchesne

¾

2050

Mr. Richard Marceau

D/Commr Garry Loeppky

The Chair

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

Mr. Pierre Lavoie

Mr. Derek Lee

Mr. Pierre Lavoie

Mr. Derek Lee

¾

2055

Mr. Pierre Lavoie

Mr. Derek Lee

Mr. Robert Thompson

Mr. Derek Lee

Mr. Robert Thompson

Mr. Derek Lee

Mr. Robert Thompson

Mr. Derek Lee

Mr. Robert Thompson

Mr. Derek Lee

Mr. Robert Thompson

Mr. Derek Lee

Mr. Pierre Lavoie

Mr. Derek Lee

Mr. Pierre Lavoie

Mr. Derek Lee

Mr. Pierre Lavoie

Mr. Derek Lee

¿

2100

Mr. Pierre Lavoie

Mr. Derek Lee

The Chair

D/Commr Garry Loeppky

Mr. Derek Lee

D/Commr Garry Loeppky

The Chair

Mr. Robert Thompson

¿

2105

The Chair

Mr. Robert Thompson

The Chair

Mr. Randy White

Mr. Robert Thompson

The Chair

Mr. Robert Thompson

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

¿

2110

Mr. Derek Lee

---

CANADA

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

---

NUMBER 004

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, October 28, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

½  (1920)  

[English]

    The Chair (Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.)): I call this meeting to order. Further to our meeting last Thursday, the clerk has secured several of the witnesses we planned to have tonight, but others will not be available until Monday, I understand. So he'll continue to schedule those witnesses. Specifically, they're the police, the police chief, and the firefighters who we wanted to be here on this legal panel.

    We took advantage of the fact that Madam Beauchesne was available this evening as well. We appreciate her coming. I believe all of you received yesterday a copy of the first proposed grouping of the witnesses that Chantal struck together. We can talk about whether that works for people or not, but right now let's hear from our witnesses.

    I propose that we hear from them in this order. First, from the National Police Services of the RCMP will be Pierre Lavoie, the officer in charge of the CPIC program policy, the Canadian Police Information Centre that many us have a lot of questions about. Next will be Robert Thompson, the acting officer in charge of the Canadian Criminal Record Information Services.

    Then I propose we hear from the other RCMP representative, Garry Loeppky, who's the deputy commissioner of operations. Then we will hear from Line Beauchesne, who is an assistant professor in the department of criminology at the University of Ottawa.

    Mr. Loeppky.

    Deputy Commissioner Garry Loeppky (Operations , Royal Canadian Mounted Police): Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll provide some opening comments.

    With me this evening I have Pierre Lavoie, as you've mentioned, who is responsible for the Canadian Police Information Services. It's essentially the backbone of the network of the policing community, in terms of our information system. I also have Inspector Bob Thompson, who is in charge of Canadian Criminal Records Information Services. They look after records management and all the components attached to that, such as pardon applications and that type of thing.

    I have a short prepared statement that I propose to read. Then, following my colleague's statement, we will certainly be delighted to take questions.

    It is my pleasure to appear in front of you this evening to give you a clear picture of where we stand on the proposed legislation, Bill C-38.

    The creation of a renewed Canadian drug strategy has been a challenge for the RCMP and the many government departments and citizens who have contributed to its development. There has been much achieved through the months leading up to today.

    The RCMP recognizes that leadership, knowledge generation, management, partnerships, and intervention are the four key fundamental components to help determine our direction related to the renewed drug strategy.

    The RCMP will continue to treat marijuana as a controlled substance. Those who traffic in illicit drugs, including cannabis, destroy lives, homes, and communities, and will continue to be investigated to the fullest extent of the law. We are satisfied that the Government of Canada has recognized that marijuana is a harmful substance, and some of these measures introduced are meant to deter its use without leaving those in possession of small amounts with a criminal record. We are also pleased that the Government of Canada has said that possession of marijuana will remain an offence.

    The recently announced renewed drug strategy includes money for research, education, prevention, and enforcement. The proposed legislation includes increased penalties for those behind large-scale marijuana grow operations. The RCMP has received a significant portion of funding to establish dedicated teams across the country to target and dismantle marijuana grow operations. These teams are going to be placed in the identified high-risk areas for grow operations.

    A portion of the proposed cultivation and production sentences are tougher for large-scale marijuana producers. How these are interpreted and applied by the courts will define how they help the RCMP's priority of battling organized criminals who make their money from the production and distribution of illicit drugs. The renewed drug strategy includes some tools that will assist the RCMP in its fight against the organized criminals who make their money selling illegal drugs.

    Those who traffic in illicit drugs, including cannabis, destroy lives, homes and communities. The RCMP remains fully committed to enforcing drug trafficking laws to their fullest extent.

    While the RCMP and the law enforcement community expressed views that may have been different from other constituents during the consultative process, that is a healthy exchange, and we are committed to enforcing the laws that are ultimately passed. The RCMP believes that these are, for the most part, positive changes that will help ensure safe homes and safe communities for Canadians.

    We believe a balanced approach related to all of these issues is crucial to ensuring that all Canadians, specifically our young people, do not use the reform of cannabis legislation as an excuse to try marijuana when they otherwise would not. Renewing Canada's overall drug strategy in a way that still recognizes the dangerous impact of drugs on our society is crucial.

    All the agencies that participated in cannabis reform agreed that this reform will result in increased cannabis use at the outset. It is a known fact that if we keep our youth from experimenting with cannabis during their teenage years, they are not as likely to continue using as adults. We want to ensure the goal of discouraging young people from using drugs is met. Nobody wants to see a society at large, particularly youth, accept that the payment of a fine is the only cost associated with using cannabis. There are other costs, like health care.

    To be successful we must not only minimize, through our actions and comments, any amount of drug use. Our message must be consistent and balanced. We must attempt to limit the supply and demand for drugs, and as often as possible use prevention, education, enforcement, treatment, rehabilitation, and research in our approach.

    Following the comments of my colleague, I will be happy to take any questions you have.

    Thank you.

    Merci beaucoup.

[Translation]

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Would Mr. Lavoie like to make some remarks now?

    Mr. Pierre Lavoie (Officer in Charge of the CPIC Program Policy, Canadian Police Information Centre, National Police Services of the RCMP): I am basically here to answer questions that you might have about the Canadian Police Information Centre. I am responsible for policy and so I can answer questions on that topic.

    The Chair: Very well. Thank you very much.

    Ms. Beauchesne, the floor is yours.

½  (1925)  

    Ms. Line Beauchesne (Associate Professor, Department of Criminology, University of Ottawa): Good evening, and thank you for your invitation.

    I would like to begin by saying that I have been working in the area of drug legislation for 20 years, mainly to try to understand which strategies work best in preventing abuse. So my special interest is prevention.

    The first topic I would like to address is the effects of the illegal market. It is important not to confuse the effects of the market with the effects of the drugs themselves. For example, when there was a black market for tobacco and the cigarette companies used aboriginal people to smuggle cigarettes, there was some violence as a result, since a black market inherently generates violence. But that is not an effect of nicotine, it is the result of the black market. Similarly, the black market in cannabis has certain effects right now. We need to distinguish those from the effects of the product. These result from the existence of a black market. That is an important distinction to make.

    A second major element concerns risks associated with the product, which result from the fact that there is no control over the market and distribution in the case of a black market, but those risks are not connected to the drugs themselves. This was also true under prohibition: the alcohol content of the beer that was smuggled was not 0.5 per cent but rather 90 per cent, since the black market encourages certain types of consumption.

    I have one final comment about the black market. There is a difference between how the products are consumed when a black market exists as opposed to a legal market; in the former case, people get together some place, consume larger amounts of the product and then, so as not to be caught with drugs on their person, they go home. The same thing used to happen under prohibition, people gathered and drank fairly concentrated alcohol and then left because they did not want to be found carrying the product.

    In other words, we need to be very careful when we look at how legislation should be designed. We need to understand clearly that prohibition itself creates a series of effects that are not associated with the product but with the market.

    My second point deals with prevention, and for that purpose we need to talk not about soft drugs and hard drugs, but rather about soft use and hard use, appropriate and inappropriate use of drugs. For example, if I have a glass of wine with my meal, I am using alcohol appropriately. If I have a glass of wine at 10 o'clock in the morning at school and I am 14 years old, one might wonder what is going on, given the environment. In other words, we need to look not just at consumption of the product itself, which is neither negative nor positive. We need to examine the person's relationship with the product and the environment in which it is used, whether we are talking about cannabis or any other drug.

    My third and final point is the bill's reaction to these realities. There are two aspects that go in two different directions.

