SC38 Committee Meeting

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

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

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

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

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

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Monday, November 3, 2003

1105

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Canadian Alliance))

Mr. Jim Lee (Assistant to the General President for Canadian Operations, International Association of Fire Fighters)

1110

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Randy White)

Deputy Chief Mike Boyd (Toronto Police Service and Chair of the Drug Abuse Committee, Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police)

1115

1120

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Randy White)

Detective Superintendent Jim Hutchinson (Drug Enforcement Section, Investigation Bureau, Ontario Provincial Police and Member of the Drug Abuse Committee, Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Randy White)

Mr. Tony Cannavino (President, Canadian Professional Police Association)

1125

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Randy White)

Mr. Eugene Oscapella (Director, Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy)

1130

1135

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Randy White)

Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance)

1140

D/Chief Mike Boyd

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

D/Chief Mike Boyd

1145

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Randy White)

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

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

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

Mr. Tony Cannavino

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Tony Cannavino

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Tony Cannavino

1150

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Tony Cannavino

Mr. Richard Marceau

D/Chief Mike Boyd

Mr. Richard Marceau

D/Chief Mike Boyd

Mr. Richard Marceau

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

D/Chief Mike Boyd

1155

Mr. Richard Marceau

D/Chief Mike Boyd

The Chair

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin (Northumberland, Lib.)

D/Chief Mike Boyd

1200

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

D/Chief Mike Boyd

The Chair

Mr. Tony Cannavino

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Mr. Tony Cannavino

1205

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Mr. Tony Cannavino

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Mr. Tony Cannavino

The Chair

D/Chief Mike Boyd

The Chair

Mr. Eugene Oscapella

The Chair

Mr. Randy White

1210

D/Chief Mike Boyd

The Chair

Mr. Jim Lee

Mr. Randy White

The Chair

Mr. Eugene Oscapella

The Chair

Mr. Tony Cannavino

The Chair

Det Supt Jim Hutchinson

The Chair

Mr. Randy White

The Chair

D/Chief Mike Boyd

Mr. Randy White

D/Chief Mike Boyd

Mr. Randy White

The Chair

1215

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

The Chair

Mr. Derek Lee

D/Chief Mike Boyd

The Chair

Mr. Eugene Oscapella

The Chair

Mr. Derek Lee

D/Chief Mike Boyd

1220

Mr. Derek Lee

Mr. Tony Cannavino

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Tony Cannavino

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Tony Cannavino

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Tony Cannavino

1225

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Tony Cannavino

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Tony Cannavino

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Tony Cannavino

Mr. Richard Marceau

The Chair

Mr. Gilbert Barrette (Témiscamingue, Lib.)

Mr. Tony Cannavino

1230

Mr. Gilbert Barrette

Mr. Tony Cannavino

The Chair

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

The Chair

Mr. Inky Mark

The Chair

Mr. Tony Cannavino

The Chair

D/Chief Mike Boyd

Mr. Jim Lee

Mr. Eugene Oscapella

The Chair

Professor Allan Young (Osgoode Hall Law School)

1245

1250

The Chair

Mr. Lawrie Palk (Co-Chair, Brantford Drinking and Driving Countermeasures Committee)

1255

The Chair

Mr. Andrew Murie (Executive Director, Mothers Against Drunk Driving)

1300

1305

The Chair

Mr. Randy White

Prof. Allan Young

Mr. Randy White

Mr. Lawrie Palk

Mr. Andrew Murie

Mr. Randy White

Prof. Allan Young

Mr. Lawrie Palk

Mr. Andrew Murie

1310

Mr. Randy White

Prof. Allan Young

Mr. Lawrie Palk

Mr. Andrew Murie

Mr. Randy White

Prof. Allan Young

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

1315

Mr. Andrew Murie

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Andrew Murie

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Lawrie Palk

Mr. Richard Marceau

1320

Prof. Allan Young

Mr. Richard Marceau

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP)

Mr. Inky Mark

The Chair

Mr. Inky Mark

Prof. Allan Young

Mr. Inky Mark

Prof. Allan Young

1325

Mr. Inky Mark

Prof. Allan Young

Mr. Inky Mark

Prof. Allan Young

Mr. Inky Mark

Prof. Allan Young

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies

Prof. Allan Young

1330

Ms. Libby Davies

Prof. Allan Young

Ms. Libby Davies

Prof. Allan Young

Ms. Libby Davies

The Chair

Prof. Allan Young

The Chair

Mr. Derek Lee

Prof. Allan Young

1335

Mr. Derek Lee

Prof. Allan Young

Mr. Derek Lee

Prof. Allan Young

Mr. Derek Lee

Prof. Allan Young

1340

Mr. Derek Lee

The Chair

Mr. Gilbert Barrette

Prof. Allan Young

The Chair

Mr. Gilbert Barrette

Prof. Allan Young

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies

1345

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies

The Chair

Prof. Allan Young

The Chair

Mr. Inky Mark

Prof. Allan Young

Mr. Inky Mark

Prof. Allan Young

Mr. Inky Mark

Prof. Allan Young

Ms. Libby Davies

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies

Prof. Allan Young

Ms. Libby Davies

Prof. Allan Young

Ms. Libby Davies

Prof. Allan Young

1350

Ms. Libby Davies

Prof. Allan Young

Ms. Libby Davies

Prof. Allan Young

Ms. Libby Davies

Prof. Allan Young

The Chair

Mr. Derek Lee

Prof. Allan Young

Mr. Derek Lee

Mr. Andrew Murie

Mr. Derek Lee

Mr. Lawrie Palk

Mr. Derek Lee

Mr. Lawrie Palk

Mr. Derek Lee

Prof. Allan Young

1355

Mr. Derek Lee

Prof. Allan Young

The Chair

Mr. Andrew Murie

The Chair

Mr. Andrew Murie

The Chair

Mr. Andrew Murie

The Chair

Mr. Andrew Murie

The Chair

Mr. Andrew Murie

The Chair

Mr. Andrew Murie

The Chair

Mr. Lawrie Palk

The Chair

1400

Mr. Lawrie Palk

The Chair

Mr. Andrew Murie

The Chair

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Mr. Lawrie Palk

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

The Chair

CANADA

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

NUMBER 006

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Monday, November 3, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á (1105)

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Canadian Alliance)): Welcome to the Special Committee on the Non-medical Use of Drugs. We're looking at Bill C-38, pursuant to our order of reference of Tuesday, October 21, 2003. We are looking at an act to amend the Contraventions Act and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

I welcome colleagues to the meeting. We have some guests. It feels like old home week here, in some cases.

I want to introduce the International Association of Fire Fighters, Jim Lee, assistant to the general president for Canadian operations. Welcome, Jim. It's good to see you here.

We have the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, Mike Boyd, deputy chief of the Toronto Police Service, and Jim Hutchinson, detective superintendent, drug enforcement section, Ontario Provincial Police.

We have the Canadian Professional Police Association, Tony Cannavino, president. Tony, it's good to see you again.

And we have the Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy, Eugene Oscapella, the director. Eugene, how are you doing?

Gentlemen, we have the usual 10-minute round for each of you to give us your opinions on Bill C-38. I trust you have all read it and analysed it thoroughly a number of times by now. I don't suppose there is any particular order, but I can go in the order in which you were introduced, beginning with the International Association of Fire Fighters.

Jim, would you like to go ahead? We have about 10 minutes for each of you, and then of course we'll have a lot of questions to ask you, I'm sure, and you'll have some great answers for us.

Mr. Jim Lee (Assistant to the General President for Canadian Operations, International Association of Fire Fighters): Thank you very much.

Good morning. On behalf of the general president, Harold Schaitberger, and the 18,600 professional firefighters we represent in Canada, I appreciate the opportunity to be here this morning to provide the committee with some comments from the International Association of Fire Fighters about Bill C-38.

Just so you're aware, I was a firefighter in the city of Toronto for over 30 years. I've retired and now work full time for the International Association of Fire Fighters.

As an opening comment, I'm not going to provide a position on the depenalization of marijuana possession or on the greater philosophical questions about the recreational and other uses of marijuana. That's an issue for other groups to debate, and I will leave it to them. Besides, I am sure the committee has already listened to some very compelling arguments from both sides.

Rather, our interest on this issue is linked to a very real danger the firefighters face in relation to the cultivation of marijuana, which is addressed in the legislation before us. Specifically, my comments will apply to clauses 6 and 7 of the bill, which deal with the cultivation or production of marijuana and the setting of traps in areas used for production.

To state our position simply, places of cultivation pose a variety of dangers to firefighters, and the setting of traps in these places is a particular threat to us, so we certainly support any legislative initiative that would deter this activity. Therefore, we fully support the proposals of Bill C-38 that would increase the penalties for cultivation of marijuana, and particularly the proposal under subclause 7(2), which would require a court to consider the setting of a trap as a factor during sentencing for cultivation offences.

Police and the media across Canada tell us that the number of marijuana growing operations is skyrocketing and there is a growing incidence of traps found inside these illegal operations, traps designed to kill or maim anyone who interferes with the operation.

Why is this a threat to firefighters? Many of these operations use illegal hydro hookups, and as a result they are prone to starting fires. In fact, fires are common in these operations, which are often found hidden inside residential homes. When that happens, we're the first guys through the door, directly in the way of any kind of trap that may have been set.

There have indeed been cases of firefighters seriously injured by so-called booby traps at these drug operations. In Kelowna, British Columbia, in 1999 a firefighter received a severe electric shock while responding to a fire at a residence being used as a marijuana operation. Also in British Columbia, firefighters responding to a residence that turned out to be a marijuana operation found a crossbow mounted with a trip wire. Fortunately, it was not loaded at the time, because it was aimed at chest height.

In Brampton, Ontario, a firefighter was seriously injured after he fell through the floor into the basement of a residence being used as a marijuana grow operation. The floor boards beneath the windows had been cut away and a carpet was laid over the opening to conceal the danger.

The Canadian Press reported recently that a marijuana field in Nova Scotia was protected by shotguns, again, mounted with trip wires, and an individual was actually shot in the leg in that case.

There was also the case in Toronto earlier this year where a live, seven-foot alligator was found in the basement of a home being used to grow marijuana. In other cases, explosives are rigged to go off when a door is opened.

As I've noted, there have been a number of close calls, which leads us to believe that perhaps it will only be a matter of time before there's a tragedy involving a firefighter. In that regard, we are pleased to see this issue addressed through legislation before a tragedy occurs and not after.

