SC38 Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

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

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, November 4, 2003

½

1905

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

Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice)

½

1910

½

1915

The Chair

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

½

1920

Hon. Martin Cauchon

Mr. Randy White

Hon. Martin Cauchon

Mr. Randy White

Hon. Martin Cauchon

Mr. Randy White

Hon. Martin Cauchon

½

1925

Mr. Randy White

Hon. Martin Cauchon

Mr. Randy White

Hon. Martin Cauchon

Mr. Randy White

Hon. Martin Cauchon

Mr. Randy White

Hon. Martin Cauchon

½

1930

The Chair

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

Hon. Martin Cauchon

Mr. Richard Marceau

Hon. Martin Cauchon

½

1935

Mr. Richard Marceau

Hon. Martin Cauchon

Mr. Richard Marceau

½

1940

Hon. Martin Cauchon

The Chair

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

Hon. Martin Cauchon

½

1945

Mr. Inky Mark

Hon. Martin Cauchon

The Chair

Mr. Inky Mark

Hon. Martin Cauchon

Mr. Inky Mark

Hon. Martin Cauchon

Mr. Inky Mark

Hon. Martin Cauchon

Mr. Inky Mark

Hon. Martin Cauchon

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP)

½

1950

Hon. Martin Cauchon

Ms. Libby Davies

The Chair

Hon. Martin Cauchon

½

1955

The Chair

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin (Northumberland, Lib.)

Hon. Martin Cauchon

¾

2000

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Hon. Martin Cauchon

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Hon. Martin Cauchon

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

¾

2005

Hon. Martin Cauchon

The Chair

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Hon. Martin Cauchon

¾

2010

The Chair

Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance)

¾

2015

The Chair

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

The Chair

Hon. Martin Cauchon

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

Hon. Martin Cauchon

The Chair

Hon. Martin Cauchon

¾

2020

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

The Chair

Hon. Martin Cauchon

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

The Chair

Hon. Martin Cauchon

The Chair

Hon. Martin Cauchon

The Chair

Mr. Gilbert Barrette (Témiscamingue, Lib.)

Hon. Martin Cauchon

Mr. Gilbert Barrette

Hon. Martin Cauchon

¾

2025

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

Hon. Martin Cauchon

Mr. Richard Marceau

Hon. Martin Cauchon

Mr. Richard Marceau

¾

2030

Hon. Martin Cauchon

Mr. Richard Marceau

Hon. Martin Cauchon

Mr. Richard Marceau

Hon. Martin Cauchon

The Chair

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

¾

2035

Hon. Martin Cauchon

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

The Chair

Mr. Inky Mark

¾

2040

Hon. Martin Cauchon

Mr. Inky Mark

Hon. Martin Cauchon

Mr. Inky Mark

The Chair

Mr. Inky Mark

The Chair

Mr. Christian Jobin (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, Lib.)

Hon. Martin Cauchon

Mr. Christian Jobin

¾

2045

Hon. Martin Cauchon

Mr. Christian Jobin

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies

Hon. Martin Cauchon

The Chair

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

¾

2050

Hon. Martin Cauchon

Mr. Derek Lee

Hon. Martin Cauchon

Mr. Derek Lee

¾

2055

Hon. Martin Cauchon

The Chair

Mr. Randy White

Hon. Martin Cauchon

Mr. Randy White

Hon. Martin Cauchon

¿

2100

Mr. Randy White

Hon. Martin Cauchon

The Chair

Ms. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.)

¿

2105

Hon. Martin Cauchon

The Chair

---

CANADA

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

---

NUMBER 009

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, November 4, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

½  (1905)  

[English]

    The Chair (Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.)): I'll call this meeting to order. We are the Special Committee on the Non-medical Use of Drugs, and we were brought together to study Bill C-38, pursuant to the order of reference of October 21. Bill C-38 is an act to amend the Contraventions Act and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

    Appearing today before us, from the House of Commons, is Martin Cauchon, le ministre de la Justice. From the Department of Justice, we have Paul Saint-Denis, senior counsel, criminal law policy section, and Don Piragoff, senior general counsel, criminal law policy section.

[Translation]

    We are happy to welcome you here today, Minister. I believe that you have a 10 or 15 minute presentation to make, after which we will ask you some questions.

    Do you have a brief?

    Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice): I am sorry, I have no extra copies. They will be made available to you later, but I have none with me now.

    Madam Chair, dear colleagues, as you mentioned, I have with me today Mr. Piragoff from the Department of Justice as well as Mr. Saint-Denis, who will be able to help answer your questions. These two people are specialists in the field, and I believe that the aim of this meeting is to enlighten the committee on all aspects of this reform, which is so important for our country.

[English]

    Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

    First, I would like to thank the committee for inviting me to speak today. I would also like to congratulate the committee for the work it has accomplished to date; the report it submitted last December was indeed instrumental in the development of the bill before you now.

    Madam Chair and colleagues, Bill C-38 is about bringing Canada's outdated cannabis laws into the 21st century; it is about making the punishment fit the crime; it is about taking a Canadian approach to dealing with drug use; and it is about protecting our communities.

[Translation]

    Bill C-38 seeks to amend the application of the act in Canada for possession of a small quantity of cannabis and introduce stricter penalties for large-scale marijuana production. As part of Canada's Drug Strategy, Bill C-38 will amend the act in order to reflect how Canadians feel about the issue and apply a uniform approach to marijuana possession offences.

    Along with this act, our renewed National Drug Strategy will attack the factors related to drug addiction and sensitize Canadians, particularly our youth, to the risks of drug use.

    We know that the adolescent use of cannabis is increasing. I am proud to announce that the government will invest $245 million over five years to improve the research and treatment programs and to intensify enforcement of the act.

    Madam Chair, dear colleagues, our message is clear: marijuana should not be used. Cannabis is harmful and will remain illegal in Canada. But we are well aware of the fact that Canadians no longer feel that a criminal record is the appropriate penalty for possession of a small quantity of cannabis. Let me give you an example of what is happening now.

    In 2001, police agencies reported about 50,000 incidents related to the possession of cannabis. However, charges were laid in only half of those cases. Moreover, we know that hundreds of thousands of ordinary Canadians are ignoring the law on the possession of cannabis.

½  (1910)  

[English]

    Clearly, our law is not in step with Canadian reality. This begs the question, does it make sense to threaten a young person with jail or the lasting burden of a criminal conviction if they make a bad choice? Take, for instance, the university student who gets caught smoking marijuana. Does it make sense that his future employment should be put at risk or that he should be restricted from international travel? I think most people would agree the answer is no.

    It is my belief that the current laws aren't working and do not constitute the best use of law enforcement resources.

[Translation]

    Bill C-38 will update our laws. It will provide for a consistent application of the cannabis possession offences throughout the country, and will allow peace officers, in urban as well as in rural settings, to take the necessary steps in dealing with those who break the law, but without the complications or the expenses related to the criminal justice system.

    The new act will also allow the police to concentrate their resources on operations where they will be most effective. It is the government's intention to introduce an act that will work for all Canadians. I want the enforcement of this act to be fair and consistent.

    As I said earlier, Madam Chair and colleagues, Bill C-38 also seeks to protect our communities through strict penalties for large-scale marijuana grow operations. We know that this type of undertaking can be located in residential areas and that criminal gangs are often responsible. I will not allow our neighbourhood to be threatened by these grow operations. Thanks to Bill C-38, the owners of these large-scale marijuana operations will now face 14-year prison terms, which is twice the current maximum penalty.

    The proposals that you have before you were not drafted in a vacuum. As you know, we have been examining this issue for more than 30 years, in fact, since the LeDain Commission in the early 1970s. More recently, the Special Senate Committee on Illegal Drugs recommended that the production and sale of cannabis be legalized.

    Let me be perfectly clear, the government is in no way considering the legalization of marijuana. Moreover, the House of Commons committee, your committee, has also tabled a report. Your committee recommended that the possession and cultivation of less than 30 grams be decriminalized, in other words, the introduction of alternate penalties. This must be analysed in light of the fact that most Canadian citizens are convinced that the possession of small quantities of cannabis should not lead to criminal charges.

½  (1915)  

[English]

    Madam Chair and colleagues, prior to tabling this legislation, my officials especially examined the way in which cannabis possession is dealt with in several European nations, the United States, and Australia. I must say, quite frankly, that what we are doing here makes sense for Canadians, but it also makes sense when we compare ourselves with other countries.

    Several countries have already adopted alternative penalties to deal with this offence, including ticketing regimes. Indeed, if anything, Canada is behind the times. We need not look farther afield than the United States, where several American states, indeed, have also introduced similar regimes. In California, for example, a state with a population roughly the size of Canada, possession of up to 28.5 grams of marijuana results in a fine of $100. In New York, a state with 19 million people, possession of up to 25 grams of marijuana is punishable by a fine of $100 for the first offence and $200 for the second offence.

[Translation]

    I would now like to comment on what some witnesses and others have said about this bill.

    First, there is the matter of impaired driving, which has often been raised. This is not a new problem, but we must face the facts. Driving while impaired either by alcohol or drugs is already a serious Criminal Code offence.

    I realize that police officers cannot always use standardized sobriety tests in order to lay charges of impaired driving when drug use is involved. Contrary to what is done for alcohol, experts cannot agree on a threshold for drug impairment which could affect one's ability to drive safely. It is obvious that police officers need the tools that would allow them to properly conduct these tests.