    On the one hand, it is clear that the Americans, who are more repressive and have invested the most money in the repression industry, have failed miserably. They have the highest usage rate for all drugs. Moreover, any study of the market will show that if all police officers were assigned tomorrow morning to deal with drug trafficking, the problem would still exist. The market is too lucrative, there is too much money invested in it and the demand is too great. So we need to abandon the idea of increasing sanctions against drug dealing in hope that it will change the market in any way. Markets will change, there will be more hydroponic operations, more of this or that, but the market will remain.

    On the other hand, we have the example of Australia, which has chosen to implement a system of fines. When I look at what is happening in Australia, I see two developments that I find equally worrying. First of all, the police are now arresting people that they would not have arrested before, on the pretext that fines are the only penalties imposed now. So the number of people exposed to the criminal system has grown.

½  (1930)  

    Moreover, something that has happened in Australia is that more and more people have contact with the criminal system because of non-payment of fines under cannabis legislation.

    I have brought a publication from the National Council of Welfare that shows very clearly that as soon as a system of relatively hefty fines is put in place, it is always the poor who suffer the most, since other people have the means to write a cheque.

    Of course, from a human rights standpoint, it is positive that there would no longer be a criminal record for very small quantities, but I am not sure if that will be a major change. Why? Because the police right now are already dejudicializing drug use de facto in some situations and under some circumstances. What I wonder is whether the same people will not end up in the justice system, while people with more money get off easier.

    I am coming to my final remark. I give training sessions for parents on preventing drug abuse. It is clear that people are getting a very mixed message from this bill. Parents are just about unanimous in saying that their children see the system of fines as proof that there is very little risk, since they will no longer have a criminal record if caught. I want to be clear that I am not talking here about the drug but rather about the risks of being charged with a criminal offence. So they are very happy, but there are real risks associated with using drugs, including marijuana, if it is used inappropriately, at an inappropriate age, and if there is not adequate prevention. Jurisdictions that have gone with decriminalization have seen increased consumption, because the message is quite mixed about the dangers associated with the product.

    In conclusion, it is not easy to focus prevention strategies on public health, regardless of whether there is a prohibition system or the type of system proposed in this legislation. I approach prevention by saying that, as with any drug, the quality and quantity need to be controlled, and I send a clear message that there are dangers that drugs may be used inappropriately when it is illegal to use them at all. It is quite difficult.

    At the same time, it is estimated that between 50 and 80 per cent—it depends on the study—of young people in secondary school today will try cannabis. I feel that by pretending that this is not the case, we are acting a little bit like people did in Quebec in the 1950s when they pretended that no one made love or touched each other and where people were told on their wedding' eve what was going to happen.

    I think that we have blinders on right now when it comes to marijuana. People are using it, and if we want to prevent them from using it inappropriately, we have to acknowledge that it is being used and stop pretending that repressive laws or fines are going to make it disappear.

    Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Mr. White, you have 10 minutes, please.

[English]

    Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Canadian Alliance): I guess I'll go to the RCMP first. We established here yesterday and prior to this that, in essence, we have a variable fine system from 0 to 30 grams, and a criminal record or a $1,000 fine if a person is caught with from 15 to 30 grams. Is that accurate to say, in your mind?

    If that is so, and I believe it is, from a practical point of view on the street, if a policeman catches somebody with 18 joints, what penalty will apply?

    D/Commr Garry Loeppky: The proposed legislation contemplates that 15 grams and less will be subject to a particular fine, and then from 15 to 30 grams there will be the option of proceeding with a criminal charge.

    It is important to recognize that there is some provision in the legislation that, for example, if somebody is found in a school area with 30 joints or 30 grams, an increased fine can be attributed to that. Obviously, if an individual is found with that quantity and the evidence can be obtained to support a trafficking charge for selling marijuana, they will be charged appropriately. Otherwise, it will be dealt with as a possession charge, and depending on the quantity, it will be managed under the proposed legislation through a straight fine, or it could be subject to a criminal charge.

½  (1935)  

    Mr. Randy White: But my question is what if a policeman catches somebody with 18 joints? What action will be taken? What will he be charged with? Will he be given a ticket? How many grams is that? You've got a policeman out there who has certain parameters, and catches somebody with 18 joints. They could be 18 fatties or 18 skinnies. What's going to happen?

    D/Commr Garry Loeppky: It would depend, according to the weight. If you had 18 joints that weighed less than 15 grams, under the proposed legislation it would be a technical offence with a fine attached to it. If the 18 joints were between 15 and 30 grams, then it could be treated differently, in terms of proceeding via a criminal charge or a ticketable offence.

    Mr. Randy White: But this is a policeman on duty who's picked up somebody who has 18 joints. He doesn't have weigh scales with him. By the time you take those joints, put them in whatever--even a plastic bag--and get them to the lab, they've dried; there are all kinds of different weight parameters to that.

    The practicality of it is if the policeman's on the beat and he catches somebody with 18 joints--I'm using that just as a number--how does he know right there whether to give someone a ticket? He may say, “Gee, I've hit you up for this before, and now I'm going to give you a summons.” But he may not give him a summons if it's under 15 grams. Do you see what I'm saying?

    On the practicality of this on the street, can you explain how this is going to be done without a whole bunch of lawyers getting involved for their clients?

    D/Commr Garry Loeppky: I guess I would first speak directly to the issue, and then go a little more broadly. On the street, the police officer obviously wouldn't have a scale with him. He would use police discretion. We use police discretion every day in a wide variety of ways, and I think that's evidenced by the number of small seizures today that don't necessarily result in any charges. It's always been a fundamental principle of common law that there is police discretion.

    The member obviously has some options, in terms of making the seizure. Once he establishes the weight, he can pursue the process later on and issue a ticket, or he can simply issue a ticket right at that point. That's how I contemplate seeing that roll out, once the appropriate provisions are in place with the Contraventions Act agreements that are required to move the initiative forward.

    Mr. Randy White: Do you consider the possession of 40 joints by a person to be minor possession?

    D/Commr Garry Loeppky: I think we need to be clear that any quantity in the possession of a person, where the evidence is there to support it, is possession. The proposed legislation is simply an approach to how that's dealt with subsequent to the seizure. So whether it's 40 grams, 40 joints, or one joint it's still possession. It's simply a matter of when you apply the ticketing scheme, versus having the option of proceeding criminally, and that's where the 15-gram cutoff comes in.

    I don't know if I'm answering your question.

    Mr. Randy White: No, you're not. Since it's up to 30, I'll go to 40 joints, or 50 joints. If somebody on the street has 50 joints on them, is that considered minor today? What's minor, what's major? I'm trying to get relevance.

½  (1940)  

    D/Commr Garry Loeppky: It depends very much on the circumstances. If somebody in possession of 40 joints were living in an isolated area, it could very well be considered as being for personal possession. If somebody had 40 grams and was in a pool hall or an area like that, obviously the assumption might be that he had possession for the purpose of trafficking. If the evidence were there to support that charge, that's how we would proceed.

    Mr. Randy White: Okay. How many people in the last two years have gone to jail for minor possession of marijuana?

    D/Commr Garry Loeppky: I don't have the exact numbers, but there have been very few. Most possession charges that result in significant fines are quite often charges that have initially been laid for possession for the purpose of trafficking. They've ended up being found guilty or pleading guilty to possession charges, and have received stronger sentences. But very few people have received jail time.

    Mr. Randy White: Could you possibly provide the committee with some information on that?

    Ms. Line Beauchesne: I have the numbers on all the sentences, and a lot of people have gone to jail for simple possession. I have the exact numbers that were published by Statistics Canada.

    Mr. Randy White: Where did you get your information?

    Ms. Line Beauchesne: It was compiled by Statistics Canada.

[Translation]

The Juristat section compiles all of the convictions. Following an arrest, it takes nearly two years before all of the data on convictions are compiled. Right now we have conviction data for the year 2000. I could send this information to the committee for your information.

[English]

    Mr. Randy White: Thank you.

    D/Commr Garry Loeppky: It is important to understand that when you look at the number of possession for the purpose charges that are initially laid, and how many of those are actually dealt down or pled guilty to, that's where the time comes in. If somebody is charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking 10 pounds and ultimately pleads guilty to possession, they would get a more severe sentence than, for example, if they had an ounce, 30 grams.

    Mr. Randy White: Is there a drugged driving assessment program currently in place anywhere in Canada--roadside assessment?

    D/Commr Garry Loeppky: No. I spoke about the various concerns and the discussions that had taken place during the dialogue, but there is really no capability for measuring drug impairment the way we currently do for alcohol impairment while you're driving. Obviously it is a concern of the law enforcement community to ensure that we have the capability to detect drug-impaired driving.

    Mr. Randy White: What is the value of consistently giving penalties to repeat offenders, as opposed to giving escalating penalties? If you keep fining the person $150 for 8, 10, or 12 times, what's the value of that?