Members of the committee may be familiar with Bill C-32, which is also before Parliament. This bill, among other things, increases Criminal Code penalties for setting a trap and creates the offence of setting a trap in a place kept for a criminal purpose. The IFF strongly supports Bill C-32, and we submit that Bill C-38 would serve to complement that proposal, thereby creating additional deterrents against the setting of traps in illegal drug operations.

If this legislative deterrent will make just one marijuana grower decide against setting a trap to protect their crop, then firefighters are already safer. If these deterrents significantly reduce the incidence of traps inside drug operations across Canada, then a new and critically important protection for firefighters has been achieved.

In conclusion, we encourage this committee, in the name of firefighter safety, to reflect positively on clauses 6 and 7 of Bill C-38.

I thank you again for the opportunity and I look forward to answering any questions you may have.

Á (1110)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Randy White): Thank you, Jim. If we do have questions, we'll get to you after all the other presenters have done theirs.

Mike.

Deputy Chief Mike Boyd (Toronto Police Service and Chair of the Drug Abuse Committee, Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police): Mr. Chairman, members of the special committee, my name is Michael Boyd. I'm the deputy chief of police in Toronto, and I'm also the chair of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police drug abuse committee.

I'm joined here today by Detective Superintendent Jim Hutchinson of the Ontario Provincial Police, also a member of the drug abuse committee.

Our association has worked with federal, social, and government agencies, along with community partners, for over ten years now, and more recently with our federal political leaders, to address Canada's problems flowing from or associated with the non-medical use of drugs.

The CACP respectfully submits that the proposed legislation needs to be reworked and the bill should be referred to the new Prime Minister. The bill is seriously flawed and will not help to minimize the harm to Canada and Canadian society in its present form. The perception is, of course, that the bill is being rushed through.

The CACP has four primary concerns that we would like to call to your attention today.

The first is the national drug strategy, which has been announced but has not yet been fully implemented. I'll speak more about that. Secondly, there are no options for a police officer to proceed beyond a caution or a ticket, and there is no recognition in the legislation for repeat offences. The third thing is the breakout of cultivation offences and their dispositions. The last one is the failure to implement legislative change for drug-impaired driving prior to the implementation of Bill C-38.

Canada's drug problems are the result of society's demand for illicit drugs, which is constantly being met by the supply of drugs. Simply put, the problem is one of supply and demand. Our association approaches this issue as we approach our work in problem-solving policing across the country.

From a problem identification perspective, we feel it's important to isolate both sides of the problem, the supply and the demand, so that Canada can develop separate sets of strategies designed to address those issues. But from a problem-solving perspective, we feel there is an imbalance of emphasis being placed on the criminal producers and suppliers of illicit drugs, relative to the emphasis being placed on those people responsible for the escalating demand of drugs, including cannabis. Bill C-38 in its present form only perpetuates that, in our opinion.

Canada is essentially fighting its escalating drug problems with both hands tied behind its back. To us, it makes no sense. We must all remember that as long as there is a demand for drugs, including cannabis, criminals and criminal organizations will take the risks and the profits associated with supplying illicit drugs, including cannabis.

When we attack the supply side of the problem, we have to take a three-pronged approach. To us, that means suppression and all of those strategies that move us forward to suppress the opportunity for drugs to be imported, produced, or trafficked. We must do everything we can to deter those involved in importing, producing, and trafficking drugs. Lastly, we must do everything we can to apprehend those people importing, producing, or trafficking drugs, including cannabis.

Of course, to attack the demand side of Canada's drug problems, we have long advocated a six-pronged, multifaceted approach to addressing Canada's drug problem, starting with prevention through awareness and education, and then by enforcement, because we won't catch it all through prevention. We need to move on our treatment front, what we are doing in Canada about rehabilitation and research. This is the multifaceted approach that we think Canada has to take in order to deal with the demand for drugs, which of course is driving the supply for drugs.

Our first concern is that while we were extremely happy to hear the government in late May announce the new national drug strategy—we were very pleased to hear that—the problem we find is that the drug strategy is a national one and not a federal one; the provinces have not yet been engaged; and the municipalities and the regions, while very interested, right at this moment couldn't tell you what the national drug strategy looks like. Things aren't in place. In fact, we know that some of the funding has been allotted, but the funding is not in place and the tools are therefore not in place as yet.

Á (1115)

Secondly, there is no option beyond the caution of the ticket and no recognition of the repeat offences.

Now I'll move quickly through our concerns about this.

For a police officer to deal with the possession of cannabis and be left only with the ticket...in some cases a ticket is the most appropriate way or one of the most appropriate ways to proceed, for example, on a first offence. But when there are repeat offences or there are extenuating circumstances involved in that possession, the ticket may be the most inappropriate way to deal with that particular drug situation.

We feel that the legislation needs to recognize repeat offences. We feel that it needs to recognize more alternative justice measures, in order for police officers to be helpful in solving community problems and to be dealing with problems around the use and the supply of cannabis.

I'll move further to the cultivation concerns we have.

Let me back up, if I can, and say that whatever the formula comes up with and whatever the array of alternative measures are, we entirely support ticketing—not by itself, but we support it as a measure. We would like to see more alternative justice measures employed.

We feel the consequences must be meaningful to the circumstances. They must be appropriate to the circumstances. The consequences, depending on the circumstances, must be graduated if there's going to be a deterrent effect from those offences, which we're not sure would be in place. In fact, we're absolutely convinced that would not be in place with the ticketing scheme only.

We are concerned about the changes in the cultivation. We believe it would be more effective if we had minimum sentences for some of the cultivation offences than what we are seeing in this country right now.

Jim Hutchinson is here and can respond to questions about the ridiculous sentences we are seeing out of the courts for huge cultivation operations and also for minimum cultivation operations. We think it's a serious concern, when we move into the growing of marijuana.

We say this because of the escalating change in home invasion robberies that we're seeing right across the country, and in fact in the violence we're seeing associated with grow operations. Even if I use the expression—which I don't like to use—“mom and pop” grow operations, we're seeing home invasion robberies and violence by other criminals just to get their hands on what you might deem to be the smaller grow operation set-ups. We think this is a very serious concern, although we understand why some people do not feel that on the surface.

The last thing I would like to focus on as a concern is that the changes necessary in the legislation for drug-impaired driving have not yet been implemented. This is a very large concern to the Canadian police community. I think you'll hear more about that as well from the other members. There is an escalating problem of drug-impaired driving on our streets and a lack of tools in place for our police officers to contend with this growing trend.

Based on one study, a Manitoba student survey, first of all, cannabis is the choice of drug for young people, and more young people are likely to toke and drive than they are to drink and drive. Of course, that's a huge problem for Canada. It's certainly a problem for Canadian police officers because we are ill equipped, at the moment, to have the legislative authority and the tools to be able to address that.

We need authorization and legislation to permit standard field sobriety testing for our officers, drug-recognition expertise testing, and also the authority, if required, to take a bodily sample in order to determine the presence of drugs in a driver's system.

Of course, we're also concerned largely about the high-risk offences that aren't being recognized within Bill C-38. We often ask ourselves whether we would like our airline pilots to be able to use cannabis in their work. Given that cannabis stays in the blood system longer than alcohol, we think it's a problem. We also think it's a problem for bus drivers and other operators of public transit and public safety. The legislation doesn't even speak to that.

Á (1120)

We believe there will be an escalation in the use of cannabis in this country. We would also be concerned if there were police officers who would be able to use cannabis before they start their tour of duty.

So there is a whole segment of high-risk occupations that we feel have not been addressed in Bill C-38, and we think this is an issue important to Canadians and important for us to mention here before the special committee.

I believe my time is up. I'll stop and await questions from the members.

Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Randy White): Thanks, Mike.

Jim, do you have anything to add to what Mike said?

Detective Superintendent Jim Hutchinson (Drug Enforcement Section, Investigation Bureau, Ontario Provincial Police and Member of the Drug Abuse Committee, Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police):

No, Deputy Chief Boyd has given the full presentation. I'm available for questions.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Randy White): The Canadian Professional Police Association, Tony.

[Translation]

Mr. Tony Cannavino (President, Canadian Professional Police Association): Good morning, my name is Tony Cannavino. I am the President of the Canadian Professional Police Association. For 31 years I have been a police officer with the Sûreté du Québec and for most of my service I have been involved with the drug squad and the suppression of organized crime.

The CPPA is the national organization representing 54,000 active police officers throughout Canada. Through our member associations, CPPA membership comprises police personnel in small towns and villages in Canada as well as the large municipal, provincial and federal police organizations.

The CPPA is happy to have this opportunity to appear today before the Special Parliamentary Committee on the Non-Medical Use of Drugs as part of the study on Bill C-38 on the decriminalization of marijuana.

[English]

Today our association joins forces with the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and MADD Canada in an ultimate effort to call on the government to end the race to pass Bill C-38, the marijuana bill. There are too many serious flaws in this bill, and the approach advocated by the government to deal with the plague of marijuana is altogether heading in the wrong direction.

In order to be more efficient, we have mutually agreed that I would address the issues related to grow operations, laboratories, and the need for adequate legislation and tools to deal with drivers on our highways who are impaired by drugs.

[Translation]

When it comes to hydroponic labs, the measures contained in Bill C-38 relating to the increasing numbers of such labs are inadequate and unsatisfactory.

At the present time it is estimated that there are over 50,000 such operations in Canada and most Canadian municipalities are faced with this problem. My two colleagues who spoke previously touched on this subject, drawing your attention to the drawbacks of the present situation, as well as the consequences and dangers.

Policemen assigned to the dismantling of hydroponic labs require specialized training and must be provided with specialized equipment to deal with the risks of electrocution, exposure to chemicals, traps and the likelihood that the occupant of the premises will be armed and dangerous.

In order to deal with the problem of the proliferation of hydroponic labs, police require deterrent measures such as stricter penalties. Once again, Bill C-38 fails to respond to the needs of the police.

First of all, there is no provision for a minimum sentence. Minimum sentences are required in order to underline the gravity of this criminal act. In this respect, the provincial ministers of Justice formulated recommendations similar to that of the federal Minister of Justice quite recently at a meeting in Charlevoix.

Secondly, for the hydroponic growing of fewer than 25 plants, maximum sentences are in fact reduced, in this way conveying to magistrates the message that marijuana is not a dangerous drug.

As for drug impaired driving, our police officers require laws and tools to take action against drivers whose faculties are impaired by drugs. Legislation dealing with this matter must precede any liberalization of our laws with respect to the use of marijuana.

We are disappointed by the refusal of the Minister of Justice to include such measures in Bill C-38. We also know that Mothers Against Drunk Driving, or MADD Canada, share our concerns on this matter. The police require laws, training and proper equipment to deal with situations where they have reason to suspect drug impaired driving.