    As you know, the justice department has just published a consultation paper on this issue which reviews operational requirements including the equipment that would be necessary for drug testing. Some issues have yet to be resolved, and we are continuing to consult the stakeholders.

    Secondly, opponents have said that Canada is becoming an important source for exporting illegal cannabis to the United States. However, that is not what our statistics have shown. In fact, less than 1.5 per cent of the marijuana seized by American customs originates in Canada. You might also be interested to learn that 4 per cent of the marijuana seized at Canada's border comes from the United States.

[English]

    Madam Chair, cannabis consumption is a complex issue. It is first and foremost a health matter. With the adoption of Bill C-38, marijuana will remain a controlled substance in Canada and offenders will continue to be punished by law. With Bill C-38, the Government of Canada is taking a modern root-cause approach to dealing with illegal drugs. We will educate our youth about the dangers associated with drugs while targeting the real criminals, those who supply the drugs.

    Madam Chair, some have said we are moving ahead too quickly. Indeed, I disagree. We have accumulated a vast amount of knowledge on this issue. The committee has travelled throughout this country and others and has heard from many witnesses. If there are proposals that could strengthen the bill, as I said many times, we will consider them. Let's get on with the job of modernizing our laws.

    Thank you, Madam Chair. Merci, madame la présidente. Of course, I'd be more than pleased to answer any questions.

    The Chair: Merci beaucoup, monsieur le ministre.

    For the first 10 minutes, Mr. White.

    Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Madam Chair, and welcome, Mr. Minister. You know my questions will be very friendly, so you can relax.

½  (1920)  

    Hon. Martin Cauchon: I don't relax; it's part of my temperament.

    Mr. Randy White: You wouldn't know that from question period, would you?

    Do you have any amendments at all from the department for Bill C-38?

    Hon. Martin Cauchon: Madam Chair, tonight I'm here to explain the bill, to talk about the policy. At this very moment, we don't have any amendments, any proposals.

    As I've said many times, and I'd like to repeat, essentially, if there are any amendments, first of all we will hear what the committee members have to say. I've read some of the statements that have been made here by witnesses talking about amendments we should maybe take into consideration. But in a nutshell, what I'd like to tell you is that we are very open to having a look at any amendments you are willing to bring forward in order, for example, to strengthen the bill and make sure we will be more efficient as a country.

    Mr. Randy White: Thank you.

    I think we polled virtually every witness here. There was only one I can recall who thought this was better than the status quo, and that's from people who are on all sides of this issue. With so many people opposing it--and I guess you know about that by now--do you feel this legislation should still go ahead unamended?

    Hon. Martin Cauchon: With regard to amendments, as I said, Madam Chair, we are more than open. In a sense, if the committee decides to come forward with some amendments, we will be more than pleased to have a look at those amendments. If there are any amendments that could strengthen the bill, we will be open, ready to talk and to consider those amendments.

    The second point you've raised is an interesting one, because I believe that maybe we don't really talk to the same people. My understanding of the situation, with all due respect, is when you look at the poll, there's tremendous support for this piece of legislation.

    Secondly, if you look at those who oppose the legislation, some of them support legalizing the use of cannabis. In a nutshell, they're not saying the legislation is not a step in the right direction, that the piece of legislation is not good, that the reform is not good; what they are saying is that as far as they are concerned, they would prefer to see the government legalize the use of cannabis. We've said no to that. We have been loud and clear.

    The other people who oppose are saying essentially that we should keep the status quo. I believe the status quo at this point in time is simply not an answer. When you have legislation in place that you cannot enforce, let's face it as a society and deal with it. This is exactly what we're doing as a responsible government.

    Mr. Randy White: The issue of sending the message...I guess I'll speak particularly about the growing aspect of it.

    You've put maximum penalties in this legislation. Apparently, you feel this will send a message to the judiciary and to the legal industry. I think most people we've talked to disagree with that in that the decisions from the judiciary coming off the bench today are rarely maximum sentences; they tend to be actually quite minimum. So how does issuing maximums change the decision in the courtroom?

    Hon. Martin Cauchon: If you look at the way we have structured the bill, I strongly believe, Madam Chair, that we have sent a strong message to the courts.

    First, there's a gradation that exists within the bill that tells the court that we take it seriously. If you look at the new offence we have put in place, when I'm talking about gradation, about from 4 to 25 plants, there's a sanction in place. Then from 26 to 50 plants there's another range of sanctions in place. Then again after more than 50 plants. I believe it sends a strong message to the courts.

    Second, as I said in my opening remarks, Madam Chair, we realize that people are actually involved in marijuana grow-ops, close by in your neighbourhood, using apartments, using farmers' fields, and so on. So we have developed criteria, and when those criteria are in place and the judge decides not to impose jail time, he will have to justify and explain the reason why he has made that decision.

    If I may take a few moments, Madam Chair, I will read from a briefing note:

In cases involving more than three plants, a judge would have to provide reasons why imprisonment was not imposed where any of the following aggravating factors was found:

a risk of danger for children in the building where the operation exists;

use of traps....

    You know we have a special bill on that as well that has been well accepted by the people--to be more precise, the firefighters' association.

use of explosives....

use of land belonging to others....

operation creating a safety hazard in a residential area.

    So those are the criteria we put in place.

    I believe that with that new regime, that new scheme, in place we will send a strong message. Of course, I've heard that some would like to use a mandatory minimum. That has been used in other countries, and today, based on some studies I've heard about, those countries would actually like to come back and revise the mandatory minimum.

    The system we have in place will send a strong message, making sure as well that the courts will be able to use their discretion. We have one of the best court systems in the world. We have very good and competent judges as well. We have to make sure that those people will be able to use their minds, based on the facts of each and every case.

½  (1925)  

    Mr. Randy White: If the maximums don't change anything in the courtroom, would you be prepared to put into this bill some kind of review of the legislation so we can have another go at this round in terms of stiffening the penalties?

    Hon. Martin Cauchon: As I said, Madam Chair, we're open to looking at amendments that may come out of this committee. If you want to propose an amendment, we'll be more than willing to take a look at it.

    Mr. Randy White: Do you think it was important to hear from various American agencies at this committee?

    Hon. Martin Cauchon: I beg your pardon? Would you repeat the question, please?

    Mr. Randy White: Do you think it was important for this committee to hear from affected American agencies?

    Hon. Martin Cauchon: If you heard from American agencies, you have their statements. But to the best of my recollection, you haven't heard from American agencies.

    Mr. Randy White: My question was, did you think it was important to hear from the American agencies?

    Hon. Martin Cauchon: I tell you, quite frankly, Canada is an independent country. I believe the legislation I have crafted as the justice minister is legislation I have crafted for Canadians.

    When you look at the war the states have on drugs and at the direction they are taking, for them it's illegal; it's highly criminal. They want to make sure we will be able deter organized crime and stop the use of illegal drugs. In a nutshell, both countries are heading exactly in the same direction. Of course, the roads we take may be different. Indeed, the roads are different. But we are crafting legislation that reflects the sort of society we have, and I sincerely believe that with this legislation we will do a much better job of sending the message we want to send.

    Most of the kids, when they get caught today, get away with a verbal warning. Is that the type of message you would like to send to our young Canadians? I believe that with the ticketing scheme we will put in place, they will get the message. We will be able to enforce the legislation right away.

    Remember, when we were working on the renewal of the Young Offenders Act, one of the key principles was to make sure that when a kid gets caught, the sanction should take place as soon possible so he can realize the relationship between the offence and the sentence. I guess with this piece of legislation we are dead-on with that criteria.

½  (1930)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. White. Thank you, Mr. Minister.

    Monsieur Marceau, pour dix minutes.

[Translation]

    Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ): Thank you, Madam Chair.

    Mr. Minister, Mr. Saint-Denis, Mr. Piragoff, welcome to the committee.

    Minister, I was happy to hear you say that you are open to possible amendments. Your statement is timely because I have been led to understand that at least one person on this committee will be moving amendments: your parliamentary secretary.

    I would like to take a moment to explore the issues that have been discussed. Would you be prepared to lower the limit below which police officers would not have the option of giving a fine, to drop it from 15 grams to 10 grams?

    Hon. Martin Cauchon: Madam Chair, this bill provides a major reform in an important area. I have explained more than once that both the government and myself, as Minister of Justice, are ready to analyze any type of amendment that might be brought forward by the committee, including amendments that could strengthen the bill, or amendments that could help us to continue to convey our message, while ensuring that the basic principles of this legislative measure—that I have already set out in my presentation—remain essentially the same. Therefore, in that context, yes, we would be prepared to consider the type of amendment that my colleague has just suggested, but once again, I would ask the committee to report these amendments so that we might analyze them as soon as possible.

    Mr. Richard Marceau: That is true, Minister, but all kinds of things can be said. I know, even though we are not close friends, that you are always well prepared. I am familiar with your department; you do not do things lightly, at least I hope that you don't. It so happens that tomorrow, we will move on to the clause-by-clause study of the bill. I will be both surprised and disappointed in you if you did not entertain some amendments here, this evening, at 7:30, since in less than 24 hours we will proceed to the clause-by-clause examination of the bill, so in one way or another, unless something happens, it will surely be leaving the committee. I would be surprised if you did not have some amendments in mind.

