SC38 Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

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

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Monday, November 3, 2003

1540

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

Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford)

The Chair

Mr. Randy White

The Chair

Mr. Randy White

The Chair

Mr. Randy White

The Chair

Mr. Randy White

The Chair

Mr. Randy White

The Chair

Mr. Randy White

The Chair

Mr. Randy White

The Chair

Mr. Randy White

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP)

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies

The Chair

Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. Randy White

The Chair

Mr. Randy White

Ms. Susan Baldwin (Procedural Clerk)

Mr. Randy White

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.)

1545

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mr. Randy White

The Chair

Mr. Randy White

The Chair

1550

Mr. Philippe Lucas (Director, Canadian for safe access)

1555

The Chair

Mr. Michel Perron (Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse)

1600

1605

The Chair

Professor Harold Kalant (Professor, Department of Pharmacology, University of Toronto)

1610

1615

1620

The Chair

Dr. Patricia Erickson (As Individual)

1625

1630

The Chair

Dr. Patricia Erickson

The Chair

Mr. Marc Boris Saint-Maurice (Leader, Marijuana Party)

1635

The Chair

Mr. Marc Boris Saint-Maurice

1640

The Chair

Mr. Randy White

Mr. Marc Boris Saint-Maurice

Mr. Randy White

Mr. Marc Boris Saint-Maurice

Mr. Randy White

The Chair

Mr. Philippe Lucas

The Chair

Prof. Harold Kalant

The Chair

Dr. Patricia Erickson

The Chair

Mr. Michel Perron

1645

The Chair

Mr. Randy White

The Chair

Dr. Patricia Erickson

The Chair

Mr. Philippe Lucas

The Chair

Mr. Michel Perron

Mr. Randy White

Mr. Michel Perron

1650

The Chair

Mr. Philippe Lucas

The Chair

Mr. Marc Boris Saint-Maurice

Mr. Randy White

Mr. Marc Boris Saint-Maurice

Mr. Randy White

Mr. Marc Boris Saint-Maurice

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ)

1655

Mr. Marc Boris Saint-Maurice

Mr. Réal Ménard

Mr. Marc Boris Saint-Maurice

Mr. Réal Ménard

Mr. Marc Boris Saint-Maurice

Mr. Philippe Lucas

Mr. Réal Ménard

Mr. Marc Boris Saint-Maurice

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

Dr. Patricia Erickson

Mr. Réal Ménard

Mr. Michel Perron

1700

Mr. Réal Ménard

Mr. Michel Perron

Mr. Réal Ménard

Prof. Harold Kalant

1705

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

Mr. Philippe Lucas

1710

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies

Mr. Michel Perron

1715

Ms. Libby Davies

Mr. Michel Perron

Ms. Libby Davies

Mr. Michel Perron

Ms. Libby Davies

Mr. Michel Perron

Mr. Philippe Lucas

The Chair

Mr. Philippe Lucas

The Chair

Mr. Marc Boris Saint-Maurice

1720

The Chair

Prof. Harold Kalant

The Chair

Prof. Harold Kalant

The Chair

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin (Northumberland, Lib.)

Prof. Harold Kalant

1725

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Prof. Harold Kalant

The Chair

Mr. Marc Boris Saint-Maurice

Prof. Harold Kalant

The Chair

Mr. Philippe Lucas

The Chair

Prof. Harold Kalant

The Chair

Mr. Gilbert Barrette (Témiscamingue, Lib.)

Mr. Michel Perron

1730

The Chair

Dr. Patricia Erickson

The Chair

Ms. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.)

1735

The Chair

Dr. Patricia Erickson

Mr. Michel Perron

The Chair

Mr. Philippe Lucas

The Chair

1740

Mr. Marc Boris Saint-Maurice

The Chair

CANADA

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

NUMBER 007

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Monday, November 3, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹ (1540)

[English]

The Chair (Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.)): I call this meeting to order.

Mr. White.

Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford): Madam Chair, I had to go over to the House, but I understand you have announced that this particular bill is going to clause-by-clause on Wednesday. Is that accurate?

The Chair: We've exhausted the witness list, so we are proposing that take place on Wednesday afternoon.

Mr. Randy White: If we move to clause-by-clause on Wednesday, that means the input of the witnesses we will hear today and on Tuesday night, if available, will scarcely even be written up or discussed by us. How do you plan to take any input we've had here lately and incorporate it into the bill?

We have not heard--and I hope you can address this--from the Americans, the solicitors general, or their representatives. In my opinion you're pushing this bill through here regardless of the consequences. Every single witness thus far who I have asked has said that this bill is no better than the status quo.

If this government thinks for a minute it's going to table this bill in the House of Commons with serious repercussions, no amendments, or only what the minister wants in a minor amendment--or whatever he intends to do--then it's kidding itself. We're just not going to put up with it.

The Chair: I'm not sure that's a point of order, but if you want to discuss it after we've heard from some of our witnesses--

Mr. Randy White: You can either hear me now or hear me later. Make up your mind.

The Chair: Mr. White, I'm more than happy to discuss it with you, but you asked for a point of order and I'm not sure that you've brought forward a point of order.

Mr. Randy White: It's coming right now.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Randy White: The point of order is that you have acted extraneous to the rules of procedure, and it is this area that I'm complaining about.

On the process of amendments coming through, they do not have to be presented--as we were apparently told--as soon as possible; they only have to be presented when we consider amendment-by-amendment. If we don't have time to produce amendments, then I want assurances from this committee that amendments will be taken into the House at second reading, report stage.

The Chair: You don't need assurances from the committee, because there is already a process for amendments at report stage.

Secondly, as a courtesy to all members there was a reminder that there is a process for writing amendments, if you need assistance. I'm sure everybody isn't engaged in writing amendments. People have been writing amendments since the bill was first introduced.

Mr. Randy White: There are many more amendments to come.

The Chair: So if you prefer that I don't remind people that there is a way to get help with amendments, that's fine.

Mr. Randy White: But I can assure you that if you think, by calling for clause-by-clause on Wednesday, you're going to get around all of the amendments that are coming, you've got another think coming.

The Chair: I'll be happy to look forward to the amendments when they arrive, Mr. White.

Mr. Randy White: Damn right you will.

The Chair: There is absolutely a process where you can bring them to the table at the time.

Mr. Randy White: These people are coming here in good faith, and we should be not only listening to them, but incorporating what they're saying into any amendments in the bill. I don't see the government acting that way. You're going to table this bill and say that's what Canadians will get. We went through the same thing this week in Justice on two other bills.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. White.

Ms. Davies.

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Just on that point, I guess I assumed--maybe wrongly--we would be dealing with amendments at committee. Is there a possibility we won't be and that the bill will go straight to the House, or will we be doing amendments here at committee?

The Chair: We will be considering amendments in the clause-by-clause process in committee.

Ms. Libby Davies: So the question is whether we can get them in before the committee meets on Wednesday. What time is the meeting on Wednesday?

The Chair: It will be at 3:30.

Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance): We're still working on amendments and bringing them forward here. All of a sudden we're under the gun, as we have been throughout this whole charade. All of a sudden on Wednesday we'll be starting on clause-by-clause. That just doesn't give us enough time.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Sorenson.

I'll now turn to the witnesses.

Mr. Randy White: Wait a minute here.

The Chair: You've made your statement. I appreciate that you're working--

Mr. Randy White: I'd like to ask the clerk something, Madam Chair. If we do not have amendments ready by Wednesday, when will the next opportunity to submit them be?

Ms. Susan Baldwin (Procedural Clerk): Normally the Speaker does not accept amendments that could have been moved in committee, so it's however you interpret that statement.

Mr. Randy White: You've heard it, folks. Amendments that come from us are going to be virtually zero, because they'll go to the Speaker, they'll talk about not being able to get amendments through, and they'll take the bill as is. Welcome to Canada and the Liberal government.

The Chair: Mrs. Jennings.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): I just want to speak briefly to this. This is the first time I've sat in on this committee, but I've had the opportunity to sit on a lot of other committees. In one of those committees, numerous amendments were brought in by opposition members on the day the committee sat for clause-by-clause, so I fail to see the point Mr. White is attempting to make.

¹ (1545)

Mr. Kevin Sorenson: This has become habitual with this government. Last week we saw it with Bill C-20, and we saw it with Bill C-33. All of a sudden we were told on Tuesday that we were going to clause-by-clause on Wednesday. We went back and had to rally to get our amendments ready for the next day.

We have witnesses coming here. We've been told we won't be able to see other witnesses now because they can't come on such short notice. Bang, here comes the bill down the pike. That's not the way to do business.

The Chair: Mrs. Jennings.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Just for the interest of accuracy, on the justice committee all of the members were asked the previous week if they were prepared to go to clause-by-clause on the following Tuesday and Wednesday. They were asked if they were able to get amendments in by the Friday, but were told that the amendments would certainly be receivable the moment the committee actually opened the session for clause-by-clause. So in the interest of accuracy it was not the day before, it was several days before.

Mr. Kevin Sorenson: That's not true. It was the day before.

The Chair: Sorry, Mr. Sorenson, Mrs. Jennings, I don't think we need to--

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: All members agreed.

The Chair: --debate what happened on another committee.

Mr. Randy White: So if they're not ready by Wednesday, kiss them off, right? That's what we're being told.

The Chair: I certainly wouldn't tell you to kiss anything, Mr. White.

Mr. Randy White: We've got two Liberals sitting here and four opposition members. That shows you where this bill is going. You don't give a damn about it.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. White.

I'd like to give a damn about the witnesses who are before us, so I will now turn to the witnesses.

From Canadians for Safe Access we have Philippe Lucas. From the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse we have Patricia Begin, who is the director of policy and research; and Michel Perron, who is the chief executive officer. From the University of Toronto we have Harold Kalant, who is a professor in the department of pharmacology. As an individual we have Patricia Erickson. From the Marijuana Party we have Marc-Boris St-Maurice, leader.

Mr. Lucas.

¹ (1550)

Mr. Philippe Lucas (Director, Canadian for safe access): Let me begin by thanking you for undertaking this imposing task, and for the opportunity to address you on this important issue. Why is this important? Since cannabis prohibition results in over 30,000 arrests in Canada each year, and as there are over 600,000 Canadians who currently have records for the personal possession of marijuana, this is no small matter.