    D/Commr Garry Loeppky: As my colleague mentioned, in terms of preventing that person from using, or hopefully driving a message of reduced usage, I'm not sure there is a whole lot of value. I think we need to focus our energies on the prevention and education areas. We need to start doing that at a very young age and target our young people, so they make good choices and good decisions.

[Translation]

    The Chair: Ms. Beauchesne, is this on the same question or another one?

    Ms. Line Beauchesne: In Australia, at any rate, studies show that people hide in order to smoke up just as much as they did under prohibition, because no one wants to pay a fine every time he or she smokes a joint. So people hide in order to smoke up, as they do when this activity is prohibited. As far as consumption is concerned, this is really not making any difference in comparison to the current prohibition.

½  (1945)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Mr. Marceau.

    Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. And I would like to thank the witnesses for coming to express their opinions this evening, at such an unusual time.

    One of the most common arguments that we hear from people opposed to the decriminalization of marijuana pertains to the message, particularly the message we are sending to young people. People wonder what type of message we would be giving to young people if we were to decriminalize simple possession. That is my first question.

    Last week, we heard from Health Canada. I found this extremely interesting because I am somewhat of a neophyte as far as this debate is concerned. However, the people representing Health Canada told us that in places where simple possession was decriminalized, there was no increase in the use of consumption of marijuana. I see that Ms. Beauchesne is nodding in agreement. I would like to hear your comments on the matter, if possible. I would then like to hear from a representative of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

    Ms. Line Beauchesne: You were right to point out that decriminalization is not the same thing as the current fine system. When we decriminalize simple possession, namely, we remove the offence from the Criminal Code and focus on prevention, so that we can talk about the matter openly, to discuss appropriate use and abuse, to intervene when there is inappropriate use, the message is a lot clearer for people, as far as prevention is concerned, than when a system forbids and punishes through a fine or some other sanction. Indeed, this is extremely widespread, explaining why people hide and do prevention work by word of mouth, for what it is worth.

    There is a lot of magical thinking here. Indeed, de facto decriminalization sends a much clearer message, because we are saying that we will focus on prevention, that we will be tolerant, that we will create zones of both inappropriate and appropriate use. But right now we are sending out a two-fold message: we are saying that it is prohibited, but if you are caught, you will be fined.

    Mr. Richard Marceau: And now the police.

[English]

    D/Commr Garry Loeppky: There has been fairly broad agreement that we might expect to see a bit of an increase, following the passage of the legislation. I think even our colleagues at Justice have indicated that. Then they would expect it to level out.

    I recently visited Switzerland and spoke to the individual in charge of the addiction research institute. He really focussed on the fact that the important thing society has to do is be very concerned about the messages it sends out to youth. That should start with the messages around making good decisions around much bigger things than simply the use of drugs--things like alcohol use and cigarette smoking. His view was that if youth don't have that capacity to make good decisions, they may ultimately drift into drug use.

    I think we really have to focus our energy at the front end, in terms of prevention and education, so we get better decisions, and stronger and healthier youth who are going to be the adults of tomorrow.

[Translation]

    Mr. Richard Marceau: In your opinion, do you think that we would be sending a bad message to young people if we were to decriminalize simple possession?

[English]

    D/Commr Garry Loeppky: As my colleague mentioned, I agree that the perception may be that there is less emphasis on the harmful effects of cannabis. We need to be very conscious of that in the kinds of messages we're sending to youth.

    Does that answer your question?

½  (1950)  

[Translation]

    Mr. Richard Marceau: No, but you are very skillful. I agree with you that we must pay attention to the message sent to young people. I agree with you on that.

    My question is whether or not, in your opinion, we would be sending a bad message if we were to decriminalize simple possession?

[English]

    D/Commr Garry Loeppky: I think the use of any substance, whether you're talking about cannabis or alcohol, is related to the level of tolerance society has toward it. So when you send a message that you're changing the level of tolerance by changing the approach to how you prosecute it, whether it's criminalizing it or prosecuting it through a fine, that could be interpreted as taking a lesser approach to how it's viewed. In other words, it could be interpreted by youth as being less harmful perhaps.

[Translation]

    Mr. Richard Marceau: One aspect of Bill C-38 is that, although the penalties for simple possession have been alleviated, nothing has been done in the case of small producers. So somebody who wants to produce for his or her personal use would be liable to punishment that is relatively severe and, in order to avoid this, the person would be forced to obtained his or her supplies on the black market which, in my opinion and in the opinion of others, is in the hands of organized crime. So the small consumer, who is not hurting anybody, is not allowed to grow a plant on his or her windowsill and is forced to obtain supplies from members of organized crime.

    Ms. Beauchesne, in your opinion, if we decide to opt for fines rather than a criminal record in cases involving possession of a small quantity, would it not make sense to extend the same logic to the small producer, to avoid the situation where this person is clearly being criminalized more than he or she should be, since simple possession has been decriminalized.

    Ms. Line Beauchesne: Indeed, I do not know how the police are going to be able to enforce the system as it is outlined in this bill. I had to read the bill two or three times in order to understand how the scale was going to work and I'm wondering what the scale is based on. The message that we are receiving is that you can have a little bit but no one wants to know where you got it. Moreover, if they do find out where you got it, there will be punishment. We say that we are careful about the message we are sending to young people, but the message is not clear.

    If we had made a distinction, by saying that in the case of simple possession, in the case of small crops, for small scale consumption, we would be admitting that there are different types of use and that in most cases cannabis use is properly managed... But right now everything is taking place in the underground market and, as a result, people are using cannabis at a younger and younger age because the message is too ambiguous and confusing, and with this bill, we are going to push young people even more towards the black market. It is as though we were telling them that they were better off buying it from whoever on the street because now it is dangerous to grow two plants on the windowsill.

    I deal with this issue when I do parent training. Parents who have used cannabis say that they are now being forced to talk to their children in a way that makes them completely uncomfortable, because it is somewhat like telling people who have a drink of alcohol that this is a forbidden activity, that it is dangerous, that they could become alcoholics, when in fact they know all kinds of people who have a drink and manage drinking well and they know people who have problems, but who have identified the context and not the product as being the cause. So yes, if we care about our young people, the first thing that we need to do is send them a clear message, namely that, now, for small quantities, we will try to make sure that they do not have to go to the black market and that we will try to do what we can to better help them distinguish between appropriate and inappropriate use. However, this is quite difficult to do given the artistic meandering of this bill.

½  (1955)  

    Mr. Richard Marceau: May I have a response from the deputy commissioner?

[English]

    The Chair: Monsieur Loeppky.

    D/Commr Garry Loeppky: I just want to add a couple of points.

    What kind of message would we be sending by decriminalizing it? It would still be illegal. There is that message I spoke about before, that youth will interpret that as a lesser approach.

    It's also important we understand that in growing the plants there is a certain health risk in the plant itself and the lights that are used to grow even one plant, if you're growing any quantity. It's not uncommon for one plant to produce 1.5 pounds of marijuana, although the average is approximately 50 grams.

    The message is that we have to be consistent. We have to be able to look at limiting the supply and demand for drugs as often as possible, using prevention and education. If we send the message that it's not a criminal offence to possess a small number of plants, I'm not sure we'll be sending the right message to the people we're trying to influence the most.

[Translation]

    The Chair: Thank you very much. It is now Mr. Inky Mark's turn.

[English]

    Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, PC): Thank you, Madam Chair. Let me welcome our witnesses here this evening.

    There's no doubt, in my opinion, that this bill sends the wrong message to youth and the citizens of this country. It's so ironic that with everything you've been doing on the drug control regime, this is just going to throw a big curve into it. The commissioner said you had to be consistent and balanced. I don't think you can be balanced with this bill.

    People need to ask why this bill is being rushed through this House, this committee. Whom does it benefit? Is it for the people who use it recreationally, so they won't have criminal records? Who are we going to put first, youth or adults--also consumers, even youth as well? But there's no doubt it's inconsistent on every point, especially when Health Canada says it's a dangerous substance. If it's a dangerous substance, why are we allowing it to be utilized, and turning this into a parking-ticket charade? That's what it comes down to.

    I have a hard time trying to get my head around this whole business of Bill C-38. We don't want to legalize this drug, yet we really don't want to criminalize people who use it. What does this government want? Those are the hard questions.

    Prevention is one thing. You can spend millions on prevention and educating people not to use a drug, but on the other hand people are using it. It's sort of like getting tapped on the wrist--it's no big deal, we'll just give you a parking ticket.

    I guess my first question is, did the department or the minister at least consult the RCMP before they even drafted this thing?

    D/Commr Garry Loeppky: Yes, there was consultation with the RCMP and the broader law enforcement community. Certainly some of our concerns are reflected in the bill.