    If you are asking the committee to seriously examine this bill, as you have done from the outset, and if you want us to be well aware of all of the whys and wherefores of this piece of legislation, then I feel that one of the things to which we are entitled is the justice department's cooperation. I will repeat my question because, as I have said, tomorrow we proceed to the clause-by-clause study.

    I know that you are aware of what has been taking place in this committee. I know that you have a hard-working parliamentary secretary who reports to you. I see your staff, charming people one and all, who have been in attendance and who also report to you.

    Now, some ideas have been floated; we know how the machine operates, we know how the game is played. There has been talk of possibly dropping the limit from 15 grams to 10 grams.

    One of the problems that has often been raised involves repeat offenders. In view of what has been said, have you given any thought to the problem of repeat offenders? If so, then what are your intentions in this case?

    Hon. Martin Cauchon: Madam Chair, we have introduced the bill. Therefore, what you have before you is essentially, the minister's vision, his orientation. You have before you the direction that I am taking as Minister of Justice. This evening, I feel it important to listen to the committee members in order to determine what type of amendment they would like to see, so that we might then examine the various points that have been raised so that when the time comes tomorrow for the clause-by-clause study of the bill, committee members will be in a position to agree on a certain number of amendments.

    That being said, you have just raised the issue of repeat offenders, as they are called in English. I know that this is of concern to a large number of committee members. It is also a concern that is shared by a number of witnesses who have appeared before the committee. We are ready to deal with that issue. What I would like to hear is how committee members feel about it.

½  (1935)  

    Mr. Richard Marceau: Another problem raised has to do with production for personal use. One of the elements we heard about many times from more liberal people, in the philosophical sense of that term, and from those who would prefer a harshening of legislation on marijuana, is as follows: as we all know, the black market is in the hands of organized crime. Now, “forcing” an occasional consumer to use the black market as a supply would result in criminalizing behaviour for which the penalty would not necessarily be proportional to the crime.

    Are you ready to look at a way for the small producer to avoid criminalization of his production activity for personal use?

    Hon. Martin Cauchon: I've heard about a certain number of witnesses who did actually come. I would remind the committee that such a suggestion was made earlier on in its report. One of the recommendations was to allow alternate sentencing for a certain number of plants; as we speak, I don't remember the exact number of plants.

    But to get back to the basic philosophy, on one hand, the bill we introduced is far harsher for people involved in growing. We also have to ensure that we're in line with what's being done in the border states of the USA.

    On the other hand, we realize that when we're talking about simple possession for personal use, the present legislation isn't efficient. So the message we want to send in the reform we're proposing isn't about increasing flexibility. The message we want to send is that the use is illegal and still criminal in our country. But we want to make sure that we'll be giving our police forces which, in passing, are doing excellent work in the field, the tools they need so that they can effectively implement the legislation, in view of the huge number of people consuming the stuff, and make sure we can contain all of that.

    There are some who say we should open the bill to this recommendation made by the committee. I've told you before and I'm telling you again that tomorrow we will proceed with clause-by-clause consideration. Do raise those elements on which you want to see amendments tonight and make suggestions and we will come back to you very quickly because we're conscious that tomorrow our clause-by-clause study is going to be undertaken.

    Mr. Richard Marceau: Just before giving the floor to my colleague, I'd like to come back to repeat offences one last time. When you talk about repeat offences and graduated sentencing for repeat offences, then you're talking about a databank and thus the possibility of several persons having access. Now you ask us to raise whatever concerns we might have. One of the concerns raised, as you know, is access to this databank by police forces from other countries which could mean that the name of a person who committed an offence which is basically a minor one would then be put into that databank and that could cause certain problems especially for travelling abroad.

    Are you aware of that problem? Following the recommendations of this committee during the clause-by-clause tomorrow, would you consider what will be said by this committee about that problem?

½  (1940)  

    Hon. Martin Cauchon: Yes, I recognize the problem, in very rare circumstances, that's true. Even with the legislative measure as amended that we are proposing, it could happen that an offender might find his name in a databank. I think you're alluding to the CPIC. For example, when you go to court and a decision is handed down or, if I am not mistaken, in the case of a search warrant, it is possible to make legislative amendments and ensure that kind of situation is avoided. I find the example you've raised interesting as it is a very specific example where it might be possible to see if there is feasibility in the area of legislative amendments.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Marceau.

    Inky Mark, you have ten minutes.

[English]

    Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, PC): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Mr. Minister, for being here this evening.

    While you have good intentions in terms of ensuring that youth smoking pot don't become labelled as criminals--and I think that is a good intention--I think in listening to our witnesses and looking at the bill and its impact, it's inconsistent in terms of expectations and in terms of the current drug policy and the dollars we put into it.

    One of the witnesses said the other day we were spending upwards of $1 billion a year, basically reducing supply. That's the 95% or maybe even larger part of the work the police do from that $1 billion--reduce supply. On the other hand, Health Canada says it's a dangerous drug. That's why I've said all along that the messages you're sending are mixed. My personal opinion is that I support the Senate study and approach, which is to control the whole thing.

    On the one hand, you know the markets are going to increase because demand will increase. The fact of the matter remains that when kids know it's going to be a parking ticket regime, there's no doubt they're going to say it's legal, although we adults wish to send the other message. But that's the way they'll perceive it.

    The other problem is, who's going to collect all this money? Are you going to put them in jail if they can't pay their fines? You know, it's one thing to say we'll give you a ticket, but look at the problems with parking tickets across this country. Just ask the municipalities. There are millions and millions of uncollected dollars in outstanding parking tickets. So we come using this same kind of regime for youth, and I don't know how anybody is going to collect these things. Are you going to throw them all in jail? I don't think that will happen.

    To me the message you're sending is inconsistent and not very well balanced.

    So one of the questions I asked was, who will be the winners in this proposal--society, the kids?

    Hon. Martin Cauchon: Madam Chair, it will be society as a whole.

    The member raises many questions. The first is the question of mixed messages, that Health Canada is saying it is bad for your health, it's harmful to our society. I would just like to mention to committee members that we're sending the right message with this piece of legislation. We're sending the message Health Canada wants to send. We're sending the message we want to send as a country, and of course as Liberals, as a government. The message is clear: it's illegal; it's harmful.

    Of course, I must tell you, Madam Chair, when we started to talk about all this--and I guess we did it as well in your report--we were talking about decriminalizing marijuana. As a matter of fact, to look a bit on the technical side, we're not decriminalizing marijuana. It will remain a criminal substance in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act--which is a complicated name for me. It will remain an offence in that piece of legislation.

    What we are doing essentially, Madam Chair, is putting in place what we call alternative penalties in using the Contraventions Act.

    I admit that using decriminalization at the beginning was not a good start, but tonight and over the past few months we've been quite clear about exactly what we are doing as a government.

    You said as well that ticketing will send the message that it's okay. Okay, let's have a look at the situation. Let's take a young Canadian in downtown Toronto who has, I don't know, 10 grams. Most of the time they will get just a verbal warning. Is this the message you want to send to our young Canadians? Most of the time, the first time they have to deal with the justice system they get away with a verbal warning. That's not the message we should send them. If something is deemed to be criminal in our society, we have to make sure to put in place legislation that we are going to be able to enforce, and this is exactly what we're doing. But we know at the same time where we are as a society, and we want to make sure the sentence will make sense and that we are going to be able to enforce it.

    We have police forces all over the country working hard in that fight, the war against drugs and organized crime, and of course there's always a question of resources. I believe with this legislation they are going to have a tool to enforce it, and they are going to be able to use resources elsewhere--those involved in the marijuana grow-ops and organized crime.

    I've been talking with people in other countries as well--police forces in other countries. Let's take southern Australia, for example. When they decided to do that 18 years ago, a lot of people were not on side. Let's have a look today. The result is just amazing. People are on side, and law enforcement organizations in their country are focusing where they have to focus, while at the same time sending the appropriate message.

    As I said, we will be using the Contraventions Act to do that. We have agreements with six provinces. We will be negotiating with provinces to add that new part, and then they will enforce the ticket, as they do for any other offence.

½  (1945)  

    Mr. Inky Mark: How are you going to collect if the kids don't have the money to pay?

    Hon. Martin Cauchon: Take, for example, a speeding ticket. That happens with a speeding ticket as well.

    The question you raise is interesting. I met with people all across the country when we were preparing that bill, and a lot of people I met with told me they were supportive. They found our approach was more realistic, based on the reality we encounter in our society. I wanted to move forward at that time with very high fines, and a lot of people told me just that--to impose a fine that young Canadians will be able to pay. At the same time, for kids under 18 years old we will send parents a notice of what took place.

    So you'll have both. I believe the system we'll put in place will be the best system by far, much better than the status quo.

    The Chair: Une petite question.

    Mr. Inky Mark: I was just going to ask, what's the penalty for youth who receive warnings, and what if they repeat?

    Hon. Martin Cauchon: I beg your pardon?

    Mr. Inky Mark: You were saying that parents will get notification if their underage children--

    Hon. Martin Cauchon: No, no, it's in addition. It's not just notification.

    Mr. Inky Mark: Would you still agree that repeat offenders should have their fines doubled?

    Hon. Martin Cauchon: As I said, that point has been raised by many witnesses here. I've talked to most of the committee members around this table, and they raised that as a concern. If you believe we have to deal with repeat offenders, as we used to say, table a proposal.