Bill C-38 has the truly unique distinction of being disliked by both prohibitionists and drug policy reformers alike. It must have been somewhat of a shock to Minister of Justice Cauchon that after he announced the details of this supposed modernization of Canada's cannabis policies, not a single drug policy reform researcher or activist came out in support of what is now widely seen as a move toward a failed and expensive U.S.-style prohibition. To confuse matters more, the right wing attacked the apparent decriminalization of personal possession that is the centrepiece of this bill.

As a former schoolteacher and a current user, distributor, and researcher of therapeutic cannabis, I can assure you that this bill is of particular concern to the medicinal cannabis community.

First, by failing to address and put into law the rights to life and freedom of medicinal cannabis users--as the government has been ordered to do by numerous courts, including the Ontario Court of Appeal in the matter of Terry Parker--the passage of Bill C-38 in its present form will inevitably result in the continued arrest and prosecution of legitimate medicinal users and cultivators. That will lead to further court and constitutional challenges to the validity of cannabis prohibition as a whole. As we have seen in the de facto court-ordered legalization that took place in Ontario this summer, this will result in confusion and consternation on all sides of this drug policy issue.

Second, by ignoring the advice of both the Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs and the House of Commons Special Committee on the Non-Medical Use of Drugs--this good committee--to allow for small-scale personal cultivation of cannabis, this bill will serve to enhance the profitability of illegal distribution, and will further entrench black-market control over the production and sale of cannabis.

Furthermore, in consideration of a Health Canada-sponsored poll suggesting that over 400,000 Canadians currently claim to be using cannabis for medical reasons, increasing the penalties for even minor cultivation will inevitably result in a net widening effect that is sure to ensnare legitimate medical marijuana users.

In addition, imposing tougher penalties for repeat offenders will no doubt worsen the situation for medicinal users suffering from serious chronic conditions, many of whom depend on the regular use of therapeutic cannabis to stay alive. It is a sad irony that since many medicinal users are in a low-income bracket because they are simply too sick to work, they may be the least able to afford to pay fines for personal use.

Third, it is of questionable logic, to say the least, to allow for police discretion in ticketing or prosecuting offenders under this law, while also considering mandatory minimums for cultivation at the judicial level. Since the uneven enforcement of cannabis prohibition is one of the stated reasons for this reform, it seems counterintuitive that we would allow the police to act as both judge and jury in this matter.

Even in the famously tolerant province of B.C., cannabis users are eight times more likely to be charged with personal possession in Victoria than in Vancouver. This kind of discrepancy is even more substantial when comparing urban and rural enforcement, and when comparing provincial arrests and prosecution statistics.

But isn't a system of fines a move in the right direction? It might appear so, but when the territory of South Australia tried a similar experiment in the early 1990s, the immediate result was an increase in police action against cannabis users. During the first year of fines, more than twice as many tickets were issued than the previous year's total cannabis possession arrests. In other words, it became a police cash grab. Since the lower income communities were already targeted by stricter cannabis enforcement, this led to a 45% non-payment of fines.

The experiment was terminated when it was found that more people were coming into the courts under a system of fines than ever had under full prohibition. In addition, since non-payment of fines under the Contraventions Act can lead to a criminal record and imprisonment, does this bill really remove these threats from responsible adult cannabis users?

Furthermore, by even considering the imposition of mandatory minimums for cultivation we take away the power of reason and fairness from the Canadian court system, while moving ever closer to the failed war-on-drugs mentality of U.S. prohibition that has resulted in the biggest prison state the world has ever known, with over two million American citizens behind bars. Does it really seem sensible to turn to a country with the dubious honour of having both the western world's most expensive and draconian drug policies and the highest addiction rates in the world for guidance in this sovereign matter?

Frankly, looking to the U.S. for drug policy advice is like asking North Korea to help us with human rights legislation. It would be better if we turned to our western European allies for guidance in this important issue. They have nearly all embraced harm reduction practices, treating drug use as a health and social policy issue rather than one of law enforcement and the courts. Almost universally this means moving toward the de-penalization of personal possession of cannabis.

Countries that have recently decriminalized or legalized personal possession of cannabis include England, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Luxembourg, Belgium, and of course, the Netherlands. By contrast, the U.S. zero-tolerance approach has been widely and rightly rejected as overly expensive and totally ineffective at reducing the rate of cannabis use.

A concern that is often expressed by drug war zealots is that true legalization or decriminalization of cannabis will send the wrong message to our children. As a former school teacher and child care worker, I have to wonder what positive message is sent to Canada's youth by persecuting our sick and suffering for using an herb that by any measure is far less harmful and addictive than alcohol, tobacco, or many prescription and over-the-counter medicines, such as allergy pills or aspirin.

As the United Kingdom Police Foundation report on the reclassification of cannabis recently found, the continued prohibition of cannabis inevitably leads to an erosion of respect for the law as a whole. By arresting or ticketing people who do less harm to either themselves or society than those who use alcohol or tobacco, we create a system that leads to contempt for all of our laws, as well as for the police officers saddled with the difficult job of enforcing them.

The Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs' well-researched report detailed legislation that would protect the legal rights of Canada's sickest citizens, as well as improve access to a safe supply of medicinal cannabis through its licensed cultivation and distribution by Canada's network of compassion clubs and societies. They are already helping over 5,000 critically and chronically ill Canadians, and continue to produce more legitimate medicinal cannabis research than Health Canada's much criticized Office of Cannabis Medical Access, all at no cost to the taxpayer.

Since any true cannabis reform bill would be meaningless and completely unworkable without such well-reasoned additions, I have taken the liberty of including the relevant recommendations from the Senate report on the handout that accompanies this presentation.

¹ (1555)

Canadians have repeatedly expressed a desire for a drug policy that is based on science and compassion, rather than one guided by fear and misinformation. This cannabis reform bill will inevitably lead to the arrest of more responsible adult cannabis users, both medical and recreational, and to the wasting of precious police resources. In the end, it will only serve to increase the cost to Canadian taxpayers of our failed cannabis prohibition, which the Auditor General of Canada has recently estimated to be over $340 million a year.

It's time for the federal government to start listening to Canadian public opinion, to the wisdom of the courts, and to the good advice of our own parliamentary committees that have been recommending a relaxation of cannabis laws for over 30 years now. Canadians are ready for the legalization and regulation of cannabis. We're ready and waiting for a drug peace.

Thank you for this opportunity. I look forward to your questions.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Next, from the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, is Michel Perron.

Mr. Michel Perron (Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse): Thank you, Madam Chair, honourable members, for inviting the CCSA to provide input on Bill C-38 today. As many of you know, the CCSA is Canada's national non-governmental organization on addictions. We provide a national focus for efforts to reduce health, social, and economic harm associated with substance abuse. We pride ourselves in providing objective, credible, and evidence-based information and advice on national issues related to substance abuse. We also like to play a leadership role on a range of policy issues related to this, including cannabis control policy.

Given our time constraints, I wish to focus our comments specifically on six key areas related to the bill and the testimony you will likely be hearing from others. These include perceived assumptions, the ticketing approach, quantities, discretion, driving under the influence of cannabis, and cultivation.

I should give you fair warning that I might not be, and our centre is not, in the group of those who completely hate the bill. Our opinions are actually a bit of a departure from those of the previous witnesses.

On perceived assumptions, as we began preparing for this hearing we culled commentary from a variety of sources, some of which favoured certain parts of the bill, while others obviously resoundingly rejected others.

We would like to challenge the first assumption that this bill is somehow worse than today's laws. The fact is that cannabis possession laws today are completely confusing to the common individual. Until very recently, the police were not arresting anyone in Ontario for possession of cannabis, as the courts had decreed that those laws were null and void. This period was preceded by years of a system where police consistently admitted that they did not actively pursue cannabis users, and where the application of the law was uneven and inconsistent. We suggest that Bill C-38 will go a long way to rectifying this situation.

Conversely, some persons are suggesting that a ticketing approach will in fact result in greater enforcement, as our colleague mentioned, or have a net widening effect. Others posit that if the bill goes through, cannabis use will go up.

While we will speak to the evidence from other jurisdictions that have reduced penalties on cannabis, it can be reasonably argued that this bill will provide immediate, tangible, and appropriate consequences for cannabis use. So on the assumption that this bill is promoting more tolerant views when compared to the reality of what is happening in Canada today, it is a far better situation. The reality, however, is that cannabis is not a benign drug. It has demonstrable negative consequences that must be seriously considered.

On our knowledge of cannabis use prevalence, the 1994 Canadian prevalence survey reported that 28% of Canadians, or roughly 6.5 million, reported using cannabis at least once in their lifetimes; and approximately 1.7 million reported using it in the past year.

Current youth prevalence data, from those jurisdictions in Canada that conduct student drug-use surveys, report significant levels of cannabis use among junior and senior high school students. Recent cannabis use prevalence rates among students in select Canadian provinces are as follows: in 2002, 55% of grade 12 students in New Brunswick reported cannabis use in the previous 12 months; and there are similar figures for other jurisdictions. We believe that these statistics highlight the need to expand and refine our options regarding cannabis use.

On the ticketing approach, I would remind committee members that the policy CCSA adopted in 1998 specifically states that the severity of punishment for a cannabis possession charge should be converted to a civil violation under the Contraventions Act.

As you know, when the current law is in effect it involves considerable enforcement and other criminal justice costs, as well as adverse consequences to individual drug offenders, with little evidence of a substantial deterrent impact on cannabis use, and at best marginal benefits to public health and the safety of Canadians.

As a minimal measure, we believe jail should be removed as a sentencing option for simple cannabis possession. The available evidence indicates that removal of jail as a sentencing option will lead to considerable cost savings, without leading to increased rates of cannabis use.

Punishing cannabis possession with a fine only would be consistent with current practices and prevailing public opinion. We believe it would also offer the most appropriate balance between the need to reduce the harms associated with cannabis use, and the need to restrain the costs and harms involved in attempts to control it.

On quantity, development of the provisions of CCSA's cannabis control policy occurred in the context of the existing CDSA, which provides that a person charged with simple possession of 30 grams or less of cannabis, or one gram or less of cannabis resin, may be prosecuted summarily. It provides for a maximum term of six months imprisonment, a maximum fine of $1,000, or both. We note that this Special Committee on the Non-medical Use of Drugs also recommended decriminalizing possession of not more than 30 grams for personal use.

Recognizing that 30 grams of cannabis has been estimated to be the equivalent of 30 to 60 marijuana cigarettes, the CCSA would support lowering that threshold for ticketing offences for possession of 15 grams or less of cannabis for personal use, as currently proposed in Bill C-38.