    One of the things we have a concern about is the significant number of grow operations that are run by organized crime and result in the destruction of communities, theft of electricity, health hazards, and ultimately a significant amount of violence. When we look at some of the sentencing provisions that have been included for things like grow operations, we hope we will send the significant message to organized crime, which is in the business of making a huge amount of profit as a result of grow operations, that it is a serious offence.

¾  (2000)  

    Mr. Inky Mark: Does this bill signal that Canada has given up on drug control, in your opinion?

    D/Commr Garry Loeppky: I certainly hope not. I think there's a recognition that marijuana is a harmful substance, and some of the measures are meant to deter its use without leaving those in possession of small amounts with a criminal record. But we clearly need to put a tremendous amount of effort into the prevention and education side. We've received funding for education programs, because that's where our outreach has to take place.

    Mr. Inky Mark: Would it make your job easier as a federal force if the government just made the decision to legalize it and control it like alcohol, instead of taking this wishy-washy approach, and the first step that will probably lead to another step?

    D/Commr Garry Loeppky: No. I think legalization is a whole other issue that would obviously require considerable debate. I'm certainly not in support of legalization. As we've seen with alcohol over many years, once you accept a level of tolerance you have more alcohol problems. I think we have to be careful about that with drugs. It would certainly be the subject of another debate that would have to take place.

    Mr. Inky Mark: Do you think the parking-ticket approach will reduce your workload?

    D/Commr Garry Loeppky: When you look at the number of seizures versus the number of actual possession charges today, police discretion has existed and continues to exist under common law. Consequently, we end up actually not proceeding with charges in many cases. So I'm not convinced we'll reduce our workload.

    Mr. Inky Mark: My concern is that if this bill passes--and I don't think it will--it will send a message, to youth anyway, that the use of marijuana is all right. You'll just get a parking ticket, basically. Because of this phenomenon, will it create a bigger market that will put greater pressure on the grow market itself, in terms of getting more people involved in the grow operations?

    D/Commr Garry Loeppky: Our focus, as evidenced by the statistics, is very much targeted on the grow operations and the major importers of other types of drugs, because that's where organized crime derives its profits. Let's face it, commercial drug production for sale or importation is strictly profit motivated. Therefore we will continue to investigate major organized crime rings that are involved in grow operations or importations.

    I think there is a significant amount of work out there. We're certainly not going to be short of work, no matter how the bill proceeds.

    Mr. Inky Mark: On the grow operations, if the market is going to increase there'll be a greater need for the drug. With Bill C-38, do you think it will be worth putting all the money into the anti-drug program, as you're doing right now?

    D/Commr Garry Loeppky: One of the components of the budgeting process is to set aside some resources to do investigations--some grow-op teams and some clandestine lab investigation teams--to target those organizations that are at the top of the organized crime pyramid. Obviously, that's the area we're targeting.

    Will there be an increase in the activity? I can't really say that, but I can say there's no shortage of organizations involved in grow operations today.

¾  (2005)  

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

    Madam Davies.

    Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Thank you very much to the witnesses for coming today.

    You said just a few minutes ago you were concerned that we would accept a level of tolerance. I think all of the witnesses have talked about the message we're sending out. But one thing we've learned is that a level of tolerance has nothing to do with whether a substance is legal or illegal. We know that tolerance for tobacco smoking, which is legal, has gone down because of massive education. So the fact that a substance is illegal seems to have little or no impact on our tolerance or increased consumption.

    I agree with you that the message we send out is very important, but I think we're sending out the message that prohibition has been a very lucrative business for organized crime. I don't know if you saw the story in the National Post today. It's actually an RCMP report that speaks about the fact that the financial mainstay of all of the groups involved in organized crime is drugs. Is there any indication that the current regime, based on prohibitionist policies, is actually having any inroads whatsoever into organized crime?

    Secondly, this bill has been presented as a sort of measure of decriminalization, on the basis that personal use shouldn't mean that someone will get a criminal record. I would certainly agree with that, but I don't think we've yet had adequate answers. If there is a contravention--and say it's between 15 and 30 grams--where will the records about that be held, how will they be used, and will that be information that could be shared with the U.S., for example, when people cross the border?

    I'm wondering if you can actually tell us about CPIC and what you understand from this bill, how information will be stored and in which database, and who will have access to it. Theoretically, if someone didn't have a criminal record, would there be some other kind of record that could be used in a way that could prejudice that person if he or she were travelling, or whatever? It's very unclear at this point what the record will be and how it will be used.

    D/Commr Garry Loeppky: I'd like to make just a quick comment at the front end on your question about tolerance, if I can just step away from this particular piece of legislation.

    Take the example of what is taking place around the world, in terms of youth. They see the behaviour of other youths, and it's tolerated. There's an acceptance, and that becomes okay to do. Look at situations in the middle east, for example, where youth are growing up in a violent society and it's okay to act inappropriately, and the message that sends to others. If you have a level of tolerance and acceptance, whether it's alcohol or whatever--

    Ms. Libby Davies: What does that have to do with something that's illegal, though? That's my point. Just saying something is illegal doesn't decrease our tolerance. In fact, one could argue that the opposite is true. It's just a contradiction, right?

    Smoking is legal, but it's only because of massive education, peer pressure, and understanding about the harmful effects.... It's the attention put on the harmful effects, not on whether it's legal or not, that has actually changed what people do.

    But on drugs, we can't seem to get away from this position that only criminal enforcement will somehow deal with use. Primarily that's been the tool.

    D/Commr Garry Loeppky: On the contrary, the RCMP has been involved in a very rigorous prevention, education, and drug awareness program since 1982.

¾  (2010)  

    Ms. Libby Davies: You mean the DARE program, which has been very questionable too. There have been a lot of reports on that.

    D/Commr Garry Loeppky: I'm not talking about DARE at all; I'm talking about drug prevention coordinators in each province. I was the first one in the province of British Columbia.

    We've been at the prevention and education game for a long time. We've really been advocating that you need to balance prevention, education, research, treatment, and enforcement. There has to be a combination of those things in order to send a variety of messages. I wouldn't want it to be misinterpreted that there's only one venue to deal with this issue, because there isn't.

    Bob or Pierre, perhaps I can turn to you on the CPIC issue, or the criminal records issue.

    Mr. Robert Thompson (Acting Officer in Charge , Canadian Criminal Records Information Services, National Police Services of the RCMP): I'll speak to the issue of criminal records and their construct, and how there is a relationship between the criminal record and the CPIC. Then I'll pass it over to Pierre Lavoie for comment on CPIC.

    The Canadian criminal records system is a central repository that exists in Ottawa, for which I have responsibility. Contributions are made by all police services in Canada on persons who were arrested for what we would call indictable offences or hybrid offences. Because you may have been arrested and/or convicted of an offence that is declared to be a summary conviction offence, that does not constitute a criminal record.

    When police services across Canada fingerprint people who are found guilty of offences that are considered indictable or hybrid, that information is brought to our offices as the central repository. That can be shared with other police services as criminal record information.

    It may be decided by the police officer at the time to take fingerprints, providing they have the authority under the existing Identification of Criminals Act. That is a very finite statute. You cannot take the fingerprints of someone who is being charged for a municipal offence, for any offence under a provincial statute, or for many offences under the Criminal Code and other federal statutes.

    Since 1996, there has been no authority in law to fingerprint a person for simple possession of marijuana or cannabis. As such, in the central repository of criminal records we do not have criminal records of persons who have been convicted of summary conviction possession of simple cannabis products in Canada.

    Many people have been charged and convicted of simple possession, but they do not have criminal records. As such, that information would not exist in our system relative to those charges.

    Ms. Libby Davies: Is any of that information shared with the U.S., even if there hasn't been a summary conviction?

    Mr. Robert Thompson: If a person has been found guilty of a offence whereby they have a criminal record--so it's a hybrid or indictable offence--Canada's laws will determine and drive the kind of information that is releasable to our partners. When I say our partners, I mean Interpol partners with whom we share a charter of responsibility.

    The Canadian criminal records system shares criminal record information with the U.S. as our laws permit. So in the case of simple possession of marijuana, whereby the person was convicted of a summary conviction, we simply don't have that information, therefore it is not available to exchange with the United States.

    This does not preclude a police service, whether it's the police force of Winnipeg or Halifax, or the RCMP in Burnaby, from having their own records management system, wherein they have information that the person noted was found guilty.

    Ms. Libby Davies: Okay. I'll tell you what I'm concerned about. Cases have been reported--and I've had constituents tell me personally--where people with simple possession records have been denied access to the U.S. As far as I can tell, they had no other records whatsoever, but they were still denied access. So there must be some kind of sharing going on.

    Are you saying it's at the discretion of the local jurisdiction whether or not they do that?