    Mr. Inky Mark: I did. I made that amendment to the clerk.

    Hon. Martin Cauchon: Come forward with your amendment, and the department will come back quickly, you'll see. As our colleague from the Bloc said, you will proceed with the clause-by-clause tomorrow, so we'll make sure we provide you with an answer on that.

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

    Ms. Davies, for ten minutes.

    Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Thank you very much, and thank you to the Minister and the officials for coming tonight.

    You said earlier in your remarks that Bill C-38 is the Canadian way. I'm not convinced of that. I think it's the Liberal way and that you presented it as being all things.... I know some of you think that's great, but I think it's a bill that has a lot of confusion about it. In the beginning it was a bill that you tried to make all things to all people, and it was presented as decriminalization. I do agree that there is tremendous support for decriminalization, but that's not what this bill is. You're now acknowledging that, saying it's not decriminalization.

    I wish we could just have an honest debate and say, well, we're not really thinking of any amendments and we'll see what the committee does. It was sent to the committee without second reading on the basis that we would get right into it and supposedly the government would be open to amendments. I was hoping that tonight we could have that discussion with you. I think we could have a good discussion.

    I have a couple of serious concerns about the bill. I do support decriminalization, real decriminalization. What we have now is some sort of weird hybrid that really doesn't make much sense. In fact, all of the witnesses we've heard, except for two, don't support the bill. Of the two that “sort of” support it, one is the CCSA, which is in effect a government agency, and the other is a so-called expert—actually a very credible guy—who was used as the government's witness in the court cases that were brought forward to the Supreme Court. So those are the two that supposedly support the bill.

    A couple of questions. Why would we have a regime that says you can have some personal use or possession, yet you have to become illegal to go buy the product? It's completely irrational. I don't understand why the government wouldn't have adopted what the special committee was saying in terms of an allowance for personal cultivation.

    Secondly, the question of criminal records I think is huge. We had some discussion with the RCMP, and they were very clear that there's nothing to prevent information being shared with the U.S. about Canadian citizens, whether or not they have a criminal record, because they just have a record, i.e. information that's been stored. This is being shared with American authorities, and this is why people are being held up at the border and their life is hell. Why wouldn't the government have addressed that question as well in terms of sealed or protected records?

    If we are genuine in having this debate, are you willing to look at those amendments?

½  (1950)  

    Hon. Martin Cauchon: How many hours do I have to answer that?

    Ms. Libby Davies: Take all the time you like.

    The Chair: Libby's open. She's on B.C. time.

    Hon. Martin Cauchon: First, I appreciate your comments, and I know you have been involved in the making of the report that this committee has tabled. As well, as a committee member you've done tremendous work. But when you say it sends a mixed message, I'm sorry to tell you that the existing reform is actually highly crafted, based on the report you have tabled.

    Second, you say I'm saying it's not decriminalization. It has never been decriminalization. What we're saying is that as a country we have signed three international conventions. The first one goes back to before the seventies. Based on those three international conventions, the offence has to remain a criminal offence. We have a concern as a government, as you said, to make sure that people won't end up having a criminal background because of that offence, when we're talking about a small amount.

    What we're doing essentially is we're doing what we can do legally, that is to say, that the offence will remain a criminal offence, but the sentence is to be found in the Contraventions Act. You're saying you would like to decriminalize. Madam Chair, if there's a way to decriminalize while still being in agreement with the three international conventions and while respecting as well the scheme of legislation we have in Canada, I'd like to hear about it.

    The other point you raised is the question of the mixed message vis-à-vis the fact that people will have access to a ticketing regime, would be forced to buy on the black market, and then allow for a plant or two or three as proposed by the committee.

    First, in our mind, we're not talking about legalization; therefore, the two make sense. On one hand, you're getting tougher on organized crime. On the other hand, you put in place a tool that you're going to be able to enforce, which we don't have now. We all have to admit that.

    But as I said earlier, if you have one proposal with regard to alternative penalties for one plant, two plants, three plants, I don't know, come forward and the department will react quickly. As I said, the aim and goal tonight is first of all to talk about the reform. You have my reform before you, and I'm here as a minister in order to hear your concerns and to know exactly where you would like to have some amendments. I will hear the concerns first, and then we'll see what we can provide you with in terms of amendments.

    The last point, Madam Chair, is the question of criminal background versus the question of information. It's two different things. It is clear that because the offence is in the Contraventions Act that you won't end up having a criminal background. I'm sorry, this is clear.

    But with regard to the management of information, this is something different. As I said to the member from the Bloc, if there's an amendment you'd like to propose in order to make sure that in any event, in any case, your case won't end up in CPIC, for example, I guess the department is ready and open to consider those amendments.

½  (1955)  

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Macklin

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

    I must admit, it was very interesting a few moments ago to hear that the Progressive Conservative Party is supportive of the comprehensive approach of the Senate, which in effect is legalization. I don't believe I had actually heard that before.

    The point tonight that I think is of concern is that when we look at testimony over the last while, certain things come to our attention that maybe, shall we say, are not necessarily coordinated, and that in the previous question, dealing with the actual cannabis in a refined form, if you wish, in a bag, and then the plants in live form, the penalties we are proposing in this particular bill simply don't seem to be equally fair for roughly the same amount, whether it's in the live plant or whether it's in the processed form. I guess the question this committee has been wrestling with and a lot of the witnesses have brought to our attention is, is there some way we might approach this such that it would appear that there might be in some way, based on the witnesses today, some alternative for those who would grow their own and to take away some of the financial rewards that right now seem to accrue to organized crime?

    Those witnesses we had today clearly pointed out, and as a matter of fact they gave, shall we say, conditional support to this bill, but they felt the conditional support should be that we should treat not only the product but also the plants in roughly the same way in our bill.

    Hon. Martin Cauchon: I find the comments very interesting.

    First of all, I would just like to draw to the attention of members around the table that when you look at the proposal we have made, a cultivation offence of one to three plants actually is a summary conviction offence in the bill as proposed at the present time, what we see as a maximum fine or in jail time, and of course the court can use discretion there. As I said, it's a maximum.

    You have talked about allowing the growth of one, two, or three plants. She has talked about that as well. Our colleague Mr. Marceau raised that point. If there is an amendment that members would like to propose, we would be willing to look at that solution as well.

    As I said earlier, what's important is to make sure we don't touch the philosophy of the bill, the principle of the bill, but we would be willing to have a look at any proposal you can come forward with.

¾  (2000)  

    Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: I think based on the witnesses today, who are truly advocates of legalization...but on their reflection of the political realities, they're saying if we could at least make some steps forward that were somewhat balanced, they felt that then they would likely be able to give more support to this bill than otherwise.

    The second issue that has seemingly surfaced as we've come through these witnesses has been the quantity, and particularly, I think, the police-emphasized quantity. That is, when you have what could be--although there are great arguments over the way in which one prepares the actual joint, whether it's thick or thin--the concept of having potentially up to 30 joints from 15 grams, I think we've gotten a sense that this seems to be maybe more than what would be acceptable for someone to have in their possession.

    I suppose that might be different if one was at home, but if one is out on the street, I think we got the impression that this was something they thought we should address. I don't know how you would approach it, but it certainly does seem to be a concern, and it has been expressed in many ways.

    Hon. Martin Cauchon: First of all, there's no scientific report that exists that would help me in fixing the 15 grams.

    Your report mentioned, Madam Chair, to the best of my recollection, 30 grams. What we did, essentially, was look at what took place elsewhere in the world. Some places talk about 100 grams; other places talk about 50 grams. I will look at the data that has been done, and in some, legislation goes back 20 years.

    We know that actually cannabis is stronger. A lot of comments have been made about that. So we decided to fix the amount at 15 grams. I believe actually it's a reasonable amount, and it's responsible as a government as well, knowing that the committee in its report recommended 30 grams.

    Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Another concern that has been expressed too is if someone had in their possession, let's say, two or three joints and chose to share one of those joints, how do you avoid the concept of trafficking that would flow, or at least appear in first instance—in other words, where you're giving without compensation?

    Hon. Martin Cauchon: You are referring essentially to the offence of trafficking the way it exists in the Criminal Code. Actually, in the reform we have before the committee, we don't deal with that offence of trafficking.

    I understand where you're coming from and your concern as well. I know that some members have raised that concern. It could be subject to a future amendment to the Criminal Code per se, but I don't believe we have to deal with that question within the existing reform.

    Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Another area that has come up is how we are communicating, to youth primarily, the way in which this drug ought to be treated. Based on witnesses' testimony, there seems to be in the eyes of the public, to some extent, the impression—but not necessarily on this issue—that maybe the government hasn't been as clear on many issues as it ought to be in terms of conveying to youth truly what the effects of drugs are and how they affect their health.

    I suppose the question is, although you have announced the drug strategy, how do you see implementing that in an effective and meaningful way, so that youth will truly respond in a way that would reflect a genuine interest in their own health?

¾  (2005)  

    Hon. Martin Cauchon: With regard to the amount we have invested in the renewal of the national drug strategy, Health Canada, Justice Canada, the Department of the Solicitor General, and other departments are working together to put in place all the details of that strategy.