º (1600)

As you know, discretion is a major point of contention for the police. Bill C-38 does not allow any police discretion for 15 grams or less of cannabis, and they may resort only to a ticketing approach for those amounts.

The CCSA supports this position. As we stated earlier, we believe the criminalization of simple possession of cannabis is disproportionate to the harm it causes, and a ticketing scheme would offer a more immediate, tangible, and appropriate consequence. It follows, therefore, that those conditions should be applied evenly and without prejudice to any person in Canada.

Notwithstanding the importance of police discretion as a principle of policing generally, we feel that creating a hybrid scheme for possession of 15 grams or less will create greater confusion about the intention of the legislative change and how it will ultimately be applied.

An issue that has received a significant amount of attention since the first reading of Bill C-38 this past May is driving under the influence of cannabis. I want to briefly address its prevalence, public acceptance, and enforcement challenges.

Very little is known about the prevalence of driving under the influence of cannabis. In Canada's alcohol and other drugs survey of 1994, among cannabis users who held drivers' licences, 40% reported driving cars within two hours of using cannabis. More contemporary data from provincial student drug-use surveys suggests that driving under the influence of cannabis is prevalent and socially acceptable among Canada's young drivers.

The 2002 Nova Scotia survey reported that 26% of students with drivers' licences had driven within one hour of using cannabis, compared with about 15% who drove within an hour of having two or more drinks of alcohol. In the 2001 Ontario survey, 20% of students with drivers' licences reported driving within one hour of using cannabis, and 15% reported driving after drinking. Of note is the finding in the 2001 Manitoba high school substance use survey that while students tended to not condone drinking and driving, 26% of males and 13% of females stated it was acceptable to use cannabis and drive.

While there is some evidence that suggests cannabis tends to make drivers cautious and careful on the road, laboratory tests have established a direct relationship between cannabis doses and decreased driving performance. In general, the higher the cannabis dose the greater the changes in driving performance.

A challenge for law enforcement is the fact that driving under the influence of cannabis is not detectable by a roadside breathalyzer test, and because indications of cannabis use may be detected in blood or urine a month or more following ingestion, it is not possible to establish a positive correlation between concentrations of THC in the blood, urine, or saliva, and impairment.

The drug recognition expert program is an internationally recognized program that trains and supports police officers in identifying and verifying drugged driving, and eventually obtaining a conviction. At present, few police officers in Canada have been trained in the DRE protocol, which is a lengthy and expensive process.

Given current prevalence rates, the apparent social acceptability of drugged driving among young people, and enforcement challenges associated with detecting cannabis impairment, the CCSA recommends that changes in the cannabis possession law be subject to a systematic evaluation of its impact on driving under the influence of cannabis, law enforcement, and public safety, and that the use of techniques such as DRE be exploited to their fullest potential.

On the issue of possession versus cultivation, which was referred to earlier by our previous speaker, while Bill C-38 recognizes offences for possession of small amounts of cannabis as contraventions under the Contraventions Act, and as such removes it from the scope of the criminal justice system, it does not provide for the decriminalization of the production of cannabis, even in small amounts.

CCSA notes that the Special Committee on the Non-medical Use of Drugs recommended that the government establish a strategy for decriminalizing the possession and cultivation of cannabis for personal use. This recommendation dealing with cultivation has not been dealt with in Bill C-38, other than to make cultivation of not more than three plants a summary conviction offence. As you know, this is a shift toward greater leniency in relation to the production of cannabis. Under the current act, production of any amount of cannabis is an indictable offence.

On balance, we believe that decriminalizing possession of up to 15 grams of cannabis and reducing the punishment for the offence of production of up to three plants to a summary conviction are steps in the right direction. They certainly do not create greater harm than currently exists under the CDSA. In addition, they signal that cultivation is a more serious offence than use alone, and most importantly allow for a graduated and increasingly severe punishment for commercial growers, many of which are associated with organized crime. We hope that this graduated scheme will address the woefully inadequate sentences currently handed down to commercial grow operators.

º (1605)

Finally, we would be remiss if we didn't remind the committee that notwithstanding any changes to cannabis possession laws, the following recommendations in our policy should also be considered.

Any change in law should be subject to systematic evaluation of the impact of any policy, in order to assess the need for further action and inform future policy direction.

Any change in law that reduces the consequences for a cannabis offence should be accompanied by a strong message that this does not signal less concern about the potential problems caused by cannabis use. I would like to very much underline that the change in law must be coupled with prevention programs to address potential problems that may arise and to indicate the government's continuing concern about the prevention of cannabis use and problems associated with it.

Madam Chair, I would like to sincerely thank the committee for the recommendations it made in its earlier report. Since that time much work has taken place at the CCSA, and I will be seeking an opportunity to brief you and your colleagues on our current state, enhanced mandate, and specific deliverables that the government and Canadians in general can expect from the CCSA in the future.

With that, I believe my time is up. I thank you for your attention.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Professor Kalant.

Professor Harold Kalant (Professor, Department of Pharmacology, University of Toronto): Madam Chair, honourable members, I would also like to thank you for inviting me to testify at this hearing today on Bill C-38.

When Monsieur Roy phoned to relay your invitation he indicated that among the things I'm qualified to talk about you would be most interested in my comments on the question of addictiveness, but that I would also be free to talk about other points if I wished to. That will guide my comments today, and I hope they will be of some use to you.

Like all proposed legislation, Bill C-38 must be assessed in terms of a cost-benefit evaluation. In other words, the benefit must outweigh any potential harm that the change may bring about. The benefits, as claimed or anticipated, are fairly clear. The bill will eliminate the potential harm of imposing criminal records on thousands of young users, most of whom will experience little or no harm from its use. Secondly, it is hoped it will clear the courts of large numbers of cases of really quite minor offences. Third, it will in some sense maintain an expression of society's overall disapproval of use by instituting some form of punishment in the form of a fine.

The costs, on the other hand, relate to the potential hazards if the removal of criminal sanctions are perceived by young people as a sign of approval of use by society, and if that leads to increased use, especially by young people. I'm not in a position to comment on whether or not the evidence provides any strong support for either of those possibilities. But on the assumption that there might conceivably be a misinterpretation of the signal and therefore an increase in use, what health consequences might be anticipated if there were an increase in use?

I will focus my comments today on three specific hazards: addiction, which Monsieur Roy asked me to talk about; motor vehicle accidents; and diseases of the airways.

The concept of addiction includes two major components. The first is an inability to decrease or stop use even when there's strong reason to do so, and to stay stopped. Many people can even quit the use of heroin, but can't stay off it for very long. So the ability to stop and stay stopped is a fundamental concept that is included in what are called the DSM-IV, the diagnostic and statistical manual, fourth edition, of the American Psychiatric Association. In a large part of the world it is the standard work for defining what is meant by dependence, or in more common terminology, addiction. The other is the occurrence of a withdrawal reaction that is taken to be indicative of physical dependence.

I shall say first that the evidence now makes it quite clear that cannabis is capable of producing both components of the definition, but not that it inevitably does. In fact, a great majority of users do not become dependent, but then the great majority of users of alcohol also do not become dependent, yet we know that a certain significant percentage do.

There are now many scientific publications from North America, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand describing large-scale studies of the prevalence of the DSM-IV criteria of dependence among adolescents and young adults. The figures range rather widely from 2% in the Australian general population to 19.5% in one study of a sample of French high-school students. Most figures in the various studies are around 10%, which is closely comparable to the percentage risk for alcohol dependence. In other words, cannabis is capable of producing dependence, but not notoriously so; it is comparable to alcohol. The percentage of dependence, as defined by these criteria, is much higher among regular frequent users of cannabis.

º (1610)

Perhaps of greatest concern is a recent study from The British Journal of Psychiatry this year, which indicates that weekly use in adolescents is a strong predictor of later dependence. There are even more studies within the past few years of physical dependence, as shown by a withdrawal reaction. It is mild and non-fatal, but it is enough to contribute in many cases to difficulty in stopping. So it's not a serious problem in itself, except to the extent that it may hinder someone's efforts to stop who has good reasons to want to stop.

Let me turn now to the question of motor vehicle accidents. The question of the role of cannabis was originally confounded by the presence of both alcohol and cannabis in drivers who were involved in accidents or in impaired driving. Many of the early investigators said that meant cannabis was not doing anything, because they knew alcohol could cause dependence. That is a rather foolish conclusion. It's a bit like the old joke that if you're hit by a buzz saw, how can you tell which tooth hit you. If both substances are capable of impairing driving ability, then they're both contributing.

The question then is whether there are laboratory studies or experimental on-road driving studies to indicate that cannabis, in doses commonly used, is capable of impairing driving ability. The answer is yes, there are many such studies.

The next question is how often does this happen? A growing number of studies, mainly from Europe, Australia, and New Zealand, indicate that among drivers arrested for impaired driving or involved in accidents, fatal or non-fatal, cannabis figures frequently as one of the drugs found. Alcohol is still number one.

On the question of whether cannabis is found in concentrations that can cause impairment, in the absence of alcohol the answer again is yes. A number of studies have found that among people without alcohol levels that could impair driving, cannabis is the most common drug. I'm talking now not about measurement of cannabis metabolites in urine, which is of little or no value in this context, but actual measurement of THC, the psychoactive ingredient in the blood, taken immediately or very shortly after the accident. Among those without alcohol, cannabis was present in various studies in frequencies ranging from 10% to 27%.

There have not been as many studies as one would wish comparing the frequency of significant THC levels in the blood of drivers involved in accidents or impaired driving compared to the general public. Unless such levels are found more frequently than among the general public, it might simply mean it's just a chance finding; that when the public uses cannabis, so do drivers, and they're just representative of the public in that respect.

The answer, from two or three recent studies, is that THC is found in the blood of involved drivers significantly more frequently than in accident victims who were not drivers, or in the general public. The risk ratio compared to the general public, or accident victims other than driving accidents, varies a bit, but is roughly three-fold--a little less, but similar to the risk for alcohol.

The last point I would like to mention briefly is the question of airways disease. It's been known for a long time that chronic regular cannabis use does increase the frequency of bronchial inflammation and congestion, with chronic cough, sputum, and irritation. But more significantly, a number of excellent studies have been done by the Tashkin group and other first-class respirologists in the States. They actually removed samples of cells, by bronchial washing, from the lining of the airways in regular cannabis users, regular tobacco users, regular users of both cannabis and tobacco, and non-users.