    Mr. Robert Thompson: No. As I often see in my work, a Canadian who is going across the border to the United States is often asked, “Have you been found guilty of having committed a criminal offence?” The person may respond, “Yes, I've been charged with simple possession.” At that time, the U.S. authorities may choose to allow that person to enter the U.S. or not.

    In the event that the person is not allowed into the States, they'll often come back and submit a request to my office for a pardon under the Criminal Records Act. At that time, the fingerprints submitted will determine the level of record. It goes through the National Parole Board, and if a pardon is granted at that time, we remove that record from the system and seal it. This is not information that is available to anyone, nor is it information we would have released as criminal record information to anyone. We don't have the authority to do so.

    Within the CPIC system there is information, and once a person has been pardoned that information is also released. So now the individual is in possession of a pardon, so for all intents and purposes they do not have a criminal record. They go back to the United States, want to seek access, and are asked, “Do you have a criminal record?” The response is no, because they have been pardoned.

    The notion of a pardon in the U.S. is not the same as a pardon in Canada. That said, if they have information in their own internal system that this person tried to cross the border once before, declared that they had a criminal record, and are now saying they don't, that becomes, in and of itself, an issue for further investigation by the U.S.

¾  (2015)  

    Ms. Libby Davies: Are you saying that the only way the U.S. can have that information is if someone self-identifies and says they have this record, or whatever; there's no other sharing that takes place?

    Mr. Robert Thompson: On the criminal record side alone that is the only way, because I do not exchange criminal record information in that way.

    Now I'll pass it to Pierre Lavoie.

    Mr. Pierre Lavoie: I suspect this will answer your question. You have to think of criminal records as a separate box that's accessed through CPIC, which is a police repository of mostly investigative information. In practical terms, that means if somebody gets picked up for possession today by the police, information is laid, an appearance notice is issued, and a court process begins. From that point on, a CPIC entry is made to keep track of the proceedings, as the matter works its way through the courts.

    So that person who is picked up today is put on CPIC in the accused category. Once the court disposition is known, it may result in a probation order that will be on CPIC for a further two years. Once all proceedings, including the probation order, have expired, the matter is off CPIC and is no longer available.

    However, the United States has access to CPIC, so if the person gets checked in the interim period from the time they get picked up until the time the probation order is over, the Americans would have access to that information, even though there were no criminal records entered in the criminal record bank. So once they become aware of that information, they can potentially keep track of it. Even though there's no record, no CPIC entry, five years down the road they may still have a record of that information.

    Ms. Libby Davies: How long have the Americans had access to CPIC and the information there--since it was started?

    Mr. Pierre Lavoie: I can't really answer on the dates, but we currently have a mutual reciprocal exchange between NCIC and CPIC.

    Ms. Libby Davies: What will happen now with the fines? If CPIC is a depository of all this kind of information, are you going to be putting records of fines in there? If you are, that will potentially be immediately available to another country.

    Mr. Pierre Lavoie: I will just answer on our current CPIC practice. I'll give the analogy of a traffic ticket.

    We don't put traffic tickets on CPIC, but if a traffic ticket goes to court, there is a fine, a warrant is issued, and the fine is unpaid, that warrant can be placed on CPIC. So if this new charge is in fact a ticket, it may not end up on CPIC. But I don't know; it will depend on what the law says.

    Ms. Libby Davies: But if they had repeat fines.... Well, anyway, there's no assurance that it won't end up....

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Macklin, please.

    Mr. Paul Harold Macklin (Northumberland, Lib.): Thank you very much.

    I would like to follow up on this because it's relatively important to us. At the federal-provincial-territorial meetings of ministers of justice, one of the issues raised was how to deal with offenders or chronic offenders if fines were used as some sort of sanction.

    Are there levels of security within CPIC where you could keep records to which other countries would not have access, in particular, of course, the United States?

¾  (2020)  

    Mr. Pierre Lavoie: Currently we share information only according to the legislation that's in Canada. There are some types of information we cannot share at large on CPIC, so it would be possible, if legislation were in place, to sort of segregate this information.

    Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: But could your system function as presently constituted, without any major cost in setting in that layer of protection?

    Mr. Pierre Lavoie: Whenever you talk about implementing new programming features in the system, there are always costs involved.

    Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: I guess we could theoretically track these various penalties and have our act appropriately amended, if we wanted to, so there would be increasing fines, or a point at which after so many convictions one fell into the next category of having to go before a court to deal with issues, as opposed to simple fining in the 15 grams or less category.

    Mr. Pierre Lavoie: I have to understand what you mean by keeping track of fines. A fine would only show up on CPIC if it were unpaid and a warrant had been issued by a court of law. This would only be to assist police in locating the person who had been fined.

    Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: One of the questions that's come up is whether CPIC could keep track of those who had multiple fines, and still not necessarily be impacted by information-gathering from other states, namely in this case the United States.

    In other words, could it function for police services generally, and the courts more particularly, to know when an individual had multiple convictions, in particular with respect to the so-called minor offence of possession of under 15 grams?

    Mr. Pierre Lavoie: We currently don't use CPIC as our records management system. The only things that go on CPIC are matters of immediate interest to police, from the beginning of the proceedings until the time they have been concluded.

    Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Could CPIC theoretically adjust to that, or would it be a major change in the way it functioned?

    Mr. Pierre Lavoie: In the current system it would be a major change.

    Mr. Robert Thompson: If I could respond in part to that, presently, if a person has been found guilty of having committed a criminal offence, the central repository of criminal records tracks that. We have 3.5 million records. So in the event that the court, a crown prosecutor, or a police officer, in pursuing a particular charge, wishes to know if that person has previous convictions registered under that same kind of offence, or any other offence for that matter, and even time-lock that, we can provide that information as long as that record is supported by fingerprints.

    In order for a record to exist with fingerprints, in today's law, the person must have been charged with an indictable offence or a dual procedure offence, but not a summary conviction offence.

    Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: So these would not under any circumstances, under the Contraventions Act, appear on that record.

    Mr. Robert Thompson: That's true, unless that person had been charged with other than simple possession. Often we see where a person has been convicted of having committed a variety of crimes, one of which was simple possession, but as long as the others were either indictable or dual-procedure offences they are included and the person may be printed.

    Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: I'd like to go to one other area and get a sense, maybe from you, Professor Beauchesne, as to appropriate penalties for the offence. How do you grapple with this question of determining an appropriate penalty?

    Have you done an analysis in this case of whether, in the history of how we've been treating this product, an appropriate penalty for the offence has been created? Are we now heading toward a more appropriate penalty or penalty process that will lead to better meeting the social objectives of this piece of legislation?

¾  (2025)  

[Translation]

    Ms. Line Beauchesne: First, you have to know whether the idea is to prevent the use or the abuse of illicit drugs. If the idea is to prevent abuse, in other words, if the goal is one of public health, penalties play no role whatsoever. The research clearly shows that the decision to use, like the decision to stop using legal or illegal drugs, is mainly based on health issues. Moreover, people feel that the risk of using and getting arrested is so low that it has no influence on their motivation to use.

    So when it comes to prevention, when you ask what's the appropriate penalty, it has to be made clear that the penalty doesn't play much of a role, whether you're talking about the decision to use or to stop using. That is why I was saying earlier that it would be better to establish a margin of tolerance that would allow us to do prevention around appropriate and inappropriate use. Criminal penalties and fines have absolutely nothing to do with prevention.

[English]

    Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: So from your perspective, it would be more meaningful for the national drug strategy to put money into the educational side, in order to have a major effect on changing habits that have been formed by the 100,000 to 300,000 Canadians who presently consume drugs daily.

[Translation]

    Ms. Line Beauchesne: Yes, but at the same time, if you look at this bill, it can't be ignored. I can't see any prevention message in this bill. If the goal is to prevent use, as I've heard some say, this bill is useless in terms of prevention. It's a bit like telling people who drink alcohol—and a number of you drink—that any use of alcohol leads to serious problems, and attempting to prevent you from having any. The only effect that would have is that people would hide their drinking.

    What we're saying is that we want to prevent abuse and create a zone of tolerance to allow for prevention. When it comes to young people, public health problems increase where there is prohibition. The research clearly shows that young people don't know what they are taking, that they get their information from any available source and that they frequent criminogenic circles. But if the products were legally controlled and managed, with adequate prevention, the problems of young people could be reduced. I don't understand people who say that prohibition would benefit young people, when the research clearly shows that prohibition increases the health and social risks to young people.

    I would like one thing to be made clear first, because otherwise we will be heading in all kinds of directions. Is the goal to prevent drug use—in which case, prohibition is clearer—or is it to prevent drug abuse? In that case, you would have to move toward a tolerance model, ideally legalization. But we have a neighbour that is a creator of international conventions; so that would be inappropriate. However, we can at least create clearer zones of tolerance, to make room for adequate prevention.

[English]

    Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Thank you.