Lastly, although the police are in favour of using alternate measures, it is our position that the police must maintain discretionary powers, that is the power to lay a criminal charge or to issue a ticket for any offence of possession, whatever the quantity involved, since this could be required by certain situations.

Bill C-38 is on the wrong track. Why the need for such haste? If you want to send out a clear message to our youth and convince them not to use marijuana, we call upon you to stop this race to pass Bill C-38. Instead, we recommend that you go ahead with a national strategy, an anti-drug program which will set out our priorities in the field of prevention and education with the appropriate focus on such activities.

Thank you. I'm now ready to answer your questions.

Á (1125)

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Randy White): Thank you, Tony.

The Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy, Eugene.

Mr. Eugene Oscapella (Director, Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to stress that we are a non-partisan organization. We're dedicated to looking for ways to make our drug laws effective and humane. My comments about this bill are not made in any partisan sense.

I would also like to recognize the open-mindedness of many of the committee members on this subject. My comments are not directed at them. My comments are directed at the government as a whole. My comments are blunt.

This bill in its present form is fundamentally and I hope fatally flawed. The most fundamental problem with the bill is that it fails to recognize the role of criminal prohibition in creating many of the harms associated with cannabis.

I want to go through some of those, Mr. Chair, just to reinforce that point. This is a very simple fact of economics. This is basic economics, Economics 101. Prohibit a substance that many people want and a lucrative black market arises. The economics of prohibition are a far more powerful force than any force that can be mounted in response by government to them. I continue to ask myself, what does this government not get about these simple economics of prohibition?

The National Post reported last week a confidential report by the RCMP talking about the growing problem of organized crime in Canada. What did the report say? The report said that the RCMP reports that the financial mainstay of each of these organized crime groups is drugs. We've known this for many years, that most criminal organizations in Canada get a substantial portion of their income from the drug trade. Why do they get that income from the drug trade? It's because of prohibition, plain and simple.

If prohibition ended, organized crime would quickly lose interest in most, if not all, of the trade in cannabis and in cannabis grow operations. The only reason organized crime is interested in cannabis is because our criminal laws prohibiting drugs create an enormously lucrative black market. Again I ask myself, Mr. Chairman, what does this government not get about this very simple economic proposition?

The only reason drugs fund many of the major terrorists movements in the world is because of prohibition. A kilo of opium, which costs about $100 to produce--it takes about $900 to produce a kilo of heroin--is sold on the streets of the United States--these are United Nations figures I'm using--for slightly less than $300,000. That's a profit margin of about 32,000%. That is purely because we have chosen to use the criminal law to prohibit these drugs and thus have created a fantastically lucrative market for terrorist groups as well as criminal organizations.

One of my colleagues suggested that a bill such as this would be more honestly called the “organized crime and terrorist subsidy act”, because that's what it's doing. It's maintaining a system of prohibition that is subsidizing organized crime and subsidizing terrorist groups around the world.

I appreciated Mr. Lee's comments about the dangerousness of grow operations. Why are grow operations dangerous? The only reason cannabis grow operations exist is because of prohibition, creating this fantastically lucrative market in drugs. The fantastic profit opportunity that comes from prohibition tempts people into these grow operations. The only reason individuals engage in dangerous activities, such as stealing hydro or setting traps, is the need to keep such operations secret and protected.

End prohibition and you end the incentive for criminals to run grow operations, the need to hide grow operations by stealing hydro, and the need to protect grow operations by using weapons such as those that are putting our firefighters at risk. Retain prohibition and you will continue to support dangerous grow operations and the interest of criminal organizations in them. What, Mr. Chairman, does this government not grasp about this very simple economic fact?

By toughening the penalties on grow operations, this bill will, in all likelihood, frighten some of the minor producers of cannabis out of the business. What is it going to do? It's going to hand the trade over to the hands of criminal organizations that are not deterred by legislation. The law is not a deterrent to criminal organizations in many ways. Essentially what we're doing by toughening up the penalties on larger grow operations and larger amounts of cannabis produced in grow operations is helping the trade to be handed over to organized crime.

At this point, someone will mutter that of course we need our drug laws to protect the youth of Canada. But let's look at this. Because of the profitability of cannabis—again, purely a product of its criminal prohibition—there is a much greater incentive than there would otherwise be to try to sell drugs to anyone, including minors. Again, Mr. Chairman, I ask myself, what does this government not get about this simple economic fact?

Á (1130)

The Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs recognized that most of the problems associated with cannabis stem from its prohibition. Why does the current government not grasp this? It had a 600-page, extremely well-documented, extensive report that looked at this issue. Why does this government not get it?

As a Canadian citizen—not as a representative of the foundation, but as a Canadian citizen who has to live in a society where I am concerned about the growth of criminal organizations—I'm appalled that a government that purports to have such a profound understanding of global economic phenomena cannot grasp even the simplest of connections: the profitability of the drug trade and its prohibition; the financing of organized crime and terrorism; the increase in dangerous illegal grow operations and the incentive to pull out all stops in marketing cannabis. Yet this bill shows just that: a total failure to grasp the simple economics of prohibition.

I have trouble believing this government doesn't understand economics; therefore—perhaps one of your honourable members is correct—I tend to think our drug policy is essentially a political issue. I am reminded of the remarks by Norwegian criminologist Nils Christie when he said that the most dangerous type of drug abuse is the political abuse of drugs. It's hard to look at this legislation and not say it's a political weapon, but it's not based on sound science, sound economics.

I would be delighted to help you draw on the expertise of my colleagues to come up with more effective legislation, but we can't do that until the government becomes more honest about the economics of prohibition and its role in creating many of the problems associated with drugs in our society.

My preference would be for the solution suggested by the Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs. I realize that's not going to happen, but at a minimum, now that I've had my tirade, I'd like to make some suggestions.

First, make it clear that the bill decriminalizes possession. It's not clear from the bill and it is certainly not clear from the statements of the Minister of Justice that he is speaking of decriminalizing. As a matter of fact, he said in an interview a few weeks back that the bill continues to criminalize simple possession. If that is the case, it's one more reason for throwing the bill out with the bathwater.

We should decriminalize the transfer of small amounts for no consideration. Otherwise, somebody who just passes a joint to somebody else could be guilty of the offence of trafficking—which, as you know, for cannabis is punishable by a maximum penalty of five years less a day.

We should grant a general amnesty for all Canadians convicted in the past of simple possession.

We can retain the export penalties we have for exporting drugs to the United States. I notice that the U.S. drug czar will be coming to Canada and no doubt will claim that Canada is a major exporter of cannabis to the United States. I have looked at those numbers. If we accept the RCMP figures, Canada produces 800 tonnes of cannabis a year; the U.S. consumption of cannabis is between 7,000 tonnes and 8,000 tonnes a years. If we exported to the United States every gram of cannabis produced in this country, we would supply only about 10% of the U.S. market. We don't export that much cannabis to the United States, and incidentally, the United States is probably the most significant supplier of its own cannabis. It's a major industry in the United States.

We should also decriminalize the production of a small number of plants, probably based on wattage of lights used to grow the plants. This will have the effect of keeping the minor trade away from the hands of organized crime. This is an important issue.

Just as a last point, Mr. Chairman—I realize my time is up—I wanted to mention that this bill is not dealing with access to cannabis for medicinal purposes, but I repeat the plea of the Senate to deal with this issue quickly and humanely. I say this in particular because I sat with a friend last week as he died. His name was Donny Appleby. He was killed from the burns he suffered from an explosion when he was trying to use butane in a dangerous process to extract cannabis oil from some low-grade cannabis. We need a system where people like Donny Appleby can get inexpensive access to medicinal cannabis. He used a process to get access to this that ultimately cost him his life—and nobody should be subjected to that sort of risk in order to get medicine to help them.

Á (1135)

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Randy White): Thank you, Eugene. And thank you, all of you, for very good presentations.

We'll go to some questions.

Kevin.

Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance): I also want to echo the thanks the chairman has given you. It is good to have someone from law enforcement here. You're the front line of fighting, in some cases, organized crime, as has been mentioned today, but in other cases you're fighting the cannabis use we see on the street—which isn't thought of as much as being organized crime—or the kid who's got a joint and gets caught.

In this whole exercise of the non-medical drug committee, I came in with an ideal that I thought we needed to be firm on. I guess as time goes on, I sit and I recognize that we have to be very careful that we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak.

I've talked to the law enforcement agencies. They are opposed to the decriminalization of marijuana; they see the amount that is there. Then we hear others, such as libertarians, who say, “Listen, you know, the best way to fight organized crime is simply to legalize it, which will put organized crime out of business”. We know that's not going to be the case, as they will certainly go to something else.

The libertarian approach to this in some ways scares me, because we've heard today how prohibition is only.... We talked about the economics of it, and how it simply isn't working. On the other hand, we see the risk associated with drugs generally. If organized crime isn't involved in marijuana, it's going to be involved in ecstasy. Yesterday's front page of the Edmonton Journal was on crystal meth. It's one thing after another.

As of this point in time, we do not have an ability to do roadside testing. I guess one of the questions I would ask is, how far away are we from roadside testing? Is there something coming down the pike, or some credible way of testing whether or not someone behind the wheel of a car is impaired? We can't expect a police officer to take a blood sample. What's coming down the pike? They talk about a swab of the mouth. Are we close to that yet?

The other thing I would like to ask Mr. Lee, first of all.... I don't know of anyone who is opposed to any of the clauses dealing with the booby traps, or whatever, in these grow ops or any of the places. I think that has pretty well got to be a given and that we've got to recognize the threat facing the firefighters and police officers. This bill is about marijuana and decriminalization.

Again, the police could maybe just make a comment on the levels of crime, or the levels of the charging or sentence structure. Do you think that's going to be a deterrent at all? Do you see a $100 fine, in the case of a young person caught with maybe under ten grams of marijuana, as a deterrent? Is it going to be a deterrent in your mind?

Mr. Boyd.

Á (1140)

D/Chief Mike Boyd: Mr. Chairman, through you, there are going to be things that police officers can do to address drug-impaired driving issues.

Our officers need the legislation in place in order to have the authority to do roadside testing. We believe the first step is the standardized field sobriety test, which is very similar to the test that is done for alcohol. There is also a technique known as drug recognition expertise, which is more common in the province of British Columbia than anywhere else across the country. This past year, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police hosted a national drug recognition expertise training course, and we were able to train 20 police officers. It's not much, but it's a beginning on how to recognize four different types of drugs in a person and to be able to identify those.