º (1615)

It was clear that cells obtained from all smokers of cannabis or tobacco showed similar biochemical, morphological, and genetic changes that were indicative of chronic inflammation and precancerous change. If one looks for epidemiological evidence, does cannabis use actually increase the risk of cancer? Unfortunately, there are only two epidemiological studies in the literature, and they give contradictory results.

One study by Sidney et al, published in 1997 from the Kaiser Permanente foundation in California, said there was no significant connection at all. The problem with that study was they defined chronic use as at least six times in the person's life, which is an absurdly small level of use. The other was that their period of observation was, on average, eight years, and we know from tobacco that you need a longer period than that to look for cannabis risk.

The other study by Zhang et al, published in 1999, is technically a much better study. It compared patients with proven upper-airways cancer with a matched group of patients without, and looked at the frequency of cannabis use, tobacco use, and cannabis plus tobacco use in both groups. It found that when you corrected for the contribution of tobacco, there was an approximately threefold increase in upper-airways cancer risk in the chronic cannabis users. If they gathered detail on the level of use, there was a direct proportionality between the increase in risk and the level of use of cannabis.

These facts that I've put before you do not argue either for or against the present legislation. What they argue for is an awareness that if there is an increase in cannabis use there will be health costs to pay. It is your task--and I don't envy you this task--to try to balance that with the gain in reducing personal hardship imposed by a criminal conviction. One has to recall that in making such a balance, values, traditions, and the philosophy of what society is or ought to be enter into it. I wish you well in your ability to take those factors into account in weighing this evidence.

Thank you.

º (1620)

The Chair: Thank you very much, professor.

Ms. Erickson.

Dr. Patricia Erickson (As Individual): Madam Chair and honourable members, perhaps I should introduce myself a little more fully than as an individual.

I'm a professor of sociology at the University of Toronto and a scientist at what was the Addiction Research Foundation, now the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, where I first went in 1973. In my 30 years of tracking this perplexing cannabis policy issue I've conducted three different studies of people who have been charged and taken to court for simple possession. I've also tracked the statistical changes in the surveys and their relation to policies around the world, insofar as the data are available.

Thank you for the chance to come today. I'm not here to speak for the centre, but rather as an individual researcher.

I'd like to offer a few comments in general support of this bill, and then address three or four of the key issues in the bill where there is some evidence available that might perhaps help to clarify some of the difficult choices around specific pieces of legislation.

I have to say that after many trips to various hearings and many commissions over 30 years, this is the first coherent bill on cannabis since Bill S-19 in 1974. This bill at least adopts the principle set out by the LeDain commission that it was very important, if you were going to diminish sanctions or punishments for cannabis possession, it be accompanied by other types of measures, including prevention and treatment. I think this bill has tried to set out that overall course.

Another mechanism, enforcement, I'll mention later.

Overall, I think what is important and unique about this bill in Canada's drug history is that for the first time the biggest cost of criminal law over the past 35 years--the imposition of criminal records for possession--will be significantly reduced. In all my interviews with cannabis offenders, this has always a major concern--in the seventies, and when we did it again in the eighties. In Toronto, where there has been a diversion scheme and some people have been offered this alternative to avoid criminal records through other means, this has also been seen as important. So there is no minimizing the importance of finding ways to reduce the burden of lifelong criminal records on young persons.

I believe that this initiative, based on the evidence from other jurisdictions, has minimal risk of inflating use levels. U.S., Australia, and other jurisdictions that have been able to study the modest penalty change, as I read this bill, have found no relation to prevalence levels.

Overall, Bill C-38 offers a solution that comes closer to fitting the actual contemporary problem of widespread cannabis experimentation, generally infrequent use of the drug, and cessation of use of the drug, but in a base of several million people now in the country who have experimented with it. I think this bill recognizes that by retaining penalties, it is important to consider a number of harms--which you've heard about from Dr. Kalant and Mr. Perron--as well.

Let me just touch briefly on the points of level of use, increased enforcement, knowledge of the laws, and the amounts of drugs that are specified. Although we haven't had good, current, national data in Canada since 1994, what we do have suggests that use has fluctuated despite the absence of legal change, and it appears to have increased in the early 1990s in Ontario--where we have the best trend data among students--but from 1999 on, levels of last-year use have stayed quite flat.

º (1625)

We shouldn't be too obsessed with use going up or down in this kind of broad prevalence measure of having used once in the past year. It's much more important, when you're thinking of alternative measures to punishment, to appreciate that it's very important to know who is using, how much, why they are using, and what the harm is. Use can go up without necessarily meaning that harm will go up.

We have to be concerned about the number of people who are going to use at harmful levels; the number of perhaps younger people who might start at early developmental phases where they run greater risk of damage. Now there is a lot more research that shows we should be concerned about young people who get into persistent, heavy patterns of use, because they're the kids who are experiencing a lot of stress at school and at home. They may have experienced poor and inconsistent parenting. They may have been early experimenters with alcohol, and they may be sexually precocious.

So there is a package, and to say that cannabis is somehow the one thing that's causing all these other things to get worse or to become evident as problems later in life is making a very complex picture much too simple. If we think about the youth who go on to become dependent or problem users, we have to ask if the best response to them is to threaten them with punishment. Should we be considering something else instead?

On the second point, the strategy of increased enforcement that's kind of built into the bill, I'm not sure what's intended. I'm assuming it doesn't mean sudden new resources to go out and catch a lot more cannabis users. I'm assuming it means that what we now know happens, in that a lot of people won't get charged.... I don't know if the police could lose the discretion, but there's strong encouragement that they would lay charges in all cases, so enforcement would go up, in terms of the existing police detection.

In a sense, I agree that this potentially suggests an even greater deterrent effect. If you're going to have to pay a fine, if you know a penalty will follow if you get caught--and the risk of getting caught may be relatively high; it is difficult to assess--it's possible that this law could suggest a greater deterrent effect than the current sort of hit-and-miss affair we have. But deterrence depends so much on how users perceive the law that's out there around them. There's often an assumption that somehow everybody will know what the law is. It's reasonable to ask how would-be users would likely understand Bill C-38 and its provisions.

I can tell you from my three studies with cannabis offenders in Toronto that people who go to court and are actually charged--hear the charge in court and receive a penalty--haven't a clue most of the time what they've just heard, what they've gone through, and what the implications are. So you have your work cut out for you to have a communications strategy that will realistically set out this law clearly.

For instance, I asked them in all periods what the name of the law was. In 1974, Bill S-19 proposed to move cannabis into the Food and Drugs Act, but it didn't happen. The majority of people thought it was already in the Food and Drugs Act and was legal under that law. In 1998, after the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act had been passed, only one in eight even knew the name of the law. Most of them thought it was still in the Narcotic Control Act, or the Food and Drugs Act.

What did they know about penalties? Again, the people who had gone to court tended to not know the whole range of penalties that were available and could be applied to them. Many of them didn't even realize jail was an option. Most of them thought a discharge didn't impose a criminal record. Most of them had never heard of a discharge in 1974, before they went to court. In 1998, most had never heard of diversion.

º (1630)

On expecting that people might sort out the complexities, I must say I had a hard time figuring out how it was going to work, even with the excellent overview of the legislation. There should be an imperative, if possible, to be as clear as you can in what's conveyed. It's a real challenge to communicate to a lot of people even the distinction between a criminal law, a regulatory law, and this new Contraventions Act penalty that still allows the police to arrest them, but imposes a fine that varies a lot according to a number of conditions.

Do I have a couple more minutes?

The Chair: One would be good.

Dr. Patricia Erickson: On the issue of the amount of 15 to 30 grams, in our studies in all three periods at least three-quarters of people had 14 grams or less; in 1998, half of the people had one gram or less. So the amounts were very small. I think this law would apply to the vast majority of people now charged, at least based on the Toronto data.

I would reinforce that the separation of markets is ignored in this bill, and I think that's unfortunate. In the Australian cannabis review I was part of a few years ago, we grappled with this and felt that up to three plants was probably important to have, to avoid people going to the illegal market where they'd have access to other potentially more dangerous drugs.

This bill can send the right message if it is conveyed that there is a fine and it is non-criminal, but it is going to have to be paid by you, otherwise you will be subject to sort of ongoing monitoring. I've never talked to one cannabis offender who thought that being charged and threatened with court and criminal records had anything to do with someone concerned about their health. I think there are many more creative and important ways to convey concerns about the real risks of cannabis, without having to hold the large club of the criminal law over people. For that very basic reason, I think this law is a step in the right direction.

Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Marc Boris Saint-Maurice, please go ahead.

[English]

Mr. Marc Boris Saint-Maurice (Leader, Marijuana Party): Hello, and thanks for the invitation. It was on short notice but is much appreciated.

I recognize that fixing the marijuana law is a very noble endeavour and certainly an arduous task. It's an honour and a privilege to testify before the committee. I hope I'll contribute as much as possible to this process now and in the future, and bring my particular perspective.

As a political representative of the movement to end marijuana prohibition, I'd also be more than happy to play an ongoing role in building a more comprehensive legislation. But for all these good intentions and the hard work of the committee, Bill C-38 as it is written is doomed to fail. Until we come to grips as a nation with the fact that prohibition is rooted in racism and moral intolerance, we will never be able to break away from the misguided ideology that governs the current legal situation surrounding cannabis.

When Emily Murphy succeeded in prohibiting marijuana at the turn of the 20th century, not one case of use had been reported. In fact, no one really knew what marijuana was, let alone even used it. Of course it did prevent use. No one was using it then, and it took another 14 years before someone was charged. I guess it would be a bit like prohibiting dragons today. I'm sure it would be very effective, until we could find some dragons, of course.

º (1635)

The Chair: Would that be dragons like the animal, as opposed to dragging?

Sorry about that.

Mr. Marc Boris Saint-Maurice: Take your pick.

Murphy's Law states that anything that can go wrong will, and so did Emily Murphy's law. Trying to control what people may or may not consume by way of criminal sanctions may seem good on the surface, but what can go wrong usually does. Today the reverse is happening, and as a result we now have the highest rate of marijuana use of all times.

The Marijuana Party's proposed solution is that nothing short of full legalization and regulation will be acceptable. Unfortunately, this position is not negotiable. Until such time as marijuana users, producers, and retailers have full recognition of their right to engage in marijuana-related activities without any discrimination or legal sanctions, we will continue our struggle.