    The Chair: This is your last question.

    Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Mr. Loeppky, earlier it was indicated that there was no test for drug impairment, but hasn't there been a long history of police officers doing physical tests to find out whether drivers of vehicles are impaired? Whether they're impaired by drugs, alcohol, or a combination of both, clearly the question is one of impairment, isn't it? Those tests could certainly be done by officers at the roadside.

¾  (2030)  

    D/Commr Garry Loeppky: That is correct. One of the primary indicators is the physical condition of the individual. There are also other factors. For example, we have started training people to be drug recognition experts in trying to identify impairment factors due to drugs. Alcohol, for example, has a smell, but drugs don't.

    With impairment by alcohol today you can simply read a breathalyzer demand and do a test within minutes. With drugs it's very difficult. You can get a general search warrant to get a blood sample, but it's a very cumbersome process. Other countries have taken more aggressive approaches to drug-impaired driving, in terms of the tools that the law enforcement community has to ensure that the roads are safe.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. White.

    Mr. Randy White: I want to deal with the grow-op business. I've had a number of representations made to me by the B.C. Real Estate Association, which is very concerned about people who are selling houses--even their agents--knowing full well that they're selling them for and to people who are going to have grow ops. In fact, some people who own houses are renting them out, knowing full well there are grow ops in them.

    On this idea of the penalties for grow ops, how does it deal with the people who actually own the houses and know full well what's going on? The grower, the renter, is only in the building temporarily. How do you get at the real people behind the grow ops?

    D/Commr Garry Loeppky: You are absolutely right that grow ops are a major concern, especially in the lower mainland of British Columbia and a variety of other areas. By and large, they are run by organized crime. They are large operations, and they impact on communities by using houses in communities where there are children. There are electricity thefts that have their own health hazards, and a variety of other factors.

    We contemplate that with increased grow-op teams we can tackle those kinds of operations at the very highest level of the organized crime groups that are running them.

    There's the notion that there are a lot of mom-and-pop operations. There are some small operations, but by and large they are in houses controlled by organized crime groups. In some cases they are run by owners on an almost leased basis, but there is also a significant amount of violence that's associated with those grow operations. I need not tell you about the number of violent incidents and murders that have taken place in the lower mainland that are directly related to grow operations and the competition between rival gangs.

    When we talk about sentencing for larger scale marijuana grow operations, the bill contemplates lengthier sentences. I think the issue then becomes how those sentences are interpreted by the courts in their application, if those longer sentences are applied.

    Mr. Randy White: But isn't this applicable to the grower? For instance, about three doors up from me just recently a grow op was busted--and this happens all the time in our neighbourhoods out there. For the people doing the growing, if there are over 50 plants, which there were, it's an indictable offence, with ten years' imprisonment and other penalties. But they really don't have money, and they don't have assets, in terms of a house. They probably owe for the equipment. In fact, all you can really do is put them in jail if you want to give a penalty, because nothing else would be applicable to them.

    The people who bought the houses originally and know full well they are being used for grow ops don't come into this penalty process, do they?

¾  (2035)  

    D/Commr Garry Loeppky: There are other provisions within the Criminal Code that deal with proceeds of crime and being the recipient of proceeds of crime. The objective when we undertake investigations is to target the higher level organizations that have people grow for them; to ultimately take their assets, such as their equipment and their houses.

    It is a complex issue, in terms of the amount of profit that can be derived and the ease with which houses can be obtained and grow operations set up in very well-established neighbourhoods.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Randy White: Let's take the example of a cannabis production with more than three plants, but not more than 25 plants. That's an indictable offence, with five years less a day of imprisonment; a summary conviction offence, with a $25,000 fine or 18 months' imprisonment; or both.

    I don't believe that affects at all the owner of the building, who is really the front person for the operation. The little guy who is growing this stuff doesn't have $25,000. Some of them have lots of money, but many of them don't have any money. So how are we addressing the people behind it? I know you can say “proceeds of crime”, but they almost never get charged, as far as I know.

    D/Commr Garry Loeppky: I'll deal with one of your issues first. On the sentences that are ultimately handed down and delivered, our mandate or objective is clearly to gather the evidence and bring the case before the courts. Following that, it's at the discretion of the justice system, the judge, to deal with the sanctions. So that's the process.

    But I do want to touch on your other point. Marijuana grow operations have been outlined as a very key and high-level priority by the federal-provincial-territorial justice ministers and the law enforcement community across Canada. Every year the law enforcement community does a national threat assessment to look at some of the big organizations, and grow operations are clearly part of that.

    By working together in an integrated way to take the top level of those organizations out of business, we're going to be successful. We are having success, not in every case because there are a lot of grow operations, but we are targeting the highest level. That involves not only bringing them before the courts, but also looking at the vast profits they've accumulated through their activities.

[Translation]

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Ms. Allard, you have five minutes.

    Ms. Carole-Marie Allard (Laval East, Lib.): Good evening, gentlemen.

    Ms. Beauchesne, congratulations for being honest and having the courage to tell it like it is. I think that you are one of the only people that I know of who can do that. Congratulations!

    You are right. I think that the problem lies in the fact that our society is turning a blind eye to these problems and is refusing to acknowledge that they exist. We know that young people smoke. People have told us that it is okay for patients who are in the terminal phase of their illness so that is all the more reason for them. Some, like my colleague, feel that this bill is going too far.

    I think we are right in wanting our youth to avoid having a criminal record, which could seriously affect their future and their lives, and that is why we would like to decriminalize the use of cannabis and have them pay a fine. You said that according to the Australian experience more young people are being arrested there.

    I would like to come back to what you consider to be appropriate use. Is it not, essentially, the same as tobacco? We have managed to convince people to stop smoking in public. A young person smoking marijuana in his home would not be breaking the law. If he were to smoke in public, he could be fined and he could also disturb those around him. But, luckily for him, it isn't the same as tobacco, and he doesn't have to smoke a marijuana joint every 10 minutes. He can certainly wait until he gets home to light up.

    Therefore, this bill is telling us that it is illegal, but if we do it in private, we will not be arrested so it will be the lesser evil. I agree when you say that this bill does nothing to solve the abuse problem, but it is still a good start. My outlook is more positive than yours. I agree that abusing marijuana, uncontrolled consumption and public use of the drug could lead to hefty fines and that a drug treatment court judge might conclude that a stay in a detox centre is warranted.

    Some people, like my colleague who spoke earlier, feel that it is going to far. Others, like yourself, tell us that it does not go far enough.

¾  (2040)  

    Ms. Line Beauchesne: That is why I am of two minds. There is the bill, then there is its enforcement. The criminal record question, for example, is quite relevant. If this bill causes a larger number of young people, who can't grow their own cannabis, to buy the drug on the black market, where they can go into debt and where the settling of accounts can be brutal... I am not rejecting the bill out of hand, but I feel that it lacks clarity and consistency. I wonder if, as is done in Australia, we might say that from now on they will be fined and then go ahead and arrest people. You say that people will feel that there is no problem if they do it in private. But it is something that they have already understood. They know that the police won't come to their homes to see if someone is smoking a joint. So people do smoke in private.

    I am more concerned about the enforcement aspect, the effects in terms of records and the supply. I also wonder whether or not we will be able to reduce the threat to public health and whether or not young people will have more or fewer contacts with the law enforcement authorities. I agree when you say that it will always be a little shaky, because we will never be able to work this right through to its logical conclusion. However, I am still not convinced that this bill represents a step forward, because far too much remains unknown.

    Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: In the bill we want to include the words “not more than three plants”. Does this not sound like we are saying that those who don't smoke regularly or who do so at home could grow one or two plants, if they do so in private... The problem is that there are always people who want to smoke in public, in front of everyone. This is the type of situation that could lead to a fine.

    I was in radio and during one of my programs someone started to roll a joint in front of me in the studio. I warned him that he could be fined for that type of behaviour. If people don't do it in the bus, in the schoolyard or in public, but only at home... But as you say, they are already doing it.

    Ms. Line Beauchesne: We should put the question the other way. If we look at who is being jailed for cannabis-related offences today, we realize that these are not ordinary people. They are young, poor and marginalized. We say that we want to help them. So, from now on, instead of entering the criminal justice system and having a record, they would be accused of not paying their fine. These people don't have the money to pay the fines. It seems to me that, in terms of prevention, we are moving in that direction, but we must also send a clear message and state that we are moving towards preventing abuse.

    However, if we choose to prevent the use of cannabis and state in the bill that any use is dangerous, our youth will understand that it is a dangerous product, but assume that it really is not the case. I am trying to gather all of the pieces and I feel that we should try to make things clearer. We could have a level of tolerance that would, as you say, allow for possession of three joints or less than 30 grams. If, in that context, no minors are involved, and if we impose the same restrictions that apply to tobacco and engage in targeted prevention of the inappropriate and abusive use of the drug, then I think this would be a clearer step than what we find in the present bill. It would be an improvement, though my approach would be even more straightforward.