    Of course, we will get involved in better information and better education, and we will get involved in the social programs that the provinces and territories may have. We will invest as well in research, and of course part of it will go for the question of law enforcement. But to provide you with the details of that tonight, I'm afraid the various departments involved are not to that point yet.

    I'm sorry, Madam Chair.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Macklin, you have one more minute if you want it.

    Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: My list is still here.

    The other issue that keeps coming up on a regular basis seems to be the question of impaired driving under a drug, and whether in fact we already have enough of a process in place, using our standard impaired driving section, to obtain convictions at the moment, or whether we must institute a drug identification process to be effective in the way in which we take impaired drivers from our roadways. I'd like to get some comments from you on where you think we should go in the area of impaired driving. I know you have a consultation paper out at the moment, but what are your feelings as to what we ought to do at this point, in terms of dealing with the drug-impaired drivers who obviously are there today in some form or other?

    The evidence that has come before us has indicated that in fact, to some extent, it is not just drugs by themselves, but it is a combination of drugs, cannabis, for example, and alcohol. How one deals with this is obviously a concern of the committee.

    As I say, it's not going to happen because of this bill, but rather, it already exists, and the question is, what steps are we going to take in order to effectively deal with this issue?

    Hon. Martin Cauchon: The member has raised a very important question, Madam Chair.

    First, the offence of drug-impaired driving is a criminal offence within the Criminal Code. It was a criminal offence, it is a criminal offence, and it will be a criminal offence.

    As you said, the question we're facing is the test. We all know that police forces, when they arrest people, can ask them to go through a physical test. In the case of drug-impaired driving, they cannot force people; it's not compulsory or within the code at the present time.

    I believe the cannabis reform has been good, in the sense that following the tabling of the reform, people really started to talk about the question of drug-impaired driving and really started to talk about the fact that we have to join together and look at developing a test.

    We talked at the last FPT meeting in Charlevoix about issuing a discussion paper for a consultation with provinces and territories and various stakeholders as well. We have tabled a consultation paper.

    When you look at the situation, actually, some tests exist that are in place in the States, the state of California, to be more precise. Another one has been tested in B.C. You essentially combine two components or elements: the first one is a physical test, and the second one is a sample, which would be a sample of saliva most of the time.

    As for the application and enforcement of such a test in Canada, we will see what the results of the consultation paper will be. Then afterwards we will make up our minds in regard to the feasibility of such a test here in Canada. But it has been proven to be efficient in the States, and it has been tested in B.C. as well. Of course, on the day we decide to proceed with that, there will be various legal components as well, including the question of privacy, of course. We will need some training for our police forces. We're there, as I believe cannabis reform has really sped up the process on that side.

    We do understand those who are saying it's important to make sure police forces will have a valid tool that they will be able to enforce as soon as they can. We understand that, and we do act on that side, Madam Chair.

¾  (2010)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Macklin, and M. Cauchon.

    Mr. Sorenson, for five minutes.

    Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Mr. Minister, for being here today.

    In your presentation you said the message is clear that no one should be using marijuana. I believe that was what you said. However, I would argue that case, that the message isn't clear. And I think you've heard from fairly well everyone on the committee tonight, other than the government side, that the message isn't clear. It's mixed messages. It's different messages.

    I can tell you what is clear. What is clear over the last six or eight months is that marijuana use is up. It's up in high schools; it's up in junior high schools. I spoke to some individuals from high schools and they said, “Yes, of course, we're smoking more marijuana.” We saw it on the news the other night. They're smoking more marijuana, because hasn't it been legalized? The messages are being mixed.

    I spoke to a member of Parliament today and he said he consulted with some of their principals. The principals again admitted that marijuana use over the last eight months is up, and the reason is that the government is saying now it's all right.

    The message isn't clear. First of all, it isn't clear to our committee. We have had a committee that has met. In the last couple of weeks we have been trying to push through as much as we can. In some cases we don't have the numbers of witnesses we would like to see.

    We wanted to hear from the real estate people because of the grow-operation problem across this country. Again, we gave them a few days' notice and they weren't able to be here to make the message clear to us.

    We wanted to hear from the Americans in regard to the trade implications and what this might mean for the border. Again, the timelines were drawn such that they couldn't be here.

    Instead, we have had libertarians and many people who support the legalization of marijuana here telling us that there is no harm to marijuana use.

    Even tonight, Mr. Minister, you suggested it is harmful, that no one should be using marijuana.

    It's not clear, Mr. Minister, because we do not have a national drug strategy that is implemented, that is in place. We don't have the allocated dollars for education, for prevention, for enforcement, for treatment, and for rehabilitation in that drug because it hasn't been implemented yet. So until we have a national drug strategy that's in place, you cannot have a clear message put forward for Canadians to understand.

    In your presentation you talked about the university student who was perhaps trying marijuana, or smoking a joint or two, and how this would allow him not to have a criminal record. That's not what this bill is really about. This bill is not simply about not leaving that university student with a record. It goes far beyond that.

    This bill talks about cultivation. Now, tonight Mr. Macklin says we should be encouraging pot smokers to grow their own because it may hurt organized crime. Basically, that's what Mr. Macklin is saying. He says we have to hurt organized crime. Hopefully, some of these will be growing their own. It's mixed messages again.

    There have been a number of questions regarding the police associations. We know where the police associations stand; they're opposed to this. The Canadian Police Association has been very clear, in an open letter to the Prime Minister, suggesting the many different concerns they have.

    I still don't believe we have answered the question about legislation and the tools for the law enforcement agents to deal with roadside testing by those who are impaired by this drug, marijuana. So perhaps you could answer that.

    Tomorrow we go clause by clause, and you are here tonight to hear what the committee members have to say. My suggestion is this. If you are indeed bent on moving forward with Bill C-38 and decriminalizing...and I know you don't like that term, but at least not having a criminal record for those who use small amounts; let's move that amount from the 15 to 30 grams to 5 grams. That is, in effect, five to eight or nine joints of marijuana. Let's lower the threshold to five grams of marijuana.

¾  (2015)  

    Let's make the fines substantive enough that they would be a deterrent.

    Mr. Minister, the question my colleague from the Conservative Party asked in regard to what happens if they don't pay is something this committee has heard about. We have heard it before, last spring, where people have said: “We will flood the courts. We will not pay. We'll organize a campaign where there may be 5,000 people who go out with pot. We'll flood the courts. We won't pay a dime.”

    How are you going to collect?

    The Chair: You're at your five minutes.

    Mr. Kevin Sorenson: The chair cut me off, Mr. Minister, but if you would respond--

    The Chair: No. Let the record show you're at 5 minutes and 25 seconds.

    Hon. Martin Cauchon: It was a long statement, and it's not over yet.

    Mr. Kevin Sorenson: The reason it was a long statement was I noticed how you worked it with Mr. White when he would ask a small question and then there'd be a six-minute response. I wanted to get some of this forward to you and then give you a chance.

    An hon. member: Once bitten, twice shy.

    Hon. Martin Cauchon: You just asked a 5-minute question and you're going to have a 30-minute answer. Madam Chair will just cut me off.

    The Chair: Yes, really, I'll cut you both off.

    Hon. Martin Cauchon: Let's start at the beginning, maybe at the question of the increasing use of marijuana. With all due respect, colleague, if you have a look at the stats, the increase in use started years ago. If you have a look at the last five years, for example, the use has increased at, let's say, 10% per year, without the existing reform. It has increased 10% per year with the bill, with the legislation that is actually in place.

    I believe we send a clear message. I believe that compared to the status quo, the government showed the right direction. Again, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that if you look at the report you have tabled as a committee, this is in a nutshell the road map you were asking the government to follow. Of course, there are some distinctions, but the road map is about the same.

    You've been talking as well about consultation with the United States. I would like to tell you I'm a proud Canadian minister, the justice minister of this country. What I'm doing, I'm doing for Canadians, for our society. Of course, if the ticketing regime we would like to put in place is that bad, I believe they will probably start to look at the 10 states or so that have a ticketing scheme in place as well. That's my belief. But having said that, it's not my role to comment on what's taking place in the United States; it's my role to comment on what's taking place here.

    When I look at the existing legislation and what we are doing as a country, I believe the message we send as a country doesn't make any sense at this point in time. You said earlier that since there's no drug strategy we shouldn't move ahead with the legislation. In other words, you're telling Canadians we have a piece of legislation in place--let's refer to it as the status quo--and we know the status quo doesn't work, that most of the kids get away with a verbal warning, but never mind, we're not interested in having a look at the legislation. Let's proceed with the national drug strategy, put it in place first.

    We're proceeding with both at the same time, and with all due respect, I believe it's about time that we, as Canadians, moved ahead with a piece of legislation that makes sense. We should stop closing our eyes on a problem and a question that is key for our country.

    I believe, Madam Chair, that this legislation is the right answer. This legislation has been crafted based on your quite excellent and eloquent report, Madam Chair.

¾  (2020)  

    Mr. Kevin Sorenson: Nobody else believes this bill makes sense.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Thank you, Mr. Sorenson.

    Hon. Martin Cauchon: I'm not done yet.

    Mr. Kevin Sorenson: Do I have a little time left?

    The Chair: It's a 5-minute round; we're at 10 minutes.

    Hon. Martin Cauchon: I said 30 minutes; that was just 5 minutes.

    The Chair: You're out of time. You'll get another round.