So there are techniques involved that police need training in to be able to do. We need some support. In the national drug strategy, $910,000 was allotted over five years for drug recognition expertise training. It's ridiculously low. We're not going to be able to do much at all over five years with $910,000. What we need is probably upwards of $20-plus million, if we're going to gear up across the country to tackle the growing trend of drug-impaired driving.

If I could offer an answer to your last question, the ticket may be a deterrent in some cases, but I think you have to associate the unlawful possession with the circumstances around that. For a first-time offender—someone who may have been experimenting and didn't really like it, or has maybe tried it a couple of times—that ticket may be a deterrent.

We look to see if it meets this formula: is it meaningful, is it appropriate, and will there be graduated consequences?

For someone else, who may be an addict trafficker, who is actually on the streets in possession of a small amount of cannabis, depending on where the legislators set the bar for the amount, you can count on it that they'll be hanging just under the bar, or just under the radar. That individual will never pay the ticket and will never be subject to any consequences, because there is no way to collect the fines on warrants of committal in this country. That's a concern.

I'm giving you the two ends of the scale here, but those types of individuals will just consider that the cost of doing business.

Mr. Kevin Sorenson: But would you be supportive if they were to move to this decriminalization?

A friend of mine got a ticket for a seat-belt infraction the other day; it was $129 in Alberta. For liquor, being under the age, it is over $200. Now we look at a maximum of $100 fine for possession of marijuana.

Would you be opposed to it, if there were a substantively higher dollar amount here and if it were tied to something like their driver's licence if they refused to pay? If they refuse to pay, they will lose their driver's licence.

D/Chief Mike Boyd: Some of the people who would fit into the category of affecting problem communities probably don't have a driver's licence, and probably won't have a driver's licence, and the threat of affecting any opportunity they have to get one is likely not going to work.

We think it would be more effective to create more alternative measures, including returning the discretion for police to lay a criminal charge. When I say that, it is meant to be well intended, so that a police officer can initiate the criminal process and get someone who needs help into a drug treatment court—which is working quite well in Toronto, in our experience. But we need more of them across the country.

Á (1145)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Randy White): I think you asked Jim a question.

Mr. Kevin Sorenson: I didn't ask him one, but just more or less suggested that we support that.

I think that's all for now, thank you.

The Chair (Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.)): Thank you.

Mr. Marceau.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ): Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to thank the witnesses for coming here and for their very interesting observations.

My first question is for Mr. Cannavino. In your conclusion, you once again referred to this idea of sending out a message to people. According to the statistics we have—because we have to base our opinion on statistics—compiled by Health Canada, it appears that in places where simple possession was decriminalized, there has not been an increase in use or consumption of marijuana.

So how can the claim be made that because the simple possession of small quantities would no longer be a criminal offence, this would amount to sending out a message to young people with a particular consequence? On what do you base your claim when statistics indicate the contrary?

Mr. Tony Cannavino: I don't know where your statistics come from because this summer, at our general assembly where we invited colleagues from Australia, Britain and other countries and where there were a number of representatives, we put the question to these people since we always hear about these famous reports on particular countries, mainly Australia, as was mentioned on a number of occasions. It so happens that the conclusions they shared with us were quite different.

When people talk about small quantities, it's quite interesting to find out what they mean. When we asked people if they know what 15 grams of marijuana amounts to... Fifteen grams, that amounts to approximately 30 joints. If someone is walking around with 30 joints in his pockets, I'm not sure that's for personal consumption at a party. If this person smokes 30 joints at a party, you can be sure that you won't be hearing from him for several days. So I think that personal consumption is excessive, in such a case.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Would it be possible to send us the information given to you by your Australian colleagues?

Mr. Tony Cannavino: We'd be happy to oblige.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Thank you, if you could send it to the committee clerk, that would be fine.

Mr. Tony Cannavino: The other point, the cornerstone, would be the implementation of a strong, national anti-drug program. We're not talking about merely embracing a philosophical principle in favour of a national anti-drug program. The latter is not something that is being implemented and we have no idea of the program specifics. In the program we have in mind, prevention and education would be the focus. Naturally, funding would be needed to provide assistance to our young people and to people with addiction problems. That would be the cornerstone of the program.

Furthermore, when we talk about maintaining the discretionary power of our police, our goal is not to give the police more power. In fact, we are in favour of alternate measures. When we talk about issuing a fine to someone who is found to be in possession of one or two joints, I think that the penalty in this case would be in keeping with the offence. However, we must take into consideration the circumstances in which the person is found to be in possession of a particular quantity of marijuana.

As I said previously, the message that we are sending out is a simple one and it is coming through to a different kind of dealer. I know from experience, having spent most of my 31-year career as a member of drug squads involved in the fight against organized crime. The first message that the legislation is clearly sending to drug dealers is that they can tell young people to keep less than 15 grams, i.e. 14 grams, in their possession, and, if they are caught by a police officer, to claim it is for their personal use. This way, the only penalty that they risk is a fine that the dealers will pay for them. So you couldn't have any better argument to recruit people.

We are talking about less than 15 grams, but wait a minute. When less than 15 grams are involved, the police do not have discretionary power. Between 15 and 30 grams, they do have some discretionary power in that they can either lay charges or issue a fine.

Given the message that is being conveyed to the courts, do you think they will only fine persons found in possession of 15 grams or less? No. What you are saying is that fines will be issued for possession of up to 30 grams.

So to claim that there has been an increase in sentences for operating hydroponic labs or growing marijuana in a field makes very little difference. You could very well make provision for a prison sentence of 25 years, we know quite well that there is not a single magistrate or judge who will hand out such a sentence. If it is going to be a deterrent, then minimum sentences will have to be set and enforced through the legislation. When we talk about growing—

Á (1150)

Mr. Richard Marceau: I know that you could go on talking about this for quite a while.

Mr. Tony Cannavino: Yes, I can get quite worked up. I can tell you from experience—

Mr. Richard Marceau: You should be in politics!

I have a question for you, Mr. Boyd. You stressed impaired driving which you referred to as toke and drive. If you were asked to draft an amendment to one or several clauses of Bill C-38 to deal specifically with drug impaired driving, what changes would you advocate?

[English]

D/Chief Mike Boyd:

The amendment that's required would need to give police officers the authority, when they had reasonable grounds, to stop a vehicle and subject a driver to a standard field sobriety test for drugs, as opposed to alcohol. That is not in place now.

We would need, of course, other things, like support for training in drug recognition expertise, because that is a way for an officer to make a determination that is not invasive. That would be helpful. Failing that, we would need the authority to take a bodily sample. Any refusal of those three different tests would need to be an offence in itself, as is the case with a refusal to take a breathalyzer test in relation to alcohol.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Would bodily samples replace the tests or would they be taken in addition to the tests?

[English]

D/Chief Mike Boyd: I believe we would need to take it in stages. The first thing would be the authority to do the standard sobriety test; the second, drug recognition; and the third, the bodily sample. You would probably want to have an officer establish reasonable grounds to get to the threshold of taking a bodily sample.

However, there is some new technology that has been developed. It is not yet certified in Canada. It's almost like a breathalyzer machine, only it's for drugs. My understanding of it is that it will assist in the detection of four different types of drugs, cannabis I believe being one. So there is the option of using technology that may be less invasive. The example I'm thinking of, if it ever is certified, would probably be helpful there.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Do I have any time left, Madam Chair?

The Chair: One minute.

Mr. Richard Marceau: I have another question for you, Mr. Boyd.

Earlier, you mentioned repeat offenders. I'd like to know whether you think a computerized record of their names should be kept and, if you do, should that information be shared at some future point in time with other authorities? Would these names be kept exclusively by the Toronto police or could they be entered into a cross-Canada registry to which the Americans might have access, for example?

[English]

D/Chief Mike Boyd: I believe our preference would be that there be some form of national database as opposed to a local database. The reason I say that is that if an individual goes from Toronto perhaps to Calgary—another jurisdiction—having a local database would not be helpful in those circumstances. A national form of database would, I believe, be helpful, so that an individual who is charged by police, or given a ticket or a caution by police, depending on what alternative measure was thought to be appropriate, could be tracked back, so that you could determine the number of contacts with police of someone using cannabis.

Á (1155)

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Would the Americans have access to this database?

[English]

D/Chief Mike Boyd: I don't know whether they would. It's not a question I would be able to answer. I think our Canadian police preference would be that we be able to look after what we can look after in Canada. I'm not sure if there is a by-product for American law enforcement out of it; I just know we would prefer to have some form of record-keeping.

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Marceau. Mr. Macklin.

[English]

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

With respect to Mr. Lee's presentation, I'm sure you'd be pleased to know that at this point Bill C-32, which contained a number of trap provisions and the criminalization of those trapping provisions, has actually passed the House and gone on to the Senate.

That particular bill was raising such issues as, where you commit bodily harm through a trap, a penalty could go as high as 10 years; if it related to a place, it was also 10 years; if it was a case of bodily harm through a place where an indictable offence had been committed, it could go to 14 years; and in the case of death, it would lead to an imprisonment of up to a life term.

From that point of view I think we are making progress and hopefully satisfying some of your concerns as first responders to these situations. I think all of us are really terrified by the possibility that you go in and find that awaiting you. I think there is some good news, Mr. Lee, in that regard. I hope it will get the support it deserves in the Senate and that we'll get it through relatively promptly.

Secondly, with respect to the issue of why we have come to this place—although not necessarily this bill—one of the issues seems to be about a different way of treating those in possession of marijuana across this country. It seemed we had laws in place, but various people would determine that the enforcement would be different, for example, in urban areas and in rural areas. This caused a great deal of concern that, from a law enforcement point of view, it didn't appear to the public that there was even enforcement across this country.

Could I get your comments on that, please? It obviously is of some concern.

D/Chief Mike Boyd: I would be happy to answer that.

First of all, a lot has been said about the inequitable enforcement by law enforcement for people in possession of cannabis. I think what is not widely known is that it's not all attributable to law enforcement disparity.

Let me use, for example, the province of British Columbia. A police officer could apprehend someone, but it's the crown attorney in the province of British Columbia who decides whether or not to proceed on such a charge and where it goes in court. It has absolutely nothing to do with the police—or very little to do with the police—and more to do with the crown attorneys.

The other idea here, that enforcement is equal in all parts of the country, I believe is a flawed notion. In a perfect world, maybe we would like to think it's going to be that way, but it's a flawed notion.

First of all, we don't have enough police officers in Canada to focus entirely on the issue of drugs, be it cannabis, heroin, cocaine, etc. We have to make decisions about where we are going to apply our enforcement efforts. They are often strategic decisions.