¾  (2045)  

    Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: Madam Chair, at one point, the minister told us he would send a copy of the offence notice to the parents of the young person. I would like to know whether this has been kept in the bill, or whether it was dropped along the way. We are talking about minors here. Do you think this would be a positive step?

    The Chair: It is in the Youth Justice Act.

    Ms. Line Beauchesne: A letter is not automatically sent to the parents under the Young Offenders Act.

[English]

    The Chair: Yes, it is. Perhaps you can talk to the parliamentary secretary.

    Monsieur Marceau.

[Translation]

    Mr. Richard Marceau: Thank you, Madam Chair.

    My first question is to Ms. Carole-Marie Allard. I would like to know what she did when her colleague—I presume it was a colleague—rolled a joint and smoked it in the studio. It might be interesting to hear the story, because it is part of local history.

    Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: It was not a colleague, it was the—

    Mr. Richard Marceau: I see. I apologize.

    Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: He was the leader of the Marijuana Party.

    Mr. Richard Marceau: Fine. Excuse me, Madam Chair.

    Jokes aside, one of the problems identified by the previous committee on the non-medical use of drugs has to do with regional disparity—for lack of a better term. As we know, and as we were told many times, young people caught with a small a,amount of marijuana in La Tuque, Quebec or in a little town in the Prairies are less likely to have the police officer close his eyes than if the same thing happened in Vancouver, Toronto or Montreal. This problem was drawn to our attention, and that is one of the reasons why the committee suggested that for quantities less than 30 grams, the penalty system should be used, not criminal charges. Bill C-38 put forward by the Minister of Justice lowers this limit, as you know as well, if not better, than I and gives the police discretion for quantities between 15 and 20 grams.

    My question is directed first to Ms. Beauchesne, and if one of our friends from the RCMP cares to answer after that, I would be pleased to listen. Are we not giving too much discretion to police officers once again, and going back to this “regional disparity” whereby the severity of the penalty for an offence varies depending on where it takes place?

    Ms. Line Beauchesne: The clarification I was mentioning earlier would help correct this problem as well. At the moment, the police already have discretionary power, but the provincial data that I will be sending the committee show that there is already a great deal of disparity among the provinces on drugs. We have also done some surveys, but these data will not be available for a month, because the study is a doctoral thesis that is not being defended.

    The data also show that the police have a very different perception of drugs depending whether they live in a city or in the country, and depending on the province. What this means is that the legislation is enforced very differently. When there is latitude in legislation, if the police find that one approach works better, they charge the person with that, rather than following a clear guideline. My sense is that we do not have this clear guideline, and that is what I would like to see. It will never be as clear as I would like it to be, but I think it could be clearer than it is. For example, the guideline could provide that in a particular area some appropriate use is possible, while in another area, this is not possible. This would mean that the outcome would not depend on the police officer one encounters, his or her mood, or the day, the province, or the region in which one lives.

¾  (2050)  

    Mr. Richard Marceau: Thank you.

    Deputy commissioner.

[English]

    D/Commr Garry Loeppky: Thank you very much.

    If the intention is to have consistency, one has to look at the broader criminal justice system, and there is very little consistency. A firearms offence in the north, where somebody uses a firearm for their daily livelihood, versus a firearms offence in mainland Canada will probably be viewed quite differently by the justice system and the judges in their ultimate sentencing.

    The same goes for a cap of heroin in small-town Saskatchewan versus the city of Vancouver. It will be quite different, because it will reflect the expectations of society and the judicial approach in that area.

    When you look at the Youth Criminal Justice Act, we're very much into restorative justice for youth. Things are dealt with differently with a youth in one area versus, in some circumstances, in another area, simply because it meets the needs of that youth.

    When you look at all of the restorative justice initiatives across Canada, whether they're for break-and-enters or any number of offences, you won't have consistency. That's because the offenders are different and they have different needs. Rehabilitation is obviously easier with some than with others. There are the expectations of the community. There are a lot of drivers behind that.

    I mentioned earlier that with small possession charges, probably only 50% ever result in charges. The rest are just dealt with through police discretion. I'm not suggesting that won't happen under any legislation. If somebody is caught with a gram, the police might use their discretion and not write a ticket, if that's deemed appropriate. We are very cognizant of the fact that there are one-time, first-time users of small amounts. We don't want them to be stigmatized by a criminal record, like anybody else. We're very sensitive about that.

    In terms of regional disparity, there will always be some of that. There is regional disparity in drug courts. Somebody doesn't have an opportunity to go to the drug court in Sault Ste. Marie, but they do in the city of Toronto. That's a disparity of sorts. We need to be aware of that.

[Translation]

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Lee, you have the last five minutes.

[English]

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

    I'd like to get back to some of the CPIC procedures, so we understand the implications for this legislation.

    To both Mr. Lavoie and Mr. Thompson, would a police force in Canada now be able to record on CPIC a prosecution and conviction under the Contraventions Act? Would they be able to record the ongoing procedure of the Contraventions Act--ticket, conviction, fine payment?

    Mr. Pierre Lavoie: We currently don't have that scenario, aside from mostly provincial-type offences. A ticket would not be shown on CPIC unless a conviction had been registered and a warrant issued.

    Mr. Derek Lee: There would have to be a warrant issued. So you wouldn't accept it as a piece of information coming in for registration on CPIC.

    Mr. Pierre Lavoie: If the weight of the law went with ticket-type information, then in all likelihood it would not be on CPIC.

    Mr. Derek Lee: Would you reject it or accept it if the Edmonton police force inputted a Contraventions Act charge and conviction for one of these marijuana offences?

¾  (2055)  

    Mr. Pierre Lavoie: I have to indicate that all of the police files recorded on CPIC are made by separate police detachments. We basically have rules they have to abide by. Right now there is no set policy that would prevent them from doing it. Depending on the legislation, we might have to adjust that.

    Mr. Derek Lee: This legislation apparently doesn't provide for it, so it could happen.

    It's already been explained that there would not be a criminal record in the Criminal Records Information Services. So we have that cornered off.

    I want to ask about criminal records before 1996 for conviction of simple possession of marijuana. Do those records exist on the Criminal Records Information Services?

    Mr. Robert Thompson: In the central repository for criminal records is information on any person pre-1996 who was found guilty of a criminal offence for which the prosecution was either hybrid or indictable--not some re-conviction--and fingerprints were taken. So that's a condition of the record. Our Canadian criminal record system is not name-based; it is totally fingerprint-based. In order for that to exist, the statute authority needs to be there for the police officer to be able to take those fingerprints.

    In the case of any kind of drug offence where there was summary conviction only, we would not have that record. In the event that it was an indictable or dual-procedure offence and fingerprints were taken, we would.

    Mr. Derek Lee: So the answer is that there are still plenty of simple marijuana conviction records on your system from before 1996--

    Mr. Robert Thompson: Yes.

    Mr. Derek Lee: --because they were finger-print based, or whatever. You have them and they're still there.

    Mr. Robert Thompson: They were fingerprint-based because--

    Mr. Derek Lee: That's okay. Whatever the reason we don't care now; that was 10 years ago. But the records are there.

    Mr. Robert Thompson: That's correct.

    Mr. Derek Lee: My friend asked if there was a sunset clause on those records. You will continue to carry those conviction records indefinitely. Is that right?

    Mr. Robert Thompson: We will, unless we're instructed otherwise by legislation.

    Mr. Derek Lee: I also understand that the firearms interest police database system is also going to be managed by CPIC. That's in the CPIC system, or is coming into the CPIC system. Is that correct?

    Mr. Pierre Lavoie: It's accessed through CPIC, but it's not managed by CPIC.

    Mr. Derek Lee: Is there a firewall there yet?

    Mr. Pierre Lavoie: I don't know if I would describe it as a firewall, but the firearms interest police database basically provides a pointer, and it is derived from the records management system from various police forces across the country.

    Mr. Derek Lee: I didn't want to get into that too much, but I was trying to draw an analogy with the Contraventions Act system.

    So we haven't got that nailed down yet, at least from our point of view as legislators. The information on a Contraventions Act conviction for a simple marijuana possession could end up on CPIC, and would not end up on the criminal records information system.

    Many Canadians at some point in their lives cross the American border. It just happens; it's part of the Canadian experience. The RCMP routinely shares CPIC data with our American brothers and sisters, even though the CPIC record is purged, updated, evergreened, and you drop records over time. But the Americans can hang on to whatever they get from us at the time. Is that your understanding?

    Do you have, in your MOU with the American authoritiesm any provision that allows you to cause them to delete information you have deleted already on Canadians?