    Hon. Martin Cauchon: I answered Mr. Macklin on drug-impaired driving. I will repeat the answer because it seems you just didn't understand what I said previously. I said I believe the reform will speed up the process on that side.

    We already started to talk about that when we tabled the reforms. There are some tests we can use in it. There's a consultation process in place. People want us to act quickly on that side. We will act quickly. In putting in place a new test--because we will have to go through amending legislation as well--we will have to train our police forces as well, which we will do.

    The Chair: Thank you. Thank you very much.

    Monsieur Barrette, pour cinq minutes.

[Translation]

    Mr. Gilbert Barrette (Témiscamingue, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

    Good evening.

    There is one aspect that I would like to emphasize in particular. This may have been brought up already, but not to my knowledge. Mr. Sorensen touched on this point earlier a little bit.

    I spent part of my life in schools, with young adolescents. One thing that bothered me and that took a great deal of my time and energy was monitoring students and preventing drug use and drug dealing. It is not easy for the school administration, for the children, for those around the child or for the parents. In many cases, it was the school that informed the parents that their child was using.

    What I am particularly interested in is knowing what type of program will be developed for prevention, information and education on the topic, for both children and parents. I would like to have more information on that. At the same time, it would be easier for us to let people know about the benefits of this measure. I agree that the current system ties everyone's hands. We know that there are things happening and we can tell because use is increasing, but it is difficult to act constructively to decrease and in particular to prevent the use of these products.

    Hon. Martin Cauchon: Madam Chair, I agree completely with my colleague. I had an opportunity to read some of the testimony that has been given before this committee, in which people talked about the importance of emphasizing the whole issue of prevention, education and research in this area. I think that those are key aspects. But it is important to me, as Minister of Justice, to move ahead with legislative amendments in parallel with Canada's Drug Strategy, which has not been renewed for a number of years. That is why we announced a $240 million investment at the same time.

    Right now, as I explained earlier, the departments concerned are developing the details and the approach. It goes without saying that the three main aspects I have just mentioned will be the key aspects, in addition to law enforcement by the police. This will be done through existing social programs in the provinces and through cooperation, but once again, as I explained earlier, it is still too early in the process for me to be able to give you the details of the strategy that is expected to be disclosed later.

    Mr. Gilbert Barrette: I have one last question.

    How do you see the role of police officers in the implementation of this?

    Hon. Martin Cauchon: That is a broad and interesting question.

    I would use the example of my riding of Outremont. I have had the opportunity on a number of occasions—and most recently three weeks ago—to meet with the police chief for my area of the city of Montreal. The work of police officers has obviously changed over the years. They are increasingly involved in their community. They take part in various events in the communities where they work and they also try to put a great deal of emphasis on prevention by being in contact with the various groups in the district they are responsible for. So we are talking about crime prevention by a police force that has a more social and human dimension, I would say, and when I look at the results I think that they very clearly speak for themselves. Increased understanding on both sides gives better results.

    In my opinion, we are working toward that kind of police force and I think, knowing the results we have already achieved in Montreal, that society will benefit.

¾  (2025)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Mr. Marceau, you have five minutes.

    Mr. Richard Marceau: Thank you, Madam Chair.

    Minister, I was very pleased to hear you demolish certain myths about the United States in your introductory remarks. You were referring to certain States in the U.S. that had adopted a system similar to the one that you are proposing in Bill C-38, and I gathered—correct me if I am wrong—that you were holding California up as an example.

    Am I mistaken, or is that what you did say?

    Hon. Martin Cauchon: There are a certain number of states, including California, that do have a system like the one being proposed here. I would not say that they are exactly the same as this one, because even if we took the system in southern Australia, for example, it is not exactly the same. But the underlying logic is the same.

    Mr. Richard Marceau: That is what I had understood. You said that California had established, adopted or set up a system of fines for quantities up to 28.5 grams, and that seems to be a place—in any case, you cited California as a place where it was working well—where this quantity of 28.5 grams was appropriate. Why then would the proposal here be to lower the quantity below which a fine would apply from 30 grams, as suggested by the committee, to 15 grams, or perhaps even 10 grams, when amendments are introduced in clause-by-clause consideration tomorrow?

    Hon. Martin Cauchon: First of all, in the United States, each state has its own legislation. In California, there is a law that sets out a system of fines, but the federal government still has legislation that does not include fines. So if you are arrested by a state trooper, the law that will be in force will probably be the state law. If it is a federal officer, the federal law will probably be applied. But I am not an expert in American law and I do not want to get into those details. The law in California was passed in 1976, I believe. So if the amount was established at 28.5 grams in 1976, when the product was much weaker, that aspect has to be taken into account today when we are setting our limits here.

    Your committee recommended 30 grams. There are other places in the world that we can use for comparison purposes. In some places the limit is 100 grams, and in other states the amount is much higher, but as I explained before, there are no scientific studies. We have tried to draw a reasonable and responsible line.

    Mr. Richard Marceau: One point brought out by this committee, in its first incarnation, was that a kind of regional disparity existed, under which police officers had a greater tendency to close their eyes in major urban centres, but were less likely to do so in more rural areas.

    Does giving police officers discretion over whether to issue a fine or use a summary conviction procedure not give them too much latitude?

¾  (2030)  

    Hon. Martin Cauchon: That is an interesting question. I explained earlier, Madam Chair, that there are basic policy aspects that reflect our approach and our philosophy and that must remain. I believe that it is fundamental today that we have legislation in force that is in keeping with social realities, that reflects where we are as a country. In my opinion, the fine portion, in which there is no discretion allowed, is a major aspect that must remain, in order, first of all, to prevent people from having a criminal record, and second, to ensure that the law is applied in a uniform way. As you already mentioned, things are done in a certain way in major centres; the approach is different in rural areas. I know that with a system of specific fines the situation is clear.

    It should be kept in mind as well that, when the quantity is between 15 and 30 grams, police officers can use their discretion and their judgment to decide whether to issue a fine or use a summary conviction procedure.

    Mr. Richard Marceau: That very point has been raised a number of times at this committee. You are certainly aware that it is this discretionary power for amounts of between 15 and 30 grams that poses problems for many people.

    Hon. Martin Cauchon: Would you repeat your question, please?

    Mr. Richard Marceau: Yes, of course.

    When the amount is between 15 and 30 grams, as you just said yourself, police officers may use their discretion. Some people have raised this issue before the committee and have expressed serious reservations because they feel that that provision gives police officers far too much discretionary power.

    Hon. Martin Cauchon: We need to be careful. There is a basic policy here; I have explained it. When the amount is between zero and 15 grams, the mechanism is clear when we are talking about a fine system. There are people who feel that the amount should be lower. We will see what amendments you propose, but I feel that it is important to retain the basic philosophy of having only a fine for the lowest amount.

    For the higher amount, the police officers out there today are experienced people. They know what the reality is, and they also have considerable legal knowledge. Moreover, they are perfectly capable, in my opinion, of making that judgment. So as soon as we are talking about a reasonable and responsible amount, that is, between zero and 15 grams, we are within the realm of the government's policy of not punishing people with a criminal record. For the higher amount, police officers use their discretion, which I also feel is perfectly appropriate.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Ms. Allard.

    Ms. Carole-Marie Allard (Laval East, Lib.): For those of us who have been studying this issue for several months, Minister, it is true that this is frustrating, because we have seen situations on the streets of this country that made us fear the worst for our young people, and we tabled our report several months ago. A drug strategy was announced in June, but once again we find ourselves with nothing. However, at the same time, drug use is growing. So I confess that as Vice-Chair of the Special Committee, I am feeling rather discouraged. I think we got off to a bad start in the area of prevention in this country. We allowed marijuana use for people with terminal illnesses, we had the Senate report, which contributed to the confused message about marijuana, and I think it is time we sent out a message about the illegality of this substance. In that regard, I think your bill is welcome, because we need to set the record straight and say that marijuana is illegal. I am convinced that in the case of many young people, when they are given a ticket, they will be surprised to find out that marijuana is illegal. For too many years now, we have really not focused our message on the illegality of the substance.

    But my point, Minister, is that I think one of the problems with your bill is that you are concentrating our limited police resources on finding grow ops, people who are growing marijuana on a big scale. I think hard drugs are the real problem.

    At a round table in my riding, in Laval, I have in fact had confirmation that this was the major problem. Police officers focused on finding marijuana grow ops and allowed hard drugs to proliferate. The result is that more and more people are using cocaine, crack and heroin. That is really a very serious problem.

    I'm afraid that the message you're sending out once again, is that the police should target marijuana grow ops, and this will mean, because of their limited resources, that they will focus on that and once again there will be a proliferation of hard drugs in Canada. This makes me fear the worst, Minister.

    Recently, judges have sent us a very clear message. They told us that we could not allow marijuana use for medical reasons without having a supply for the people who need the drug. I'm therefore wondering where we are headed with this coercive approach against large-scale grow ops. I think the challenge is definitely to ensure that young people and others no longer have to turn to organized crime to obtain their supplies. In that regard, I think we are missing the boat if we do not provide for a little latitude in this regard in the bill.

    I would therefore like to ask you the following question: are we not misleading people when we tell them that the police will be targeting marijuana producers? That is not the real problem. People who are used to smoking up will have to obtain their supplies, and if growing a few plants at home is a crime, then they are going to have to turn to organized crime.