Our purpose, and I'm making a generalized statement here, is that the Canadian police community be involved in community policing across the country. We are involved in problem solving. Where there are drug problems in some neighbourhoods and communities across the country, they get extra attention by the police. Why? It's not necessarily because we want to be in there, but because to be responsive to our public we must listen to their needs. If they have a drug problem in a given community or neighbourhood or city or rural area, we need to respond to it, because it's important to that community. This also could be a factor in why things are different in city A versus rural area B.

Also, in other kinds of offences we have to recognize that there is disparity. It has to do with the factors and the circumstances around the offence.

Take, for example, the offence of robbery. If you walk into a bank and you're committing a robbery and you use a note, the judge is going to handle that very differently than if you walk into a bank, bring out a gun, threaten somebody, pistol-whip them, and leave with the same amount of money.

A robbery is not a robbery, and possession of cannabis is not necessarily the same offence. You're going to get, for a whole multitude of reasons, disparity in why enforcement or convictions are different. And I've just begun to scratch the surface.

Â (1200)

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: You're suggesting then that it is not the lack of law, but rather the way in which it is being enforced. Is that what you're suggesting?

D/Chief Mike Boyd: When I used the example of British Columbia and the crown attorneys, it's the decision-making from the crown's perspective that I think is a factor.

You don't need to tell a police officer too many times that you, as a prosecutor, are not going to proceed on the efforts of a police officer. I could get the message fairly clearly. One or two hints would be enough to tell me, in British Columbia, that my efforts out there in enforcement are not going to be followed through by crown attorneys.

The Chair: Mr. Cannavino.

[Translation]

Mr. Tony Cannavino: The uniform enforcement throughout Canada of the measure to abolish discretionary power in cases where the quantity is under 15 grams does not solve the problem. The reason is quite simple: we will be strictly limited to fining those who are in possession of less than 15 grams and who, in certain circumstances, should face criminal prosecution.

In my opinion, if the aim is to make enforcement uniform throughout Canada, we have missed the boat. If we do not have any discretionary power, how can we lay criminal charges? Remember, as my colleague noted, that the Crown prosecutor is the one who verifies the reasons given by the police. It's like a guarantee or insurance policy, in addition to which we have the judge.

In other words, we cannot claim that this bill allows the provisions to be applied everywhere and equitably. In my opinion, we are sidestepping the problem.

[English]

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Part of the process, I think, based on your representations as members of the police forces of this country, is that we need to have the tools to deal with enforcement.

The other day we had the deputy commander of the RCMP, Gary Loeppky, state that in small possession charges probably only 50% ever result in charges. Surely a ticketing regime, if there is value, would seemingly make it easier for you to pursue your argument that there ought to be a penalty that fits the crime and everyone should be penalized.

[Translation]

Mr. Tony Cannavino: We agree that in most cases, to all intents and purposes, a fine is sufficient. The fact remains that in special circumstances, it will not be possible for us to lay criminal charges. We're proposing that the police retain some discretionary power.

Â (1205)

[English]

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Then, for example, if instead of 15 grams it was reduced to 10 grams, would that get you closer to what you would believe would be a better level of discretion?

In other words, you'd have from 10 grams to 30 grams to make that extra discretion.

[Translation]

Mr. Tony Cannavino: This discretionary power should be maintained, whatever the quantity of marijuana involved. Whether we're dealing with 15 grams or 10 grams, the important thing is the reason why this person is in possession of the cannabis in the first place.

[English]

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: If your theory is that everyone should be penalized and we're hearing in evidence that 50% are going without penalty, surely the discretion isn't being exercised in a way, at the moment, that seems to be appropriate.

[Translation]

Mr. Tony Cannavino: The reason is quite simple. As we already said, in most cases a fine would be an adequate measure. Furthermore, if repeat offenders faced larger fines, that would be an appropriate response to the situation. However, certain cases would not be dealt with properly if the police were to lose their discretionary power.

[English]

The Chair: I have Mr. Boyd and Mr. Oscapella.

D/Chief Mike Boyd: We have long advocated that we needed more than the ability to let someone go on a caution or lay a criminal charge. We've been at the forefront of asking the government to have a series of alternative measures appropriate to the circumstance. Before that, it was either almost all or nothing. We were looking for alternative measures, a series of options that would give a police officer the right tool to be able to apply to a particular problem, whether it be a problem for a school or a problem for a community.

What we ended up getting out of Bill C-38 was that somebody took the idea of the police being supportive of a ticket. Let's give them a ticket and take everything else away.

That's not what we said. We said we need a series of tools that are appropriate that we can use given the circumstances. If we have those tools, we will apply that discretion. We will make those decisions in a more balanced, consistent way.

That's not what we got with Bill C-38. Somebody liked the word “ticket”, grabbed it, ran, and took everything else off the table. That's not going to work because it's not going to be suitable. In some cases, for the same amount of drugs, the circumstances will not be meaningful, will not be appropriate, and will not be graduated. Therefore, they will not provide a deterrent.

The Chair: Mr. Oscapella.

Mr. Eugene Oscapella: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to raise a more fundamental point. I realize fundamental points may not be good when we're nit-picking at the content of a bill.

If the goal is to reduce drug use, let's not forget the very good research that shows whatever penalty structure you put in place, however you deal with the drugs, has virtually no discernible impact on whether people use the drug.

This became quite clear in the research before the Senate. The European Monitoring Centre for drugs and drug addiction reached the same conclusion. Countries that have relatively strict penalties have higher rates of drug use, in some cases, than countries that have very lax penalties or no penalties on drug possession.

Again, let's get back to the basics here. Let's face reality that the laws have very little to do with whether people are going to use the drugs. We're really talking about something that's not going to have any significant effect. We're fiddling with that point, but it makes no significant impact on whether people are going to use the drug.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Oscapella.

Mr. White.

Mr. Randy White: Thank you, Madam Chair.

It's interesting, when you go through the penalties, that they are all maximums.

I was reading some very recent research about the sentences that were applied to marijuana trafficking in British Columbia alone. All of these individuals were found guilty of trafficking; 27% of the offenders were put in prison; 15% in conditional prison—if you've ever heard of such a term; 40% on probation; 39% were given fines; 5% had community service; 2% had to pay restitution; and a few other things. It's all over the map.

I deal with cases even more extreme. One that I'll be dealing with in question period today has to do with murder and the judge's poor decision on a sentence for that. Quite frankly, I think these maximums are useless. They're not going to help the situation at all.

Now, I want to deal with two things. I think I have five minutes, don't I? I want to deal with the first one, and maybe I can get through this one more quickly.

Given Bill C-38, in the way it has been presented to you now, would you say whether it is better or worse than status quo? Would we be better to do without Bill C-38 because of the way it is, or would you rather see Bill C-38 implemented?

A quick answer would help because I have another one. I'd like each one of you to answer.

Â (1210)

D/Chief Mike Boyd: I think we would be better without it than with it in its present form.

The Chair: Mr. Lee.

Mr. Jim Lee: My comment, off the top of my head, is that we appreciate what the government has done for firefighters with regard to setting traps in Bill C-32. We actually participated in a press conference with the Minister of Justice supporting his position with regard to the introduction of Bill C-32.

You've heard from some very educated people with regard to this bill. It wouldn't be fair for me to make a comment on this bill in that area. I wouldn't expect them to make a comment on a bill that told me how to do my job as a firefighter.

So I don't have a comment with regard to whether or not we would be better off.

Mr. Randy White: You don't have a comment. You're the only one I've asked who doesn't have a comment on that.

The Chair: Mr. Oscapella.

Mr. Eugene Oscapella: Thank you.

I think the bill in its present form should die, for the reasons I explained earlier. I would much rather rely on the courts to provide sensible solutions to our drug policies, as they have been doing, by and large, in this country. The issue is so politicized that we've not shown ourselves to be capable of depoliticizing the issue in the way we need to for an effective solution.

The Chair: Mr. Cannavino.

Mr. Tony Cannavino: I don't often agree with Mr. Oscapella, but I think I agree that we would be better off without the bill the way it's written.

The Chair: Mr. Hutchinson.

Det Supt Jim Hutchinson: Yes, we're certainly better off where we are now than with the bill, but Mr. White certainly identified the shortcomings we have today with sentencing, etc., and the whole judicial procedure.

The Chair: Mr. White.

Mr. Randy White: On both sides of the fence, people are saying this thing is seriously flawed and the status quo is better. So we certainly have some work to do.

I wanted to ask you about the policeman on the street who apprehends an individual with 18 joints. What do you think is going to happen in the courts? Let's say he says he doesn't have weigh scales with him, but he guesses it's over 15, so he's going to charge him with the upward limit. Is that the kind of discretion this bill is going to hand to police? Don't you see this headed toward legal battles all around, and lawyers get rich again and the police just give up?

The Chair: Mr. Boyd.

D/Chief Mike Boyd: I think any officer who is investigating the possession of 18 joints, as you put it, would be looking at factors around that. Is this the person's first time? Why are they found in possession of it? Are they intending to use that? It may be a very good case for seizure of the drugs and possibly even a caution, or it might be an excellent case for seizure of the drugs and issuance of a ticket. On the other hand, given the circumstances, the most appropriate thing might be to arrest that person if the authorization was there to arrest, and to get that individual some help.

Mr. Randy White: So the question really is, the bill is in grams but I'm talking joints. Therein lies part of the problem.

D/Chief Mike Boyd: Yes, I agree.

Mr. Randy White: If you have 40 joints on you, is it 15 grams, 20 grams, or how many grams is that? How do we expect the policeman on the street to know whether it's a fatty or a skinny, or so on and so forth?

The Chair: I have Mr. Lee and Mr. Barrette.

Â (1215)

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

May I assume that all the members of the panel, except for Mr. Oscapella, support the increased penalties for grow operations for cannabis?

The Chair: Everybody has nodded.

Mr. Derek Lee: Good, there's a plus. Thank you.

We have several police officers and I don't know which one to ask, but I'm going to ask Mr. Boyd.

You've recommended that we allow police officers the use of discretion on minor possession charges. But at the same time, you're recommending minimum penalties and not wanting the courts to have discretion. There's a huge flip-flop in logic here. You're not prepared to see the courts have discretion in sentencing by recommending minimum penalties, and yet you're urging that police officers don't have the same civil liberties template as our courts do by their having this discretion. Can you explain that difference?

D/Chief Mike Boyd: Sure, I'd be happy to.