    Mr. Pierre Lavoie: The MOU we have basically states that the information has to be used according to the rules of the respective countries. In other words, if we give them information, they have to respect some of the requirements we have on that information. But that's as much as I can give you on that. I'm not a privacy expert.

    Mr. Derek Lee: Okay, so we have an unanswered question. It looks like they take data from our CPIC, which you share quite legally with them, and they share information with us. But it appears as though there's no definitive provision that causes them to get rid of records you have shared that you've already sent to the trash can. Have I got that right?

    You can't tell me that in managing CPIC you routinely show the Americans what you've deleted in relation to stuff you've already shipped off to them, and ask them to delete. it. The garbage data--it's garbage now because you've got rid of it--is still on the American system forever, as long as they want to keep it. Is that right?

¿  (2100)  

    Mr. Pierre Lavoie: That's the only conclusion. I don't have any personal knowledge of that, but given some of the complaints we've received it's quite likely that's what happens.

    Mr. Derek Lee: I'm not being critical of the RCMP. I'm not saying you're not following the rules. I'm just saying maybe our predecessors didn't do a good job of managing the data flow. I would never want to suggest negligence in handling Canadian records, letting them drift into a never-ending cycle of accountability at border crossings.

    I'll stop there. Thank you.

    The Chair: Do you have a final comment?

    D/Commr Garry Loeppky: I just think it's important to clarify that CPIC is not a police records management system. It would be a significant challenge to try to make it into something it currently is not designed to be. I think that's what you're talking about--using CPIC to store data on people who have paid fines under the new legislation, once the legislation moves forward.

    Mr. Derek Lee: I'm not urging that it keep the records or not keep the records. I just want to be clear, when we pass this bill, whether CPIC will record this stuff or not. Right now that's not clear.

    D/Commr Garry Loeppky: That's correct.

    The Chair: Just to clarify, Mr. Thompson, you were talking about individuals who present themselves at the airport and self-declare that they have prior charges. On the cases I've had in my office--maybe they were prior to 1996--they declared that they didn't think they had records, or they said they didn't, and the American officers said, “Well how come I see something right here?” Then they were in double jeopardy because they lied to U.S. customs agents. Then they went through the pardon process, and went through the U.S. immigration process on a continual basis.

    It's those people we are quite concerned about. There have been implications due to their convictions, or their thinking they hadn't been convicted of anything, and those have continued to dog them for years.

    Mr. Robert Thompson: I can speak for the Canadian criminal records. Where a conviction is registered and the person has, for all intents and purposes, a criminal record in Canada, that information is uploaded into CPIC. So in terms of criminal record information, CPIC serves as a vehicle for exchanging information. The moment a person receives a pardon within our area, that information is removed from CPIC and stored elsewhere.

    Now if some person--and it could be Winnipeg city police, or Toronto metro police, let alone another country--has been pardoned, we will notify, in our current Canadian criminals records system, any person who has received a copy of that criminal record, and police services are instructed to sever and seal the record. However, if the person has gone to the United States seeking entry, and on the U.S. side they've taken that information and loaded it into their own system, and it wasn't necessarily the information that was provided, then you have a problem.

    May I just share one example with you that may drive that home? Not to suggest that Bob Thompson ever did this, but let's say Bob Thompson was in Regina, Saskatchewan, and decided to drive to Florida. His first stop was at the border crossing on his way to Minot, and at that border crossing he indicated he had never been arrested for having committed any offence whatsoever in Canada or in the United States, and was let through.

    On his way, he stayed in Minot for the night and was stopped. A police officer had done a check on CPIC. We must remember that CPIC is an information system, and it simply says there may or may not be information relative to this individual. This is not take-to-the-bank information. It's simply an indicator that this person may or may not have a criminal record. The only way of establishing that the person you're talking about is actually the person in the system is by one of two ways. The person admits to being that person; or they say, “Fingerprint me and you'll know that I'm not that person.”

    At any rate, I am in Minot--although I wasn't--and the person does a check and thinks that Bob Thompson appears on CPIC as being a sex offender. This police officer in the United States thinks they're doing due diligence, takes that information, and says, “Bob Thompson, driving this particular car, is a person who has a--

¿  (2105)  

    The Chair: We'll go with fraud charge.

    Mr. Robert Thompson: --criminal record for some activity, and that gets entered into the American system. In every state I hit on the way to Florida, I get stopped and have absolutely no idea why, but it's because the police officer who checked my licence plate got a hit on the information that was loaded into their system.

    I'm staying in a hotel in Florida, and all of a sudden I'm arrested. I'm interrogated for crimes I have no idea I ever committed, based on the fact that somebody understood that the Bob Thompson sitting in that car was the same Bob Thompson in CPIC, when that was not the case.

    CPIC is but an indicator and is not the determiner. Only through the submission of fingerprints can we say whether that person is actually the person we're talking about or not.

    The Chair: Okay.

    Is this on the same issue, Mr. White?

    Mr. Randy White: It is, Madam Chair. I live in a city on the border as well, and I probably get 30 issues of this nature a year. I'm not exaggerating that. We have a lot of cases like this. Since we tripped over the issue, I wonder if there's a way the justice committee could somehow pursue this a little further, because it is an issue related to our border crossing.

    Mr. Robert Thompson: We are currently working on this particular issue with our colleagues in the United States. We are quite concerned about information being used when, according to our agreement, it should not be used. So we are working on this actively.

    The Chair: Are you working on it through the cross-border crime forum?

    Mr. Robert Thompson: We're working on it through a tri-country symposium that includes the U.S.

    The Chair: Okay, thank you.

    Thank you to all our witnesses. We have a couple of housekeeping things to do, but we will certainly allow you to leave. We appreciate both the information you've presented and the timeliness with which you've presented it. If you have further information to provide to this committee over the next couple of weeks, please direct it to our clerk, who will make sure it gets distributed to all the members. Thank you.

    Colleagues, I have just a couple of points. I had the clerk submit a potential budget to all of you to review. We can discuss it at a later date. I just thought that as the information became available I would get it to you. We can discuss it at the next meeting or the one after that, as you wish.

    According to the instructions we gave to our clerk on Thursday, we have a security meeting for tomorrow. The Criminal Lawyers Association and the Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers are coming in from Toronto, and the B.C. Civil Liberties Association is coming.

    The Barreau du Québec indicated that they didn't have a position at this particular time, and the Law Union of Ontario said they could come in later on. There were some challenges with those, but the B.C. Civil Liberties Association and the other two are coming tomorrow afternoon.

    Monsieur Marceau.

[Translation]

    Mr. Richard Marceau: Madam Chair, I must admit I was rather surprised and disappointed to receive a notice of meeting for tomorrow at 3:30 p.m. Looking around the table, I see that five members of this committee also sit on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. You and I have already discussed this matter.

    This is the situation I face tomorrow. I can study Bill C-38 on the decriminalization of marijuana, an issue that has drawn a good deal of attention, as you know. There is a lot of public interest in the matter, this is something you pointed out yourself.

    On the other hand, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights is dealing with child pornography, another fundamental issue.

    Although I would like to be everywhere at once, I don't' yet possess the gift of being ubiquitous. I see that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice is in the same situation as I am. The same is true for my colleague Derek Lee and the Conservative Party critic for justice.

    I don't know with whom I should raise this issue but I think it is a lack of respect towards those whose help the government has asked for in passing Bill C-20 as quickly as possible and who let it be known that they were willing to give it a serious try. Generally speaking, I think that Bill C-20 was very seriously examined in the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and is probably, judging from my experience, one of the bills that was treated in the least partisan fashion in committee. At the same time we are also asked to be here between 3:30 and 5:30 p.m.

    I am disappointed, even rather frustrated, with this situation that I consider to be a lack of respect towards the people who are government justice critics. I can't be everywhere at the same time and I am sorry to have to bring this up since I consider myself to be a committee member who makes an effort to work in the most constructive manner possible with his colleagues; if I'm mistaken, tell me so. But in a situation such as the present one, I am tempted to say that if you wish to proceed in this way then you will no longer be able to count on my cooperation and things can come to a halt. I think it is a lack of respect and I wish to make this point to my friend Paul Harold Macklin, with whom I made a cross-Canada tour.

    Paul, you're going to have to do something. Decide what bill will pass but don't make us work on both sides at the same time. We can't do it anymore. It doesn't make any sense, you are expecting too much.

¿  (2110)  

[English]

    Mr. Derek Lee: On a point of order, Madam Chair, I certainly understand what my colleague has said. We've now finished a substantial part of the meeting, and colleagues realize this meeting is being broadcast on television. We're now getting into housekeeping, so we could probably do that off the television screen.

    If colleagues accept, we can terminate the coverage and then get down to business. Is that fair? Agreed.

    [Proceedings continue in camera]