¾  (2035)  

    Hon. Martin Cauchon: First of all, what we are doing is changing the way we deal with cannabis; we are not examining other drugs right now. Basically, we are looking at the whole issue of marijuana. That being said, we are taking steps to ensure that the police will have the tools they need, more effective tools, so that they can send out the right message. I have said this several times. This also holds true for the people involved in grow operations, but you are raising other problems, notably hard drugs.

    We are not in the business of managing police resources. The police officers that I see are extremely competent people who do good work, who are aware of what it is like in the field, who are very familiar with crime and know how to organize their operations. These reforms will provide them with an additional tool, but at the same time, these police officers deal with the whole spectrum of criminal activity and distribute their resources accordingly. So we are not the ones managing all of that and I trust the police departments to do so. I think that they are already doing excellent work. Furthermore, all of this comes under provincial jurisdiction.

    That being said, I understand, since this has been suggested by several individuals, that it is being suggested that, in the case of a limited number of plants, this situation come under alternative measures, as is the case for simple possession for personal use. The message is clear. Tell us what your amendment is and tomorrow, we will get back to you quickly, during clause-by-clause consideration, to let you know what our thoughts on the matter are.

    Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

    The Chair: Mark, you have five minutes.

[English]

    Mr. Inky Mark: Thank you, Madam Chair.

    I have the same train of thought as Madame Allard. The fact of the matter is that this bill will create even greater confusion in terms of the use of marijuana.

    First, you know there's going to be a greater demand right off the bat certainly for youth. The problem in this country is who is the supply? The supply is an illegal source, which is the criminal element. The irony of this whole thing is that we have a drug strategy, which costs up to $1 billion a year. We're going to end up perhaps with another strategy to collect fines. I don't know how many hundreds of million dollars that will bring in. Then we still have this organized criminal element we still have to fight. If you want to lead, lead. You want to change the culture, but the current system in your bill is really a lose-lose for everybody.

    So why not examine the Senate proposal and really do the rational thing, which is to control the criminal element, control the supply, and manage it properly, like alcohol, like gambling, like other vices in this country?

¾  (2040)  

    Hon. Martin Cauchon: The member has raised the question of increasing demand. If you look at what took place in southern Australia, I believe there's no such conclusion, if you look at the stats on that side and in other countries as well. I believe as well that countries that have implemented the ticketing regime have done a much better job in terms of enforcement and in terms of sending the message.

    In regard to talking about sending a clear message, the member has just said he is supporting the report of the PCs, which is to legalize, but at the same time, in a previous question, he was supporting doubling the sentence for second-time possession of a small amount of marijuana. I would like to know where he stands exactly vis-à-vis this issue, because on the one hand he supports legalizing and on the other hand he is supporting being tough on second-time offenders. I'd like the member to come back and be clear on the question.

    Mr. Inky Mark: Only because we're dealing with your bill, which is going to be a failure in the end. If you want to deal with the problem and not take a band-aid approach, which we know is not going to work, you need to clear the deck and deal with it decisively so that society is a winner and so are our youth.

    Hon. Martin Cauchon: It's not going to work. As I said, Madam Chair--I'll be quite short on this answer--we've seen the experiences of other countries. The experiences have been quite conclusive.

    And one more time, I would like to know exactly where the member stands: to legalize or to be tougher on those who are repeat offenders?

    Mr. Inky Mark: I stand on being a realist in terms of the problem in our society. Fix it properly, not with half measures.

    The Chair: Sitting on the fence won't do here.

    Mr. Inky Mark: No, I'm not sitting on the fence.

[Translation]

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Mr. Jobin, you have five minutes.

    Mr. Christian Jobin (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, Lib.): Mr. Minister, thank you for coming here this evening. I am very touched to have this opportunity to talk to you.

    I retained a few points from your statement. First of all, it is illegal; that's what we need to remember. Secondly, there are more severe punishments for large-scale grow operations. Thirdly, consumption is increasing among young people.

    Currently, there have been 50,000 incidents of simple possession, but only 25,000 of these incidents have led to a criminal record. So there are 25,000 young people who go back home, with their friends, thinking that they can smoke up without necessarily having a criminal record, that they can do as they like. However, under your bill, tickets would have been issued to 50,000 young people.

    When I look at your bill, the only thing I see is the title that the newspapers have had fun with. “The decriminalization of marijuana” is sending the people the message that it is no longer a crime to possess marijuana, where is it still illegal. So people who talk to me about this issue think that it is not an offence. And, in particular, they think that the message conveyed is illustrated by the example—we saw this the other day on television—of a school yard where you see young people smoking marijuana and the teachers and principals do nothing to these young people because they're saying that it's legal, that it is no longer illegal.

    I think that we need to inform the people. I do not know if you have envisioned a communication plan, but I find that the people are currently misinformed about this bill. The stakes are high. I think that we are headed in the right direction, but the people are currently misinformed.

    Hon. Martin Cauchon: You refer to the media, who have emphasized the decriminalization issue. I believe that we need to be realistic and we too must come clean on the subject because, at the very beginning, we used the term “decriminalization”. This was somewhat unfortunate. We should be talking about alternative measures, because the offence remains a criminal offence.

    That being said, do we need a better information campaign? Yes, when we carry out such a reform, an information campaign is fundamental. This could all be part of the National Drug Strategy. Earlier we talked about education, information, research. I think that all of these aspects could be part and parcel of the National Drug Strategy.

    Mr. Christian Jobin: I have a second question. You talked about large-scale marijuana production. In my region, many farmers are concerned by this problem. I think that the underlying problem is that the marijuana grown, particularly in Quebec, is of high quality. Increasingly we are finding cornfields where half of the area is being used to grow marijuana. I do not know what type of action you take nor how much money you are spending on these efforts, but, ultimately, we need to do something to curtail the problem of large-scale production.

    What action has your government taken to deal with large-scale production? You said that you are going to provide the police with better resources and more money to really come to grips with large-scale production. I do not know whether you have an action plan for dealing with large-scale production.

¾  (2045)  

    Hon. Martin Cauchon: We have to be careful. As I explained, I do not manage the police departments. First of all, it is the Solicitor General who is responsible for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and all the provinces, with their own police departments, have this responsibility as well. We have a lot of money for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police as part of the National Drug Strategy which has just been renewed. It is, therefore, up to them to manage their resources based on these realities, and these are competent people. We have complete confidence in them.

    That being said, as for the message we are conveying in terms of grow operations, look at the new sanctions: for operations involving more than 50 plants, the penalty is double.

    You also raised an interesting point. One of the problems that we are dealing with, particularly in Quebec—what you said is true— is that the farmers are watching organized crime use their fields to grow cannabis. We see this everywhere, every summer. So, not only have we doubled the penalty, we have also included criteria so that if such criteria are present in a given case file and the judge decides not to impose a prison sentence, he will have to justify his decision, thereby sending a very clear message to the court as to the serious nature of the violation. And one of these criteria is precisely the use of someone else's land, in this case a situation that various farmers in Quebec are facing.

    Mr. Christian Jobin: Thank you, Mr. minister.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Madam Davies, you have five minutes.

[English]

    Ms. Libby Davies: Yes, thank you.

    I have one brief follow-up. A lot of people, especially the lawyers, raised the whole issue of how the criminal law process itself has been very harmful to people, more than the drugs in many cases. I think you have a recognition of that. There are hundreds of thousands of Canadians, I think about 600,000, who already have a conviction for simple possession.

    One of the things we're interested in is whether you are open to the idea that there could be some provision whereby people could have these convictions erased, not necessarily through the pardon system that presently exists. We have heard from several people that it's actually not a very good system. I know you can come up with all kinds of reasons why this couldn't be done, but I'm really interested as to whether or not you agree that the idea as a principle would be something that could be examined to find a practical way of dealing with prior convictions, so that people don't continue to be impacted by their conviction for simple possession.

    Hon. Martin Cauchon: The question you raise seems to be quite simple, as you said, but you know very well it's not a simple question; it's a very complex issue you're raising here.

    If we start to deal with that, we should start to have a look as well at whether there is any other conviction on the side. Are we talking about just one offence? Do we have a track record of all that in each and every province and territory? It's a very complex issue you're raising that has been drawn to our attention many times.

    Tonight I just want to tell you that I don't have any answers to provide you. The department is looking at that. But it would be quite complicated for the justice system to do what you would like us to do on the point you have just raised. I don't have any answers at the present time. The department is working on that. It's a very complex issue. That's all I can say.

[Translation]

    The Chair: Mr. Lee, you have five minutes.

[English]

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

    Well, we have certainly addressed the issue of semantics, Minister, and I guess the Progressive Conservative Party and the Canadian Alliance Party are going to have a lot of fun putting their policies together whenever, because the Progressive Conservatives in the Senate have opted for legalization. We will see where that goes.

    But, Minister, the bill as it's currently structured does not legalize. It doesn't even end prohibition of any amount of possession. It simply moves a piece of the spectrum of small-amount marijuana possession out of the Criminal Code and into the Contraventions Act. It streamlines the prosecution, essentially standardizes it, and it means we don't have to use the cumbersome and expensive Criminal Code procedures when we're dealing with small-amount possession. We don't have this messy business of overhanging criminal records for a small amount possession lingering on and on. That was one of the purposes of the bill.