I think minimum sentences would begin to give at least a bottom line to where judges can go in their sentencing and yet open up the range so there is some discretion. I think based upon the sentencing we have seen in this country--not what I believe would happen if it didn't happen and I was projecting into the future; I want to talk about what we have seen--I think it's pretty clear that what we need in place are those minimum sentences. This still gives a judge the discretion, based upon the circumstances. It just wouldn't be so wide as to go from maximum to what we're seeing in this country: nothing. That's what's offensive to everyone who deals with these issues.

The Chair: I believe Mr. Oscapella wanted to comment.

Mr. Eugene Oscapella: If I could, Madam Chair.

I'm adamantly opposed to mandatory minimum penalties. The United States has 2.1 million people in prison. It incarcerates one-quarter of all the human beings imprisoned on earth, and a significant cause of that is the use of mandatory minimum penalties.

It's one thing for Parliament to set a maximum penalty. It is another thing for Parliament to usurp the function of a judge sitting at ground level watching the actual circumstances of an individual case. I'm very much opposed to the whole notion of minimum sentencing. I think it's a very dangerous avenue to go down.

There are very few minimum sentences in Canadian law, and that may be why we have such a significantly lower rate of incarceration than the United States.

The Chair: Mr. Lee.

Mr. Derek Lee: I want to flip over to the impaired driving issue.

In section 253 of the code, as we've already acknowledged, there's a prohibition against drug impairment as well as alcohol impairment. I'm assuming you all agree that all drugs are not the same. I certainly believe that all drugs are not the same.

I'm wondering what police would do now if someone is impaired by cocaine, heroin, a club drug, ecstasy, crystal meth, crack cocaine, even codeine. These drugs have been around for a long time, for 30, 40, 50 years. Why is drug testing suddenly an issue with Bill C-38?

I would have thought that with crack cocaine, heroin, and anabolic steroids, which I guess don't impair driving, but you never know.... Why is it suddenly an issue?

D/Chief Mike Boyd: The answer is that the issue about drug-impaired driving did not surface with Bill C-38, although it certainly received a lot more attention.

It has actually been something the Canadian police community has been looking at for some years, on the lead taken by the International Association of Chiefs of Police in the United States. Our police officers in the province of British Columbia were the ones to bring that north of the border. There are a number of drug-recognition expert police officers in that province and there have been for some years.

What we're trying to do, given the change in the trend of drug-impaired driving following a number of studies, for example, the Manitoba student survey, which really have called our attention to the increase.... We thought we were making gains with the alcohol, and then we realized that young people have heard the message about alcohol and impairment and they think there's no problem with the cannabis. That's why you're hearing more about it as time goes on, but it's really in no way associated with Bill C-38.

Â (1220)

Mr. Derek Lee: I have one other question.

We heard about special circumstances in dealing with small amount possession. What are the special circumstances, certain circumstances, where a policeman would exercise discretion? What are those circumstances? Can you give us one or two examples?

Keep in mind there's nothing stopping a police officer now from walking from a small possession scenario, absolutely nothing. So let's clear that one out of the way.

Perhaps, Mr. Cannavino, I'll ask you, because you mentioned it and it came up with other witnesses.

[Translation]

Mr. Tony Cannavino: When we talk about certain circumstances, this includes repeat offenders. As we already mentioned, there is absolutely no provision made for dealing with repeat offenders.

Let's take the example of someone who has in his possession several grams of cannabis and who is in the company of other young people. He is not selling the cannabis but is sharing it with the other youths. That's an example of the kind of circumstances we had in mind.

I also think that we should have the power to bring before the courts a person who has already been arrested for possession for personal use, when it is his second offence and he is recognized by those he associates with as someone who is constantly carrying around a given quantity of marijuana.

The Chair: Thank you. I now turn the floor over the Mr. Marceau who will be followed by Mr. Barrette.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Thank you, Madam Chair. I have only one quick question.

One of the problems identified by all members of the panel is the fact that the production of drugs is too often an activity of organized crime. As things now stand and under Bill C-38, an individual would not have the right to grow a plant on his windowsill, for example. This means that people are being forced to buy on the black market which, in the opinion of all those present here, is controlled by organized crime. If the government were to decide to decriminalize simple possession, would you be open to the idea of allowing a small producer to produce a small quantity at home, say, to have a plant on his windowsill, all as part of our fight against organized crime?

Mr. Tony Cannavino: Your example is a good one but where do we draw the line?

Mr. Richard Marceau: We could allow one or two plants.

Mr. Tony Cannavino: We know the annual output of one marijuana plant. It's much more than 15 grams.

There are two totally philosophies at play. On the one hand, there's the position of Senator Pierre-Claude Nolin that at least has the advantage of being clear. He talks about legislation, that is clear. You produce a certain amount and you consume it etc. When we talk about a plant, we seem to be thinking of a small plant but this small plant can produce many grams of marijuana over the course of a year. Two or three times a year, it produces a fairly sizable amount of marijuana.

Mr. Richard Marceau: I see. According to the RCMP with whom you have links, I imagine, the average production of a plant is 50 grams. This information goes back to October 28, that is last week. Of course, the output can be higher.

Mr. Tony Cannavino: Multiply that amount.

Â (1225)

Mr. Richard Marceau: The RCMP says that the average is 50 grams.

Mr. Tony Cannavino: If you multiply this average by the number of times the plant produces marijuana every year, what does it add up to? You're talking about one or two plants.

Mr. Richard Marceau: In the case of one plant, it would amount to 150 grams a year.

Mr. Tony Cannavino: From the very outset we have been saying that we should adopt a clear position. Could we start with setting up a national anti-drug program? Before deciding on a lax approach and leading everyone to believe that the use of marijuana is not a problem, we should take a different tack. Let's start off with a solid national anti-drug program combining prevention and education and give the police discretionary power.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Mr. Cannavino, sometimes I get the impression that you and I are talking about apples and oranges. I am in complete agreement with you, the consumption of marijuana is not good for oneself and we must do more in the field of education and prevention. On that we are in full agreement and I would be happy to tour schools with you.

As for the rest, let me reformulate my question. If there was a Canada-wide program, one that included the provinces because they have primary responsibility for education and related efforts, a concrete, solid and well-designed program that you agree with, would you be in favour of the decriminalization of simple possession?

Mr. Tony Cannavino: Let us imagine the kind of program that would meet my expectations, one with sufficient funding, that focuses on education and prevention and also provides the police with the necessary tools to take action and provide assistance. You previously spoke to one of my colleagues about alternate measures. Once all of these have been put into place, you and I would be able to carry out an analysis of the impact of this program. At that time, we might perhaps conclude that decriminalization is not necessary. I would certainly be very open-minded at the time. I'd be ready to sit down with you and study the effect of this program and find out what should be changed or modified.

This is not what is being proposed at the present time. There is an attempt to appear more liberal and more open and an assumption that the only way of dealing with the problem of marijuana is to treat it as if it were of no consequence, to dismiss its impact and ultimately, one day down the road, bring in a national anti-drug program. Where is this program? Why don't we have one? Let's take the right approach, step by step, and I'll be with you every step of the the way. Mr. Marceau, I'd be pleased to sit down with you. If, once this program was implemented, we concluded that decriminalization is the right choice, you could count on me to support your efforts.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Barrette.

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

Mr. Cannavino, I know where you are coming from. I spent a number of years as a school principal, and if there was one area to which I devoted an inordinate amount of time and energy, it was what we might call controlling these activities. And the deliveries occurred on one day of the week.

I would be greatly in favour of the implementation of prevention programs. Quebec did have some in the past, but seems to have moved on to something else. And of course, as you are aware, there have been budget cuts. In any case I believe that prevention is essential.

With respect to discretionary power, I would like you to tell me in concrete terms how this could routinely apply to young people who might be arrested for possession of 5, 10, 15 or whatever grams of cannabis. What type of discretion would the police officer have?

Mr. Tony Cannavino: First, I commend you for having spent so much time in education. You can no doubt relate to the difficulties faced by not only the principals but also the teachers and parents. Many of them have simply given up.

As to maintaining the discretionary power of police officers, I emphasize that the quantity would not be a consideration. If it were only one or two grams, the officers would still want to avail themselves of their discretionary power to issue a fine for possession of six or seven grams.

Police officers—and I represent 54,000 of them throughout Canada—want to help young people. Their aim is not to lay a criminal charge on an 18-or 19-year old, which will then lead to a criminal record that would affect the youth's future or career; they simply want to have the tools that they need in order to help them. This is not simply a matter of a fine, but also a matter have possibly sending them to a centre. Of course, this would only apply to those who have a personal drug use problem.

However, you know as well as I do that in some cases it is difficult to prove that trafficking has taken place, even if you know the individuals involved and you can identify the problems in a school, a region, a municipality or a small town. In cases such as those, we should be able to lay criminal charges. Of course, the criminal charge would not be the final step: a Crown prosecutor would analyze the grounds for the charge.

It is a matter of curbing this serious problem and eradicating these cancers from schools and municipalities.

Â (1230)

Mr. Gilbert Barrette: I have one final question.

If we follow through with this bill, besides the discretionary power and the implementation of a program, what major amendment would you like to see us adopt?

Mr. Tony Cannavino: We would like a step-by-step approach, and that is something on which we hope to have the support of parliamentarians.

In order to ensure that this works properly, the first stage would involve the implementation of a national education and prevention program. Then, we would like to see the discretionary power maintained. The necessary funding will then have to be provided along with more than the two options namely, either a fine or criminal charges. As I explained earlier, we must be able to direct young people and adults in difficulty to a centre which would have the necessary funding to help them.

Finally, with respect to minimal sentences, these are serious crimes: take hydroponic cannabis operations, for example. Municipalities are now struggling with a new phenomenon. Our firefighter colleagues are frequently called to put out fires that erupt in these operations and they let us know when they discover marijuana being grown. These operations are popping up everywhere. And why is that?

I think that Canadians have been hearing the wrong message for years now, and this has encouraged some people to start growing cannabis.

[English]

The Chair: Merci beaucoup.

I think Mr. Mark had one quick question. Everybody has to answer quickly.

Mr. Mark.

Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, PC): Thank you, Madam Chair, and I apologize for being late. I was in the House this morning.

The Chair: Just get to questions

Mr. Inky Mark: I know this bill has a huge impact, not only on the country but on your professional careers, and I always want to know why governments do the things they do.

My question is, did the government take the time to consult with each of your organizations to let you know what they were planning and get some feedback from you? Did that take place?

The Chair: Mr. Cannavino.

[Translation]

Mr. Tony Cannavino: It was quite brief. Meetings were held, but the points and objections that were made were ignored.

[English]

The Chair: Okay.

You're the same organization, Mr. Boyd.