Should Bill C-38 become law, we hereby advise you that all measures will be taken to challenge the law. The best way, of course, will be to continue to break it, as we have already been doing for so long, and further contribute to the discrediting of our legal and judicial system. Unfortunately, that is the only route we have available, but there are many others we will explore. Activists in Canada are numerous, well organized, and better and better financed.

These things are not being done for fickle reasons or for personal pleasure. There are numerous reasons to end prohibition. Surely the most compelling is the fact that since 1899 every commission ever appointed to study marijuana has concluded that it did not merit criminal sanctions, and every commission recommended departing from the status quo of prohibition. I fear Bill C-38 is once again tantamount to the status quo, and does nothing to solve any of these problems.

Social attitudes are also changing, and they will only continue to evolve in our favour as time goes on. When we see medical marijuana getting support from nine out of ten Canadians, it's obvious that the laws are out of step with reality. When nine out of ten Canadians support medical marijuana, either nine out of ten MPs support it, or nine out of ten MPs are so far out of touch with the electorate that they shouldn't be sitting there in the first place.

In the case of Bill C-38, there's no mention of medical use. That is a very serious constitutional shortcoming, and I fear it will lead to the law's downfall. We already have several cases that have ruled in favour of medical marijuana user's rights. That omission is a very serious one that I think is going to be a long-term problem.

[Translation]

Moreover, the legislation will help to reduce marijuana use. The lower consumption will improve the overall health of the population because we must admit that the abusive use of marijuana can cause some slight health problems. A legal context would keep them in check.

Moreover, in a legal context, cannabis becomes a provincial responsibility. This legislation will fall within the purview of the provincial governments, in terms of public health as well as alcohol control, which will help to greatly reduce a number of other negative effects related to cannabis.

[English]

The fact that we're losing so much revenue is sad. It is a very interesting source of revenue for society. Already there's a parallel market of legal accessories: grow lights, fertilizers, pipes, books, magazines, hemp food and clothes. That's just the tip of the iceberg, because the bulk of the business is in the underground economy and it's for marijuana. That's what people really want.

The legal business is just the beginning. We're losing all of that revenue to the criminal underworld, and the only way to get that money back is to legalize, legislate, and regulate it as a legitimate product that can be purchased like a café latté, a mixed drink, or any other product that has some mild risk. We don't ban hockey because kids might hurt themselves while playing it; we find ways to reduce those risks.

On the cost to the medical system, I'd just like to rebut Dr. Kalant's statement. I have a breakdown from the Fraser Institute showing that the costs to the Ontario health system from drug use are $1.5 billion, and in that breakdown we allow 0.5% to be for marijuana. So I think it's a fallacy to claim that marijuana is a burden financially on our medical system. If anything it could be an advantage, because we could tax it and use that revenue to pay for other problems in the medical system. God knows it needs it.

So there are many other compelling reasons, and I invite you to examine the report from the Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs. It's a great framework to build upon, and those recommendations should be implemented verbatim.

º (1640)

It's also important that we not rush this legislation through. It's a far too complex and important issue, and deserves all the time and attention needed so we can adequately resolve it once and for all.

Without wanting to overstate the importance of the judiciary in setting legislation, it may be wise to wait for the Supreme Court to rule on the constitutionality of marijuana prohibition. I feel their insight could be of great use in establishing more sensible drug policy, and would certainly help this committee in guiding it and influencing it.

I'm also glad the committee is attempting to hear from all sides of the debate, and that they have attempted to hear from our neighbours to the south. I think that bears witness to the efforts and sincerity of the committee to hear from many sources. But I caution the members to be aware that the U.S. policy of strict prohibition, with the stated goal of preventing use, has led them to be the world leaders in drug abuse. Is this the path we wish Canada to follow?

I'd like to invite you all, at your leisure, to visit some of my friends who are in jail for marijuana. These are kind folks, loving parents, loving children. I'd also like to invite you all to the Compassion Club to meet patients who are torn between buying food or buying marihuana that could save their lives by curing their nausea and help them eat, even if all they have is an empty fridge.

I also invite you to a memorial here in Ottawa for a friend who died just a few days ago trying to extract oil from marijuana because he needed it for his AIDS medication but could not afford it. He blew himself up and died. Had marijuana been available legally, he would probably still be around today. I invite you all to think about these fine citizens who are suffering--they could be members of your own family--all because of a law that serves no practical purpose.

Finally, I invite you all to put an end to this madness and legalize marijuana once and for all. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. White.

Mr. Randy White: I would like to thank you all for coming and ask you to answer something briefly. I have a number of questions, but I'd like you all to tell me whether or not you think Bill C-38 as it stands is better than the status quo. Does it improve things, or is it worse than having no Bill C-38?

Mr. Marc Boris Saint-Maurice: Is “neither of the above” an option?

Mr. Randy White: You'd go with that?

Mr. Marc Boris Saint-Maurice: It's not an improvement or whatever the opposite is--a worsening.

Mr. Randy White: Well, status quo is neither of the above.

The Chair: Mr. Lucas.

Mr. Philippe Lucas: I think it's a worsening. It's going to result in more imprisonment and a higher cost to the taxpayer for a substance that's been banned. Unquestionably it is less harmful than alcohol or tobacco. Certainly, in cases of medical marijuana, it is necessary for so many critically and chronically ill Canadians.

The Chair: Professor Kalant.

Prof. Harold Kalant: This again is a personal opinion, not a scientific conclusion. I think it's important to make the distinction clear.

Personally, I think it is an improvement over the status quo. I would like to emphasize that some of the points Mr. St-Maurice just made are in my view unfounded by any scientific evidence.

The Chair: Professor Erickson.

Dr. Patricia Erickson: For the user there's still a whole range of other problems, but to remove criminal records is a big step.

The Chair: Monsieur Perron.

Mr. Michel Perron: I believe we were fairly clear that it would be better than the status quo.

º (1645)

The Chair: Mr. White.

Mr. Randy White: Thank you.

We're dealing with a fine from one to 30 grams here, with an option of 15 to 30 grams--basically it's a fine from one to 30 grams. As the toxicity and the THC component get higher due to the way the plant is developed and improved--if you can call it an improvement--how does it change in your mind the one to 30 grams? Is the level of THC today in 14 grams different from what it will be 10 years from now? Does it change anything at all?

The Chair: I'll turn to Professor Erickson first, because it was one of her issues.

Dr. Patricia Erickson: I don't think it matters. The backgrounder said the average content was five percent or six percent, which isn't that high, and a third of the samples the police assessed were three percent or less. It sounds like the higher potency cannabis goes to the American market, and that fits economically. There's greater profit in sending it there.

In terms of the users, we suspect--and these are all empirical questions--if they were using a more potent form of marijuana they would smoke less and possibly incur fewer of the bronchial and airway problems.

But in terms of whether this behaviour should be subject to criminal sanction, anything up to 30 grams should be treated the same and be a fine matter.

The Chair: Mr. Lucas, and then Monsieur Perron.

Mr. Philippe Lucas: In a comprehensive study done by Peter Cohen out of Amsterdam, he looked at the prevalence of cannabis use in Amsterdam, San Francisco, and Bremen, Germany. He found that regular cannabis users, given access to a regular supply, will not choose the strongest cannabis. In Amsterdam, where they have selections through coffee shops, people don't get the strongest cannabis possible. That does happen, however, in San Francisco because prohibition causes the concentration of these products. If you're buying cannabis just once a month and you're taking a legal risk for it, you're going to want the strongest possible.

To follow that up, a study done by Tashkin--who was cited by Dr. Kalant earlier--an experienced cardiologist in the U.S., suggests that stronger cannabis not only leads to less use, but also contains a lower percentage of tar. In other words, stronger is safer and more effective.

The Chair: Monsieur Perron.

Mr. Michel Perron: On the point Dr. Erickson made earlier, the use of a specific amount is one measure, but actually looking at the impact of that use is more important. We frankly just don't know what the future will hold with respect to the greater levels of THC concentration--what that will ultimately translate into as a negative impact.

That behooves us to be able to actually measure what we'll be comparing in the future--what is the level of THC in cannabis today, and what is the impact of that use--and track that over time. That speaks to the evaluative component I referred to earlier.

We've all made significant mention of the 1994 national survey on the prevalence of drug use. I'm pleased to report to you that the CCSA, our colleagues on the Canadian Executive Council on Addictions, and our colleagues at Health Canada are going into the field within the next few weeks with a new national survey. We will have more recent data from that early in 2004, from which we can then build on and extrapolate some of these questions, hopefully.

Mr. Randy White: Mr. Perron, you indicated--I'll try to paraphrase your words--that graduated and increasingly severe penalties for grow ops is a good thing. How does that fit with the various decisions coming out of courtrooms today from judges? The grow-op penalties here in Bill C-38 are maximums, so how can you say it's necessarily a good thing if maximums basically don't apply today?

Mr. Michel Perron: I guess it depends on from which end of the telescope we're looking at it. I was looking at it more from the area of personal cultivation and the increase in severity with respect to commercial grow ops.

Frankly, maximums of that nature have never really worked, if I'm not mistaken, in other legislation. I'm really not sure if I can provide you with a decent answer to that question from the grow-op perspective. On the current application of the CDSA and penalties resulting from it, very many police feel the convictions and the consequences are inadequate. Some clarity is needed around grow ops--the conditions. Judges must then declare why they did not impose certain penalties.

I'm not sure if that answered your question very well.

º (1650)

The Chair: Mr. Lucas.

Mr. Philippe Lucas: I'd just like to comment on those plant numbers. Most people in the community find them really arbitrary. As a legal medical marijuana user, I am allowed to grow 25 plants. There are certain people in Canada who have exemptions to grow up to 98 plants for personal use.

Under this proposed Bill C-38, if they weren't part of that section 56 of the MMAR Program they'd be subject to up to 14 years in jail, which is a stronger sentence than that for violent assault, rape, or incest. I think that is really out of proportion to the amounts that are being grown here that are being allowed.

I once had a very small grow op of 90 plants in an area two feet by five feet. This was a very tiny amount with very small plants. I also know people who grow eight plants and grow them eight feet high. So this plant number variable isn't an indication of how much is being grown, and is certainly not a good guide for a legal basis on which to prosecute people.

The Chair: Mr. St-Maurice.