    What we haven't done in this bill is deal with the small-amount possession when it involves a plant. What the bill doesn't do is unhitch in any way, disconnect in any way, the small-amount possession, which we're dealing with, from organized crime. I submit we could if we applied the same kind of penalty to the small-amount plant possession as we have for small-amount marijuana possession. In that way, if someone were determined to be in breach of our prohibition and possess a small amount of marijuana, they could do so and be subject to small-amount penalties for possession of small amounts and for a plant or two.

    That would be consistency, but it would also have the additional benefit of potentially unhitching, disconnecting, that small-amount user who is in breach of our law from organized crime. They don't have to go to the black market. The big boys wouldn't be happy with that kind of an amendment to this law because it would be removing a customer from them.

    I would be happy with that kind of an amendment and I think it would be consistent with the philosophy of the bill, so I hope you'll consider that—not you, but I guess the committee is going to consider it. In effect, you'll be a spectator here tomorrow. In any event, I hope the government will be cooperative in assisting in the generation of any amendments that may come forward. If any colleagues here are interested—I saw a couple of heads nod; I know Mr. Marceau has an amendment to that effect—I'm happy to work with them. Does that sound fair to you?

¾  (2050)  

    Hon. Martin Cauchon: I am very open to looking at the amendment.

    Mr. Derek Lee: Okay.

    Hon. Martin Cauchon: The second point goes to the first point you raised, and I'd like to get a bit technical here, to be very precise with committee members.

    We put the sanction into the Contraventions Act. We have agreements with six provinces, to the best of my recollection. We will negotiate the agreements with those provinces and of course we will negotiate agreements with the provinces we haven't signed any agreements with so far.

    So we'll try to sign agreements with 10 provinces to use the Contraventions Act regime, providing the court process you just referred to.

    We believe we will be able to sign agreements with the provinces, but in the event we would be unable to do so, people will have to go through the court process. But based on the fact that the sanction is in the Contraventions Act, they would end up having exactly the same sanction as a ticket.

    Mr. Derek Lee: Okay, I hear that. We'll also sleep on that one this evening.

    There is one small point I would raise. Section 253 of the code is the impaired driving section. It refers to impairment by alcohol or a drug. We've had evidence from witnesses that part of the problem now, even before we amend this law, is the combination of alcohol and a drug.

    So we have a real challenge here in figuring out how to test for drugs, because marijuana is not the only drug that's involved in impairment. The code refers to alcohol or a drug; we may need an amendment to the code so that it says alcohol and/or a drug or define alcohol as a drug.

    I just mention that because if we're going to develop a test, we have to recognize that there may be a phenomenon related to mixing a drug, of whatever nature, and alcohol when it comes to driving.

    I'll just leave that with the department. This bill doesn't go there, but it has come up as an issue.

¾  (2055)  

    Hon. Martin Cauchon: Just to go back to the question of drug-impaired driving, the reason it's so complex is that cannabis can last in your blood, as you know, depending on who you talk to, between 15 to 20 days. You can detect it in your blood for 15 to 20 days. So it makes a test for drug-impaired driving quite complicated to put in place. That's why what we're looking at, at the present time, in our discussion paper is a blend of both a physical test and at the same time, as I said, a sample of saliva.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. White.

    Mr. Randy White: Thank you, Madam Chair.

    I guess I've listened to this for the better part of two years now, and I wonder what we are going to achieve with the whole drug problem in this country. Coming from an area that has a lot of drugs, I do wish we could resolve some of these things. But when I look at Bill C-38 from a practical point of view, and with all the things we've heard, I hear we'll have fines that many say are not going to be paid. We have maximum penalties when minimums are the order of the day in the courtroom. Regardless of the message you think you're going to send, I just don't believe the judges are going to pay a lot of attention to it. We have fines, many of which are lower than seat belt fines. We have an attitude--I think today or yesterday many said they'll break the law anyway; they don't care what you put in Bill C-38.

    I don't recall seeing any anti-drug laws in years. I'm sure small and large grow-ops will continue to exist, regardless of what is in Bill C-38. I think we'd be naive to think they'll not. And, really, even the medicinal marijuana process isn't working all that well.

    The two worst offenders in the national drug strategy that we were looking at for botching up the whole job were actually CSC and Health Canada--I think my colleagues would admit to that--yet we gave all the money to those two departments, which really boggles one's mind.

    I can't help but be pessimistic about the success of Bill C-38 in terms of actually making a difference on the street. You'd have to go a long way to convince me it will.... Maybe you should give it a try now.

    Hon. Martin Cauchon: I believe as a country, knowing what's taking place, knowing about the increasing use of cannabis, we would all agree we cannot afford to keep the status quo. I guess we'd all agree with that.

    Mr. Randy White: I think we can all agree on that.

    Hon. Martin Cauchon: We all agree as well that we should be working to be able to send and enforce the message we want to send: that it was, it is, and it will be illegal in Canada, and as a matter of fact it will still be a criminal offence.

    Taking that into consideration, and the fact that there's an increasing use of cannabis in our society--a lot of people use, about 100,000 people, on a daily basis--I believe if we want to make sure we put in place a good system that will indeed send the right message and not do what we're doing now as a society, that is to say, just giving them a verbal warning, the cannabis reform you have before you is the solution--a reform that has been crafted, as I said many times, on the basis of your report. You were part of that report. Of course, there was some preoccupation on your side in regard to a few elements, for example, the question of the number of grams. But the basic regime you voted for and supported is essentially the same. And when you look at the cannabis reform you have before you, with all due respect, I tell you it's exactly the same road map that we have put in place.

    Having said that, we want to make sure we will do a better job as a country. We have tabled our cannabis reform. I said to all committee members that we are open to amendments, but please bring forward your concerns, as you did tonight, during that exercise. I believe it was a very valuable exercise, and we're going back with good ideas about what you would like us to do in terms of amendments for the clause-by-clause tomorrow. I'm sure tomorrow we're going to be able to work together to strengthen this bill and to make sure that as a country we do a better job.

    Madam Chair, thanks.

¿  (2100)  

    Mr. Randy White: At least consider the fact that we were on the committee last time, that we agreed with everything in it, and when you ask your friend next to you the next time, you should ask him about the minority report that was in that other report.

    How fast do you anticipate this moving through the House of Commons?

    Hon. Martin Cauchon: I don't control all the processes, as you know, but I hope if we move clause-by-clause tomorrow and it goes back to the House for the report stage, I'd like to be able to pass all the readings that we have to pass in the House and send it to the Senate. That's my aim and goal.

    I may be optimistic, but I believe we can do it if we work together. I believe it's important for our country to pass this bill.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Dr. Fry, quickly.

    Ms. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.): When you come in at the very end, everybody has said everything in six different ways and you don't even know what you're going to say. But I wanted to say something.

    I feel that everyone here has said cannabis is bad. Sure, but it's no worse for you than alcohol and cigarettes, so let's put that into perspective. For me, the biggest issue about cannabis currently is that it is prohibited and there is organized crime, which we see has always occurred where there is prohibition. So if we wanted to deal with organized crime, the simplest thing to do would obviously be to legalize and control the drug in the same way we do with alcohol. We can't do that because of conventions. I wanted to put that on the record, so we can move on now.

    I have some concerns about the issues with regard to cultivation, but I think Derek Lee and Richard Marceau have an amendment that I will probably support, because I think it's important to take away the business from organized crime if you're going to deal with simple possession in a particular way and allow for certain amounts of cultivation. So I agree with that.

    Some people have talked about an issue that does concern me, and that is impairment. I don't know why we're getting hung up on whether or not we would have different sanctions for being impaired under cannabis or being impaired under anything else. Everyone talks about “alcohol and other drugs”. Alcohol is a drug, so let's not say alcohol and drugs. Alcohol is a drug, so let's put that on the table as well.

    If we deal with alcohol or any other impairment, how do you know somebody is impaired? If they're driving erratically, you get them out, you get them to walk in a line, you do all those little physical tests and you know they're impaired. At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter what impaired them. The fact is, if they're impaired, you'll give them some sort of penalty for being impaired and in control of a motor vehicle, because it can kill people.

    I think we should simply stick to the same kinds of penalties for any kind of impaired driving, regardless of what impairs the driver. Then we get out of all this trouble of saying, “Can I test your saliva? Do I need to test your saliva? Do I need to take your blood, or whatever?” I think we should deal with all impaired driving in the same way.

    I suggest that we deal with repeat offences in the same way we deal with all repeat offences. If you've given somebody a fine and they don't pay the fine, or if you've given somebody fines over and over, you may want to look at certain sentencing, such as rehabilitation treatment, because then you're dealing with an addict, somebody who cannot stay off the stuff even if they get into trouble. So you may want to look at how to deal with that person, perhaps treatment, rehabilitation and socialization, etc.

    I don't know that we should get hung up on all of these repeat offenders and on impairment in any other way than we deal currently with impaired driving, whether it is by alcohol, cannabis, Valium, cough medicine, or whatever else gives you a problem if you try to operate a motor vehicle. I think it would simplify matters and would get everything down to a pretty clear and non-complicated level.

¿  (2105)  

    Hon. Martin Cauchon: I take all those points as comments made by the member.

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Minister Cauchon, Mr. Piragoff, and M. Saint-Denis. It has been very helpful for the committee to understand your perspectives on this issue. We wish you continued success in the work you do on behalf of Canadians.

    This meeting is adjourned.