D/Chief Mike Boyd: There was what I would now describe as “feigned consultation”, and they left more on the cutting room floor than they decided to take.

Mr. Jim Lee: No.

Mr. Eugene Oscapella: Yes, not so much in the production of the bill but certainly with the House of Commons special committee and the Senate special committee on illegal drugs. We appeared before both of those and made our views known. Whether the government listened to them or not...I think not, perhaps.

The Chair: Of course, that would cover all the other groups, too, because they all appeared before the special committee.

Thank you to all the witnesses. This meeting is suspended for a couple of minutes.

Â (1234)

Â (1243)

The Chair: I call the meeting back to order. We are the Special Committee on the Non-medical Use of Drugs and we are hearing witnesses on Bill C-38.

The next panel of witnesses includes Allan Young. You're listed as from Osgoode Hall Law School. Is that still correct?

We have Lawrie Palk from the Brantford Drinking and Driving Countermeasures Committee.

And from Mothers Against Drunk Driving, we have the executive director, Andrew Murie.

Welcome to all of you.

I think, Mr. Young, we've squished you in between two events, so why don't we start with you, and then I'll turn over to the others in that order.

Professor Allan Young (Osgoode Hall Law School): I appreciate it very much, and I'm sorry about my time constraints.

I'm always honoured to be given the opportunity to express my opinions on our drug laws, but I have to tell you I'm also very ambivalent. I'm very troubled that I seem to be making this presentation countless times to parliamentary committees, and you must be bored hearing what I and a lot of my colleagues have to say.

But I will say this, because I reflected on it coming over. I'm across the street at the Congress Centre doing presentations on victims' rights issues at a conference sponsored by the Department of Justice, and we have topics like emerging issues in domestic violence, making a difference for child victims of abuse, and those are criminal justice issues.

When I said I'm troubled, what I find is that we're still debating what is the proper legal response to a plant, and I've always said--I'll be very brief and then get right to Bill C-38--there are six very good reasons we should change the law--decriminalize, if not legalize. They are almost incontrovertible facts, and that's why this debate is so tiresome.

First, almost every royal commission since 1894, the Indian hemp commission, has recommended no criminal law for marijuana consumption. How many commissions of inquiry do we need? How many scientists do we need looking at this?

Second, other than Canada and the United States, most of the western world has decriminalized, whether de facto or de jure. We stand alone. North America is becoming increasingly isolated by maintaining the punitive sanction. We're out of step with the world on this one.

Third, we can't forget that public enemy number one in this case is a plant that is neither poisonous nor has ever killed anybody. That's a documented fact. There's no lethal dose calculation for marijuana.

Fourth, marijuana is relatively harmless for most users. For some people, there will be minefields waiting to explode. I'm very objective about this in making sure that people with heart problems or schizophrenia aren't necessarily involved with marijuana. But almost everybody who smokes it lives a happy, productive life.

Fifth, if it's not harmful to the individual, is it harmful to society? This is a no-brainer. Everyone knows marijuana is not criminogenic. Criminal law should be about security. If the drug does not lead to further crime, why are we concerned about it? If you're talking about the health of Canadians, I just said it's relatively harmless. We shouldn't have a criminal law to prevent us from acquiring bronchitis. That's silliness.

This brings me to the last reason, which as parliamentarians you should be most concerned about. The majority of Canadians want this changed. Every public opinion poll since 1975 has had a majority of Canadians wanting a change. What type of change? That's unclear. But they don't want the punitive regime we have.

So this government in April 2002 announced to Canadians, because that's what Canadians want, that they would decriminalize, and the measure was supported by two committees--the House of Commons and Senate committees--yet we end up getting a bill that does not meet the grade. I'll be very clear and very brief on this.

Decriminalization means absolutely nothing. It's really a silly concept. It simply means the removal of criminal law. It doesn't tell you what replaces it. But if you're going to remove criminal law, you have to understand what criminal law is about. You have to understand the types of clients I represent and what the consequences are for them.

Criminal law is about stigma and punishment. The stigma is the criminal record. It's the way we process you by arresting and searching you, and punishment is loss of liberty. When you look at Bill C-38--I don't know if they thought Canadians were going to sleepwalk through this process--the reality is it doesn't achieve any of those objectives.

I will never support Bill C-38, and I imagine almost everybody who has come before you has said the same thing. I have six reasons for why I won't. These are the things that have to change--and I'm a realist: it's not going to happen.

One, you have to have explicit removal of the arrest power. The Contraventions Act allows for arrest. That's really the main interaction between citizens and public officials that stigmatizes.

Two, you have to create safeguards to protect the record. The police make records, whether you call it a contravention or a criminal record. When Parliament wants to safeguard your privacy, they seal the record, they keep it separate, and they have penalties for disclosure. Look at the YOA, or whatever it's called now--I'm sorry, the Youth Criminal Justice Act--and look at your Criminal Records Act, what we do when someone gets a pardon--separate, sealing, non-disclosure. None of that's here. These contraventions will be with American authorities at the border and my clients will still be calling me saying they can't get to New York.

Â (1245)

Three, get rid of imprisonment for fine default. It's just a tricky way of incarcerating pot smokers. They're not going to pay their fines. Look at the experience in Australia.

Four, get rid of the distinction between 15 and 30 grams. I hate to tell you, but police don't carry scales. It violates the rule of law to create a regime where the police don't know which stream you're going into. You're going contravention stream or you're going summary conviction, criminal law. They don't carry scales. They won't carry scales. It's silly. That's like trying to figure out how many angels are dancing on a pin. What is the right amount? Just cut it at 30 grams and leave it at that--which I can tell you is pretty consistent with consumption and purchasing patterns. Thirty grams is just over an ounce.

Five, this bill is so flawed because it doesn't create an exemption for small-scale production of cannabis. Everyone in Parliament talks about the fear of organized crime and biker infiltration. I don't think it's true, but if you want to reduce organized crime, allow people to be self-sufficient in producing this intoxicant. Don't start upping the penalties on production. You should be exempting so that we don't have to have people relying upon a black market. They can just have plants like roses. It's very therapeutic.

The last thing I want to mention, and this is why I'm distressed about the bill, is that I don't know if anyone has told you this, but Bill C-38 changes the preamble to the Contraventions Act. It shows exactly that this government doesn't care about decriminalization. The old preamble said the Contraventions Act is there to reflect the distinction between criminal offences and regulatory offences. Why is that being repealed? Why are those words being repealed? You don't want the Contraventions Act to appear to be regulatory. This government wants it to appear criminal, but by another name.

I don't want to take up much of your time, but I'd like to end by saying this. I don't think Bill C-38 can be salvaged. The activists don't like it. The prohibitionists don't like it. So I have an invitation to you parliamentarians that I'd like you to carry on to the Minister of Justice, whoever he or she may be. We don't seem to have the political courage to do this, or the will, and you're wasting lots of people's time constantly putting this on the legislative agenda when it doesn't go anywhere. So I say this. England, last week, reclassified marijuana. They brought it down to a non-arrestable offence. Why did they do that? They had a pilot project in London for a year that demonstrated that having a moratorium on prosecutions and arrests was good for the country, and crime rates actually went down in those areas.

My invitation to this committee is to go back to the minister and say, why are you trying to figure out what the best legal response is to this issue? Why don't you--and you have the authority--issue a policy directive to suspend all marijuana prosecutions for 12 months so we can then see whether or not Canada is ready for decriminalization?

We're doing this blindly. You're listening to people like me saying, “Do it; marijuana is harmless.” Why don't we put this to the test and do exactly what England did? It would be a very simple solution. You will save lots of money, and I guarantee you that at the end of the 12 months you will be prepared for decriminalization. So don't spend time trying to amend a bill that will fail. Do it administratively, which is how most of Europe did it, and let's see what the next year will be like. I think that is probably the rational way to approach the issue.

Thank you very much.

Â (1250)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Young.

Mr. Palk.

Mr. Lawrie Palk (Co-Chair, Brantford Drinking and Driving Countermeasures Committee): Madam Chair and members of the committee, on behalf of the Brantford Drinking and Driving Countermeasures Committee, I am honoured to be with you today to discuss the future shape of Bill C-38.

The group of which I am the co-chair has been an advocate in the anti-impaired driving movement in Brantford and Brant County since the early 1980s, and we are the founding members of OCCID, the Ontario Community Council on Impaired Driving.

The committee is made up of a wide cross-section of individuals from a variety of disciplines. On our committee there are municipal politicians, police officers, youth, victim service advocates, victims of impaired driving, social services, health care workers, and educators. Our perspective on this bill will be a unique one, and we hope that by the end of this presentation we will have opened your minds and touched your hearts.

Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms speaks very clearly to the notion that the security of the person is a basic right that must be respected. As an old saying goes, “Your freedom ends where your nose begins”, and this must surely apply to this bill and the crime of impaired driving. Innocent accident victims are watching, and they will be holding you responsible for their security, their rights, and their lives.

Average Canadians have no less of a concern. Each and every one of us risks something every day we climb into a motor vehicle and travel from place to place. Those of us, myself included, who have been victimized by an impaired driver know full well the toll that such events take on one's life and limb.

For far too many years the crime of impaired driving has ravaged our nation. It is the leading cause of criminal death and injury. The fiscal cost to Canada on an annual basis is in the billions of dollars, yet there are still those among us who selfishly test fate by driving impaired.

I am one of the lucky ones. I have lived to tell my story in the hope that others will learn from my experience. For me, the date was May 13, 1988, when I became the victim of a hit-and-run impaired driver. A broken neck, a fractured skull, a concussion, and a variety of other injuries later, I thought it was over. It was not. In 1989 I was diagnosed with a permanent brain injury, which has changed my life. I'm just one small example of the human cost of impaired driving.

With this in mind, I come to the debate on Bill C-38. This time the drug in question is marijuana. At the outset, I will refer you to our attached letter of recommendations of April 1, 2003. In addition, I am attaching other documents for your consideration. These documents will make it abundantly clear that while our concerns are many, we speak as one voice in urging you to realize that marijuana does indeed have the real potential to impair driving function, and it has the real-life potential to contribute to death and injury on the roadways of Canada. Those who suggest otherwise are living a lie and endangering the lives of themselves and the security of every one of us.

I ask you, if marijuana did not have the potential to impair, why does NORML, the largest marijuana advocacy group in North America, state in its own principles of understanding that marijuana users should never toke and drive? And why has John Conroy, noted B.C. marijuana lawyer who has appeared before the Supreme Court, say exactly the same thing?