Mr. Marc Boris Saint-Maurice: Just on the statement of jail as a deterrent, if it's not a deterrent to use and simple possession, how will it possibly be a deterrent to growers if you increase the penalities? They tried locking up gays in Cuba, and all they ended up with was a bunch of gay guys behind bars. Guess what happened at that point. So there's no logic. If you decriminalize only possession and don't address the whole issue of growing it, you're going to sit on the fence and get hammered from both sides.

Mr. Randy White: Mr. St-Maurice, I find your comments interesting. One of your comments that I find really intriguing is that you'll continue to break the law, as you have done for so long. Are you talking about the Marijuana Party members, or your friends?

Mr. Marc Boris Saint-Maurice: The marijuana constituency.

Mr. Randy White: So you're saying that regardless of what the law is, you're going to break it anyway.

Mr. Marc Boris Saint-Maurice: I did consider quitting once Bill C-38 was passed, but I thought the better of it. So we fully intend to break the law. I believe it may have been Abraham Lincoln who said that the best way to repeal a bad law is to break it as much as possible and enforce it to its strictest...so game on.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. White.

Monsieur Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Thank you, Madam Chair.

What surprises me somewhat, but not totally, is that a number of witnesses have asked us not to rush headlong into this, even though it might mean the death of this bill—because, as everyone knows—the next prime minister will not necessarily ask Martin Cauchon to carry this forward. The debate could end up on the back burner. That being said, no one can predict the future.

I have two questions: one for Mr. Saint-Maurice and the other for Mr. Perron. I will begin with Mr. Perron. After having worked on this for more than a year, the members of the committee, who are here today, submitted a report containing three main objectives. First, they wanted a national drug strategy. I say “national”, but you must realize that it is only for the purpose in hand. The first objective was therefore to request a drug control strategy.

Secondly, as we were very well aware of the fact that we could not put an end to the prohibitionist attitude that has existed for more than 90 years, the report attempted to put it in perspective.

Thirdly, we wanted to ensure that no one would have a criminal record as a result of a charge of simple marijuana possession; this third objective is very important.

For all of those reasons, I felt that Bill C-38 was a step in the right direction. When the government made the bill public, we were all aware that one issue had not yet been settled, namely, possession as opposed to cultivation. We would have liked to put an end to that inconsistency.

If you would like to, Mr. Saint-Maurice may also answer my first question.

What legislative measures do you think would put an end to this contradiction which would settle the matter of the criminal record without dealing with the cultivation issue? How can we solve this problem, and what type of legal wording would you like us to adopt? As to the elimination of the criminal record, I believe that most people would agree that this is a definite advantage.

Let us begin with you; Mr. Perron can answer afterwards.

º (1655)

Mr. Marc Boris Saint-Maurice: As far as I am concerned, my position has been clearly stated and remains the same. I am for the legalization and regulation of a legitimate market, for both production as well as possession, for the sale as well as the use of this substance by any responsible adult who wishes to do so. That has always been my position. It is perhaps a little too far removed from the opinion of this committee, but I believe we should be heading in that direction, and everything the committee does should be moving that way.

Even if they are only small steps, we must aim for a full and complete legislation. I think that would be a good way to guide the work of the committee so that it will be productive and constructive in the long term, as would be the resulting legislation; it would be better to build on what already exists rather than to knock everything down and start again from scratch.

Mr. Réal Ménard: I have a supplementary question, since we are having this exchange, Mr. Saint-Maurice, and since you have extensive expertise in this area. We have yet to receive any scientific evidence to prove that moderate use of marijuana could be harmful, except for the study relating to driving in a straight line.

In your presentation, you seemed to imply that the use was increasing. If I understood you correctly, it would mean that your position is closer to the Nolin report than to the Torsney report. I have the feeling that you would not mind seeing marijuana sold in publicly regulated shops. You feel that the scientific evidence that we have would allow us, as legislators, to move in that direction without being derelict in our duty.

Mr. Marc Boris Saint-Maurice: You have put your finger on it; I could not have said it better myself.

Mr. Réal Ménard: If you sell me one of your memberships, I will sell you one of mine!

Mr. Marc Boris Saint-Maurice: Okay! Réal Ménard, is that the name?

Mr. Philippe Lucas: It makes no sense to protect the public by throwing people in jail; that doesn't protect anyone.

Mr. Réal Ménard: But Mr. Saint-Maurice goes even further. He says that the simple fact that there is no criminal record is no surprise, and that the State must be responsible...

Mr. Marc Boris Saint-Maurice: I would add that the policy we are advocating will lessen the use and reduce the negative effects, however small they might be. We already have scientific proof, including the data relating to the usage. The rate is lowest in Holland, where marijuana smoking is tolerated. Ms. Erickson told us that wherever the criminal charges were changed, there was an impact on the use. However, prohibition is supposed to be the solution to the use and abuse of drugs. That means that we have an enormous problem and these strategies must all be reviewed. We are in favour of reducing the use of marijuana. Just because we are called the Marijuana Party doesn't mean that we want everyone to smoke it, that is not at all the case.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Do I have time for one short question, Madam Chair?

The Chair: Just a minute.

Ms. Erickson, someone commented on one of your statements. Do you agree with what was said?

[English]

Dr. Patricia Erickson: In the Netherlands, they haven't had the ability to compare use within the country that the U.S. and Australia have had. That's where the strongest evidence is from. But in western Europe now there's growing evidence that the relaxation of laws in some countries and not others has been happening quite independently of effects on use. People tend to think the law has more effect than it actually does. There are many other factors.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: There was a document from the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse reminding us that it is nevertheless a cigarette, that it contains tar and can be harmful. I can understand that the Canadian Centre would not necessarily subscribe to Mr. Saint-Maurice's position in its entirety.

Mr. Michel Perron: Precisely. The issue surrounding legalization has nothing to do with the aspects of the bill that we are discussing today. One can put forward all sorts of arguments and theories on the economic effects of the legalization of cannabis. For the time being, we would prefer to limit our comments to the bill that we have before us. We truly believe that it is a step in the right direction.

As you have said, Mr. Ménard, the committee report led to the development of a new drug strategy, which is an important asset for this country, since none existed before. There was nothing but confusion.

» (1700)

Mr. Réal Ménard: [Editor's Note: Inaudible]

Mr. Michel Perron: We have been given half of what we requested, but it is up to us to make sure that we get the whole thing next time. I am an eternal optimist, but it is a step towards proving the necessity and importance of funding activities in this field, among all of the other financial priorities.

That being said, I will move on to the matter of the criminal record. As a priority, the centre has taken a stand on the policy as it relates to personal possession. We believe that Bill C-38 will reduce the frequency of this problem, particularly for those who have 15 grams or less in their possession.

As to the right to grow marijuana, the centre has not taken any position on this particular issue. We have said, however, that we believe it is a step in the right direction. But this is still prohibitionist legislation, a prohibitionist policy, and that makes it difficult to twin the two concepts: prohibitionist legislation and the right to cultivate.

You have separated the number of plants. I am aware of the problem. What is a plant? Is it a tree or a weed? It is hard for the police to determine exactly what constitutes three plants. However, there is a difference between 3 plants and the 50, 60, or 100 plants that would be required for commercial purposes.

You wanted a straightforward answer. I am sorry that I cannot be any clearer when it comes to the right to cultivate marijuana; I would only say that we feel it is important to have some means to evaluate it, if Bill C-38 is to be implemented. How many people will be arrested because of this act? We must find some way to estimate that.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Do I have time for one short question? You are very gracious, very generous. And you always have been, in fact.

Mr. Kalant said that there were some studies that seemed to make you want to qualify what Mr. Saint-Maurice had said. When I said that, generally speaking, the committee had worked for a year and a half and we had yet to find any scientific study to prove that marijuana was harmful—in small quantities, of course—except for the matter of driving in a straight line, I saw you nodding your head.

Would you like to share with this committee any information that might have escaped its attention?

[English]

Prof. Harold Kalant: You have to remember that with cannabis, as with any drug, the effects that are produced depend on how much is taken, under what circumstances, by whom. You can't simply say that the drug does such and such; you have to specify how much a drug does what to whom.

If you look at the scientific literature, in laboratory studies that have done dose-response curves it is quite clear there is a lot of evidence that small amounts do nothing detectable, and larger amounts produce clear impairment of a variety of psychomotorfunctions. With respect to health, occasional users have not been found to have any of the pulmonary problems I mentioned, whereas regular users--and by that I mean mainly daily--clearly do.

If you are looking for evidence, you have to begin first by stating evidence in certain types of users. The occasional users are subject to the problems that arise from intoxication on a given occasion. Driving a car doesn't require that you be a chronic heavy user to suffer ill effects. You can be intoxicated only once and have an accident, just as you can with alcohol. So the type of harm has to be specified and the levels of use, if you're going to make any sense out of the literature.

Both Mr. Lucas and Monsieur St-Maurice said that the drastic laws in the States have resulted in the highest level of use in the world. Both facts are correct: the laws are drastic, and the levels of use are highest. But to assume that one is the cause of the other is philosophically quite unwarranted.

There are many differences between the United States, the Netherlands, Norway, Thailand, and what have you. In a study by MacCoun and Reuter that was published a few years ago in science, they pointed out the danger of comparing societies that differed in many different respects, looking only at the differences in law.

The fact is that when cannabis was not illegal it was very widely used medically in North America, and there were probably very few problems with it. The laws were brought in at a time when that medical use had already fallen off very sharply. There was very little use of cannabis medically when it was made illegal. As Mr. St-Maurice has said quite correctly, it was made illegal mainly on the basis of accusations by Judge Emily Murphy, which were unfounded.

When it was made illegal, the use remained very low for about another 40 years. When cannabis became widely used in North America, that law had been on the books for a long time. Therefore to blame the law for the appearance of a new phenomenon that had more to do with the sociology of youthful revolt against conventional society doesn't really make a great deal of sense.

The other point I would like to make has to do with evidence from the Netherlands, which has often been cited as showing that a very lenient attitude has not resulted in a big increase in use. The paper I mentioned by Reuter and MacCoun examined that evidence by looking at all of the studies in the Netherlands that used the same techniques of survey. They pointed out, as Dr. Erickson said, there were no consistent national surveys done with the same techniques. Therefore there was real difficulty in comparing the change in levels of use in the Netherlands over the years, and the change in use in other European countries and North America.

» (1705)

They looked only at those surveys that used the same criteria, the same method of gathering the information that could be compared legitimately and methodologically with surveys in North America and elsewhere. They found that other European countries that had not changed their laws had experienced very little change in levels of use over the years, whereas in the Netherlands, from the point at which the police non-intervention was instituted, there had apparently been a steady increase in use.

In the last years of that comparison, the level of use in the Netherlands, or in those cities in the Netherlands where the surveys permitted a comparison, had reached practically the same level as in comparable cities in the United States. Therefore they cautioned against attributing any difference in the Netherlands versus the United States purely to formal laws, but rather--

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: I think you have answered my question. I would like to leave some time to allow my colleagues to speak. I think I understand what you are saying, thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Lucas.

Mr. Philippe Lucas: On what Dr. Kalant has said, I wasn't implying that harsher laws in the U.S. have led to higher drug use, but that they did not affect or lower the drug use in the U.S. There is nothing to suggest that penalties, be they fines or imprisonment, are going to reduce the number or the percentage of Canadians who use cannabis. There is also no reason to suggest that this is going to fix the health problems associated with cannabis use. If this truly is a health problem, let's deal with it the way we've dealt with smoking in Canada--with honest education, and through legalization and regulation. That's how we've had success in Canada.

» (1710)

The Chair: Ms. Davies.

Ms. Libby Davies: Thank you very much for coming today. I realize it's quite a large panel, so everybody has a lot to say.

I really hoped that this bill would be fairly pragmatic in moving us, in a genuine way, a step toward decriminalization and away from what I consider to be the enormous harms that come from these very strong prohibitionist polices. I think many witnesses have pointed out that the process of the enforcement itself is now causing people individually, and society as a whole, much greater harm than the substances that are being used. I don't know anybody who could dispute that.

Until this afternoon, no witness had supported the bill, so I hate to tell you that the CCSA has the distinction of being the first witness to support the bill. I actually hoped that you would push us more.

When I look at the bill there are many things that bother me, but one is the ticketing, the fine system. On what basis is it being done? We haven't really heard anyone advocating on the basis that it will be a deterrent or that it will lower consumption. There are lots of studies, and we've had testimony to show that a deterrent through a fine system, just as with prohibition, doesn't necessarily decrease consumption.

Will it be a revenue generator? Are the police out there just waiting to scoop up hundreds of millions of dollars from it? That may be the case, but one can also argue that the net widening effect will mean that a lot more public resources will go into trying to collect these fines. So what is it? Will it sort of give the illusion that we're still talking about something that's illegal? We haven't really talked about it related to young people, because there is a separation in the fine system between adults and young people. It's $100 for a young person carrying 15 grams or under.

I'm really curious about the CCSA's point of view. How do you rationalize this whole system of fines? If they're associated with a harm like driving, smoking, or drinking alcohol near a school, you can rationalize a system of fines. But if we're talking about personal use in a private space, why are we advocating this position? I'm just curious to know how you guys are actually reconciling this, from your own professional perspective. Perhaps you could answer that.

Secondly, Philippe and Monsieur St-Maurice, just in terms of the cultivation, I agree. I think it's completely contradictory that we have nothing in this bill that will allow any sort of personal cultivation. It is something that I think some of us would like to see. Earlier today Mr. Young, one of the well-known lawyers who's been dealing with cases, suggested we allow five plants.

Did the committee earlier say three?

The Chair: Yes.

Ms. Libby Davies: In our earlier life we actually said up to three. He suggested five. As we speak, we're trying to write amendments. I just want to see something rational that we can try to get through here, although I agree with many of the comments. As it is, I don't feel the bill is supportable.

Could you address those two questions, please?

Mr. Michel Perron: Thank you.

On CCSA's distinction of being the first to actually be in favour of the bill, perhaps we feel it's an incremental achievement, but it is an achievement in the right direction, with all the greatest of respect.

The question you pose is a good one. We then step back and look at the point Dr. Kalant made. What is the role of the law here? Is it to prevent, deter, and erase all ills and ails that come from cannabis use? No. At this point there is a marked need for a change in the law because the current law is not being applied. The law's application, contextualization, and perception by youth and by everyone is actually a farce today, whether it's on the international scene or the national scene. Young people feel there is absolutely no consequence to its use. It is misaligned with what is current practice--

» (1715)

Ms. Libby Davies: But do you think fines will do that? That's a really important question, because I don't think it's a matter of being more lenient or having a lenient attitude. It has more to do with having an informed attitude for young people, or whomever. Is that going to come about through fines or through realistic education, particularly for young people?

Mr. Michel Perron: We talked about having a strong prevention strategy that speaks to the impact of cannabis use--you're quite right. But if there are no fines, what is there? That would be the flip side and perhaps Mr. St-Maurice's argument about a legalization type of approach, and what have you, which can be talked about at some length. The CCSA feels there is sufficient harmful effect from the use of cannabis to warrant some form of control.

We believe an appropriate control is a fine system that brings us into greater alignment with the current practice of a meaningful consequence, albeit a financial one to start.

Ms. Libby Davies: I've never heard anybody say they don't agree with some form of control. The issue is whether we have effective control through the law, and I would say no. Do we have effective control through fines? I think that's very questionable. So do we have effective control through regulation, education, and prevention, just as we do with other substances?

I guess that's really my point. It seems like we're being very contradictory, and the CCSA is maybe being a bit contradictory as well.

Mr. Michel Perron: I think the elements you mentioned are not mutually exclusive. I don't think we should only have ticketing, with no prevention and education. That's very much what we need so people make informed decisions. The application of a law with some form of consequence has to be played out in a manner that is expedient and appropriate to the harm caused--at least what the societal tolerance might be.

If it's not a fine, I'm not sure what else we would have as a recourse, with respect to some form of regulatory punishment. I'm at a loss, frankly. It's probably the least imposing of consequences. There's no criminal record.

One of the points that I find is lost in the discourse on this bill is that we are now trying to shove everything that is wrong with cannabis and prohibitionist laws into one bill. We're looking to one bill to solve them all.

Ms. Libby Davies: That is a problem.

Mr. Michel Perron: We are trying to remove the significant harm caused to Canadians by criminal records resulting from cannabis possession. That is the first square from which many people started. I think the bill goes a long way toward that, and it could follow from there.

Mr. Philippe Lucas: I just question the goal of social engineering through law enforcement that's being advocated by the CCSA. I don't think we're going to have the deterrent effects we're hoping for. Since no one here has suggested that the personal use of cannabis on a moderate basis is harmful to the self or to society, I just wonder why we're going toward a criminal justice approach rather than a health approach in the first place.

It seems to me that as a modern liberal democracy, we have to have laws based on science and compassion, not fear and misinformation. So I really have to wonder about criminalizing behaviour that's non-harmful anyway.

I'm sure the CCSA would agree that there's going to be more harm done by Dairy Queen in Canada this year and people using Dairy Queen than there is through cannabis use and cannabis prohibition. There's certainly more harm done by cigarettes and alcohol.

The Chair: He's not an expert witness on the Dairy Queen, Mr. Lucas.

Mr. Philippe Lucas: Good enough.

If we're going to limit the amount of cannabis that can be grown for personal possession, limiting the number of lights and the square footage makes a lot more sense than limiting the number of plants. It would make more sense to allow 1,000 watts or 100 square feet of cannabis production. That would truly limit the amount of cannabis that could be grown, rather than just doing it by plant numbers.

The Chair: Mr. St-Maurice.

Mr. Marc Boris Saint-Maurice: I was going to say the same thing as Philippe about the number of plants. But the second point that I'm glad he covered is the question of fines as punishment. I don't think punishment is necessarily the right approach--not that it surprises anyone here. Instead we should compare fines to taxation. People who get fined are young people in the street--easy targets who can't afford to pay fines. The lawyer in the expensive car wearing the expensive suit will never be fined because a cop will probably never ask, “What's in your pockets?” because that's not proper behaviour, unless it's directed at a 19-year-old punk with blue hair. These people are getting fined and are contributing unfairly.

If it gets taxed, everybody contributes fairly to the system. If you smoke an ounce a week, you pay a percentage of that fairly. If you only smoke a gram a year and you get popped and hit with a fine, that's totally unfair. I think it's fair for the government to get that money. Instead of bikers buying more motorcycles. I'd much rather see that go to a hospital.

Instead of fines--if we can't legalize it--in the meantime I might be comfortable with what they've done in Britain, where they've lumped cannabis in with steroids and other prescription drugs. I don't know what the fine is for having Valium without a prescription these days, but if we went that route you'd probably get a warning and be recommended to go to therapy, or something. Even then, I don't believe in forced therapy. But that's my position.

» (1720)

The Chair: Mr. Kalant.

Prof. Harold Kalant: It might be helpful to look at how other drugs have been handled, and the role of law, versus education, versus medical preventive or treatment measures. Alcohol, with the exception of a relatively brief period of prohibition, has been legal in most of occidental society for thousands of years. In spite of long periods in which the law didn't change at all, there have been marked up and down fluctuations in levels of use over long periods of time. In the opinion of investigators who have documented this, that probably reflects changes in public attitude spread by informal routes.

I think the only defence of the fine is as an expression of a public attitude, and in a way it's a sort of stop-gap measure. I share the view expressed by both Mr. Lucas and Mr. St-Maurice that in a democratic society education--persuasion by dispassionate information properly explained, etc.--is the ideal way. But we can't really point right now to what that kind of education is. We can see the effect of the campaigns against smoking, but I'm not sure we can say exactly what component of education produced that result. It was a massive change of public attitude, mainly by kids telling their parents they didn't want to be orphans.

Until we have a better idea of what effective education is, we should see a place for any sort of stop-gap measure that may permit a gradual change. I see that as the probable role for fines in this case.

The other thing--because it has also been brought up--I'd like to emphasize again is that medical use and non-medical use are two different issues. How the law handles other drugs in differentiating between medical and non-medical use may possibly be of some help. Heroin was reinstated as a legitimate drug to use for the relief of pain in terminal cancer, yet nobody said it should therefore be available to everybody to use for any purpose at all. One has to differentiate between them.

The Chair: I might.

Prof. Harold Kalant: But you're an exception.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Macklin.

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

There's one issue I'd just like to get some clarification on that was brought out earlier today. It deals with the ability to utilize bodily fluids to determine impairment. With alcohol use, we've come to accept certain levels of concentration of alcohol in the blood.

Since you are here, Dr. Kalant, and seem to have some expertise in this area, we should find out from you what you believe the value is in blood, urine, and sweat tests that are being suggested as ways to advance the enforcement process and clarify what drugs are actually being used and in what concentration.

Prof. Harold Kalant: There unfortunately is not a great deal of benefit in analysing blood levels of THC because of the manner of distribution of THC from the blood into the tissue. The time sequence is such that the level in the blood is already falling rapidly, while the level is still at its peak in the brain, which is the important part.

The most realistic fluid to be looking at is saliva, because one finds in saliva what's left over from the actual smoking. There is some evidence that a high level in saliva is indicative of recent smoking, therefore there's a high probability that the driver being examined is still under the influence of the drug. Unfortunately, there has not been a great deal of systematic study of that.

I would strongly urge groups such as the forensic science centre in Toronto or the RCMP forensic laboratories in Ottawa to make a systematic study of that, because I think saliva could be the most useful way of applying measurement to say who is driving while under the influence.

» (1725)

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Is that only for the identification of the drug?

Prof. Harold Kalant: No, it's also for the quantification.

The Chair: Mr. St-Maurice.

Mr. Marc Boris Saint-Maurice: From the LeDain commission, it's my understanding that one element mentioned about driving was the experience of the user. It said that two individuals with the same level of THC in their systems could have different levels of impairment depending on whether it was the first time the person was under the influence of marijuana, or whether they had smoked maybe 1,000 joints and had learned to adapt to certain conditions--which is not the case with alcohol.

Prof. Harold Kalant: It is for alcohol too.

The Chair: Maybe we could have just the scientists answer the science questions. It would probably be better.

Mr. Lucas.

Mr. Philippe Lucas: I'm just amazed by this rush to move forward with some kind of roadside cannabis testing. If there is a problem with drugged driving in Canada, it's with pharmaceutical drugs.

The most extensive studies on drugged driving have been done by a researcher called Robbe out of Holland. He found that the standard lateral deviation--the amount a car might move to cause you to lose control--if you're using cannabis is less significant than with alcohol, but it does cause a certain standard lateral deviation. But he's found that common antihistamines, and commonly prescribed drugs like Ativan and relaxants cause a far worse standard lateral deviation and are far more dangerous in terms of accidents than cannabis can ever be estimated to be in Canada. So if we're worried about drugged driving, let's start testing people for pharmaceuticals. I think cannabis should fall behind them.

The Chair: Professor Kalant.

Prof. Harold Kalant: I must disagree with that. Robbe is one among many researchers. He's by no means the most widely recognized and accepted as an authority in the field.

The point I made before remains that the quantity is important, and despite what Mr. St-Maurice has said, the degree of experience of the user with any drug is also important.

Tolerance is not a phenomenon that's exclusive to cannabis; it applies to almost any drug that acts on the central nervous system. When you have per se legislation, such as the 80 milligrams percent rule for alcohol, it's not because it says that everybody with 80 milligrams percent is going to be grossly impaired, but rather that enough people will be that it is a point of danger for society. I can't see, in principle, why a similar type of legislation couldn't apply to other drugs as well.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Macklin.

Monsieur Barrette.

[Translation]

Mr. Gilbert Barrette (Témiscamingue, Lib.): Hello. This morning we met with several groups representing the police. They are demanding very firmly that they be given some discretionary power. How do you feel about that?

Mr. Michel Perron: We support what is provided for in the bill, namely, no discretionary power for 15 grams or less. Our policy, which was adopted in 1998, called for 30 grams or less, with no alternative for the police than to give the person a fine and nothing more.

» (1730)

[English]

The Chair: Madam Erickson.

Dr. Patricia Erickson: I'd just like to add to that. From my interviews with cannabis offenders in court, when they are aware that their friends have been treated differently from them, and that sometimes the police arrest and sometimes they don't, this fuels a sense of disrespect and injustice that is in itself an unfortunate consequence. It tends to be focused to a large extent on the police, because that's who the young people come in contact with.

I think it's very important that there be clear guidelines for how the police exercise any discretion in charging. It would fit with having a non-criminal offence of a certain amount--we shouldn't get too hung up on the amount--that it's a given. If you drive so much over the speed limit, you should get a ticket.

I think young people have a sense of fairness. They might not like it, but they would understand that if they broke the law they would get a fine. They wouldn't want to hear that someone else who did it didn't get a fine, or that they got taken to court in the regular old-fashioned criminal process, and maybe ended up with a discharge. That might be perceived as actually less severe than the larger fine. It's tricky. It's a very difficult point though.

The Chair: Thank you.

Dr. Fry.

Ms. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.): Thank you.

I want to thank everyone for your presentations--lively indeed.

The committee that originally recommended we bring about some form of legislation, prevention, and education wanted to clearly make the law, or the treatment of cannabis, equivalent to tobacco and alcohol. It was felt that alcohol was indeed a very pernicious drug because it created violent behaviour, loss of life, heart disease, high blood pressure, cirrhosis, etc. There is a huge component to alcohol that makes it a dangerous drug, yet it is a legal drug. People found in the possession of alcohol, unless they have been impaired or whatever, tend to walk away. It's deemed to be an okay drug. As we've heard today, in many instances cannabis has actually fewer side effects that are violent or harmful, yet it is given this sort of specific bad name and is treated illegally.

We knew then that we couldn't flaunt the conventions and decide to make it legal. So this, as you said, Mr. Perron, is a stop-gap measure. It's kind of an incremental move to say that it is illegal and let us leave it illegal, but what can we do to ensure that the criminalization of people who smoke it does not occur in the way it has been happening?

I want to hear what you think are some appropriate things to put into this bill. How do we give a message that it is not a criminal thing to do, but it does have penalties? There is an impaired-driving component and other components, so we need to give the message that this is not just a fine and dandy drug; it's something that does have certain side effects.

You want to do that and make it as equivalent as you can to alcohol and tobacco, so I think some fines are in order. But what concerns me more than anything is how do you allow that this drug is no longer going to have criminal penalties, yet in order to get the drug you have to go out and buy it from a criminal? So we need to look at how you can produce this drug in a manner that does not make you a dealer. You shouldn't be able to produce enough to sell to everybody down the street, but you should be able to produce enough so you don't have to go out and buy it from a dealer.

I'm of the belief, from the work we've done on this committee, that at the end of the day what Professor Kalant has said is true. You cannot link prohibition and usage, but at the same time, when there was prohibition of alcohol in the United States, that's when organized crime thrived. We see organized crime thriving here from this drug, and eventually we're going to have to look at the whole issue of what prohibition does and doesn't do.

Today we're talking about how you find this interim place where you educate people. I think we heard, when we were looking at this, that when California did what we're loosely calling decriminalization here and altered the penalties, what decreased use eventually was not the change of charge but the education component. Young people realized that there was tar, benzopyrines, and impairment, and that there was possible cognitive damage done over a prolonged period of time. This is what we're trying to say, in the same way we do with alcohol and tobacco.

What is the most reasonable thing? I'm looking for some reasonable answers to the questions we're asking.

» (1735)

The Chair: Dr. Erickson, and then Mr. Perron.

Dr. Patricia Erickson: I think you're not alone. This is a global issue, and no matter how hard you work on this bill, however it ends up you aren't going to solve this dilemma. Time will solve it.

A number of countries are contesting American domination of the global prohibition issue. If you read the handout I left you'll see that even the most evidence-oriented critics in the States are saying the U.S. is isolating itself. I think Canada will solve the problem along with other countries by coming to terms with the implications of the global market, and finding our own made-in-Canada solutions.

I don't think you're going to find them this month, I'm sorry. I have no practical advice to offer beyond what I've already said--that I think it's a step.

Mr. Michel Perron: The fact that the committee's positioning this as being one of an array of activities and programs that need to go into effect to reduce cannabis use is the first important step. This should not be the centrepiece of Canadian drug policy.

If we are going to address this from a social health perspective then let's do that, as echoed by the earlier comments. If we are going to have prevention campaigns, let us at least have realistic ones that do not actually make us look foolish in front of children by demonizing these things, and so on.

As to what could go into the bill, I'm not sure that we would look to include wording that would be specific on types of prevention programs or education program, but we have to understand that the communication of this bill cannot stand on its own. It has to be coupled with the National Drug Strategy, which the average Canadian has not heard very much about.

I would add that if you're looking for innovative ways to look at taxation and these things, fines are one measure of a consequence. Having a surtax that would go toward paying for prevention programs would be rather appealing to certain people. I know people don't like surtaxes and things like that, but if you pay a fine you think, “That was bad, therefore I have to pay.” But if I pay a surtax to go to prevention....

As Mr. Ménard mentioned, the envelope that was ultimately provided by government for the drug strategy was half of what was originally sought. Perhaps this is a hybrid means of actually doing some taxation that would go directly to prevention programs, which might be of interest to you.

The Chair: Mr. Lucas.

Mr. Philippe Lucas: Dr. Fry, the first thing we should do is tackle the most grievous harms of prohibition. The first way to do that is to guarantee the rights to life and security of medical marijuana users by enshrining in Bill C-38 some protections that aren't dependent on whoever's in power or whoever's health minister at the time. Of course, the courts ordered the government to do that some time ago. That's the first part.

The second and most grievous harm is the control of this by the black market. That is why we have violence, break-ins for grow ops, etc. So our second goal should be to take away the profitability. By allowing even a limited amount of personal cultivation we can do that, but I think we also have to allow the legal use of a small amount of cannabis.

As a legal user I'm allowed to use five grams. If we pass laws that allow only 10 grams for personal possession, does that mean I have to see my dealer every two days? Is that really going to solve the problem? Is that really what we're aiming for?

By allowing a small amount of personal possession and a small amount of personal cultivation, we remove that black market control. That's a good means and a good first step in moving toward a more rational policy that the CCSA is suggesting.

The Chair: Mr. St-Maurice.

» (1740)

Mr. Marc Boris Saint-Maurice: Just in response to the question of how to deliver a message while we're decriminalizing it, that sort of conflicting double message, if we look at what we're doing with cigarettes, labelling is probably the most effective. It's on the product, so you know you're targeting the users. The only way to do that is through a legal context, because we're not going to get the Hell's Angels to put labels on their dope, that's for sure.

The Chair: Thank you to all the witnesses.

Colleagues, tomorrow morning we need to pass the budget so we can pay for our witnesses' expenses. The witnesses will no doubt be thrilled.

Thank you all very much for coming to give us the benefit of your ideas and testimony.