Marijuana-impaired driving is a high-risk activity. We need harm reduction, and not the type of behaviour that suggests (a) that decriminalization is the same as legalization, or (b) that marijuana doesn't impair, it just makes you drive more deliberately or slower, or (c) as youth counsellors in the schools suggest, “Kids, it's okay to toke and drive, because there are no controls in the same way that there are with alcohol-impaired driving.” Such are the myths in our community.

Â (1255)

I put it to them and I put it to you, the members of this committee, that you may never appreciate what a toll impaired driving can take until you, your family, or one of your friends has been touched by this senseless, selfish, and highly preventable action of an impaired driver. It changes lives. I know, because it changed mine.

Members of the committee, thank you very much. I welcome your questions and comments.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Palk.

Mr. Murie.

Mr. Andrew Murie (Executive Director, Mothers Against Drunk Driving): Thank you.

I'm Andrew Murie. I'm the national executive director for Mothers Against Drunk Driving Canada. I'm here today to represent our 60-plus chapters across the country, our 5,000 active volunteers, and our 700,000 financial supporters.

I first want to begin by expressing our national president's apology for not being able to make it to Ottawa today. Louise Knox had made commitments today to be at a community ceremony with our newest MADD chapter in Whitehorse, Yukon. Due to the extremely short notice given to the organization, there was no way to reschedule and have her here to provide a statement on this important piece of legislation.

It's hard to believe MADD Canada is here today, urging MPs to delay the passage of Bill C-38 until there is the necessary accompanying legislation to protect Canadians against drug-impaired driving. The issue of drug-impaired driving is not new, and the government has had ample time to present legislation that would effectively deal with this crime.

Many national stakeholders have met with the Minister of Justice on this issue. MADD Canada met with him twice in the last year, where we expressed our concerns for his plan to forge ahead with Bill C-38, without the accompanying impaired driving legislation. Minister Cauchon told us directly that he is not willing to alter the bill, his timetable, or take any immediate action to deal with the drug-impaired driving. For MADD Canada, we told the minister that to ignore drug-impaired driving is unacceptable.

It is my opinion that the government has shown a total disregard for the seriousness of drug-impaired driving. In 1999, the House of Commons justice committee told the government that it needed to look seriously at drugs and driving. The government entered into the federal-provincial working groups that have resulted in nothing substantive. They are moving at glacier speed.

The Senate committee studied the issue of legalizing cannabis in 2002. In the Senate report it was recommended that drug-impaired driving laws be in place prior to loosening possession laws.

Justice Minister Cauchon and MPs have been discussing this issue since last winter. Now, at the eleventh hour, the minister brings forward a discussion paper for some future consideration of some possible legislation. That is not good enough. If the minister did not, parliamentarians must heed the warning signals that are clearly evident.

In the 2002 Nova Scotia student drug use survey, about 26% of licensed students reported driving within an hour of using cannabis. The 2001 Ontario student drug use survey found that amongst grade 10 to grade 13 students who had a driver's licence, 15.1% reported driving within an hour of consuming two or more drinks and 19.7% reported driving within an hour of using cannabis.

The youth have the message. They know they have our message about not drinking and driving, but certainly without the police powers it's okay to toke and drive.

A recent Quebec study found that 24.3% of 16- to 19-year-old drivers and 22.4% of 20- to 24-year-old drivers who provided samples in a nighttime road survey tested positive for cannabis.

In each of these surveys, it illustrates the dangers that drugs and driving will have for our Canadian youth, the very age group that already is at the highest risk for road traffic fatalities and injuries.

A 2002 report from the Applied Research and Evaluation Services of Vancouver estimated that in 1999, drug use alone or in combination with alcohol resulted in over 465 crash fatalities, over 31,500 crash injuries, and an additional 87,600 property damage crashes. The real dollar cost of the crashes involving drug impairment in 1999 was estimated to be $726 million. This includes medical and rehabilitation costs, property damages, court and police costs, and death benefits. The estimated loss of future income for such crashes was estimated to exceed $1.1 billion.

I need to only point to Health Canada's recent findings, as they reported to this committee, that teens are more likely to smoke marijuana than tobacco. Again, the greatest cannabis use is amongst young people, the very same group that has the highest risk of driving fatalities and injuries.

Drug-impaired driving is a problem that is real. There are statistics that we can use to quantify drug-impaired driving. However, as I'm sure our last speaker and we can all agree, there's a human cost, including loss of life, that we'll never be able to place a number on.

· (1300)

Loosening drug possession laws will result in an increased use of cannabis and an increase in drug and driving incidents. Therefore, a change in the law like Bill C-38 warrants a change in our laws that will protect Canadians and keep our roads as safe as possible from drug-impaired drivers.

In the brief time allotted to me, allow me to emphasize the following point. The police today have no ability to arrest and apprehend drug-impaired drivers. MADD Canada wants to ensure police are given the tools they need to detect and charge drug-impaired drivers.

MADD Canada has identified solutions that will create effective laws and keep our roads safe from drug-impaired drivers. I will leave behind with this committee our research on the suggested legislation to deal with drug-impaired driving. These solutions are not new; the government has been well aware of them for years.

There are three things that we want in legislation. First, MADD Canada urges the police be given the authority when there is a reasonable suspicion that individuals are impaired by drugs to demand a standardized field sobriety test. Failure to do so would be a criminal offence.

Second, if a person fails the standardized field sobriety test, then the police would be given the authority to demand a drug recognition evaluation, often referred to as a DRE. Refusal or failure to complete the evaluation would be a criminal offence.

Third, if the person fails the DRE, the police would be given authority to demand a body sample of their choosing for confirmation of the drug. Again, refusal to provide the body sample would be a criminal offence.

Loosening cannabis possession laws without having drug-impaired driving measures in place is a recipe for trouble on our roads. Parliamentarians fingered this issue for action in 1999. No one argues that this new law will not result in increased use of cannabis. It follows, therefore, that this will increase the numbers of drug-impaired drivers, mostly youth.

What is troubling is that the government has no plans for dealing with drug-impaired driving. Its legislation will result in more marijuana in the hands of Canadians and a rise in the problems relating to drug use, including a rise in the incidents of impaired driving crashes.

MADD Canada urges this committee and your colleagues in the House of Commons to heed the warning signals. The issue of drug-impaired driving needs to be addressed before the government loosens the laws relating to possession of marijuana.

Respectfully, I urge MPs to delay Bill C-38, delay this new drug possession legislation, until there is accompanying drug-impaired legislation that gives police the tools they need to safeguard Canadians and all motorists on our roadways.

Thank you.

· (1305)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Murie.

Mr. White.

Mr. Randy White: Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll just ask a few quick questions, because I have to go over to the House.

Just briefly, with a yes or no, is Bill C-38 as it is in front of you, as we all know it, better or worse than the status quo, the way things are?

Prof. Allan Young: Slightly better, but the problem is, I know how legislation works. If you pass this, you're going to think the problem's solved for at least a decade. It's not like you're coming back to the table to evaluate it. You always do these five-year reviews with the new.... I'm sorry, I'm going on too long.

I don't think it's worth passing, though it is slightly better, of course. Removing the possibility of incarceration for under 15 grams is a slight improvement.

Mr. Randy White: Thank you.

Mr. Lawrie Palk: My feeling is that this needs a whole lot more work. It ought to be delayed. It just needs a whole lot of change.

Mr. Andrew Murie: There's no benefit to passing this legislation.

Mr. Randy White: Thank you.

I just want to ask you, one of you, about the toxicity of cannabis. Way back in the 1960s, I guess, the THC component was approximately 3%; today they suggest it's 12% to 13%. In British Columbia it's even higher.

What if it's at 30% or it migrates to even higher levels? Should the fine for 12 grams, for instance, be the same in the future as it is now, or does that have any relevance to the issue at all?

Prof. Allan Young: Probably not. I mean, you have to look at consumption patterns of users to know what to make of the cut-off. When I said 30 grams, it was because most people usually buy it by the ounce.

THC is not destructive to the body. If THC were destructive to the body, increased potency would be more destructive to the body. All it means is you're going to get more intoxicated more quickly. And there's a concept among marijuana smokers--they don't use this term, of course--called self-titration. That's what you do. It's in your bloodstream quickly; you feel it. People who smoke very potent marijuana will put their marijuana cigarette out halfway through, as opposed to in the 1960s, where they might have to smoke three of them.

So actually I've never really understood why people are concerned about increased potency. That's been John Walters' issue. But quite frankly, I think it's actually a good thing that the intoxicant is more effective.

Mr. Lawrie Palk: Actually, one of our major concerns--and this is something we've noticed in our own community--is it's not as simple as the consumption of just marijuana; it also involves, in many cases, the consumption of alcohol in combination with marijuana. All that serves to do is heighten the potency, and it just means trouble on the roads, as far as I'm concerned.

Mr. Andrew Murie: Yes, I guess the potency comes in when you look at the experiments they've done in simulators, with people who have smoked cannabis and then have been put on driving simulators. They actually asked them their street usage and then asked them to smoke that amount of marijuana and get behind the simulator. They were so intoxicated by the cannabis they couldn't perform the function. They had to reduce the level of cannabis by two-thirds to even get them on the simulator so they could conduct these experiments.

I also agree with the other piece that Lawrie just brought up, the combination of low alcohol and low cannabis. Again, these studies have shown a very high potential for crashes.

· (1310)

Mr. Randy White: Thank you.

With the inconsistency in the courtrooms today--and there's a litany of cases of inconsistency across the land, it doesn't matter what you apply today--are we any further ahead by stating maximums for grow ops than we are today? What is that going to achieve with the inconsistencies in the courtroom?

Prof. Allan Young: Adjusting maximum penalties is one of the greatest legislative sleights of hand ever, because courts rarely get up to the maximum. You tell the public you're getting serious with the crime, you're going to double the penalty, but it doesn't change court process.

If your concern is about inconsistencies with sentencing for cultivation, the way you address it is through presumptive guidelines and things of that nature--move away from the discretionary sentencing we have. But quite frankly, you should do that across the board, not just for cultivation.

But that's a sentencing issue.

Mr. Lawrie Palk: Insofar as grow ops are concerned, Mr. White, in our own community last year approximately 26 grow ops were busted. I can only assume that if this bill is passed, in time, 25 will be a small number. That is a scary prospect for people on the roads, as far as I'm concerned.

Mr. Andrew Murie: With maximum penalties you have to go to the issue of impaired driving.

When Parliament changed the maximums for impaired driving in 1985 to introduce impaired driving causing death, the maximum was put at 14 years. During that whole timeframe, until it was changed again in 1999, the longest sentence given out in Canada was 8.5 years, and that was for multiple offenders, multiple deaths. We question what it takes to get to the maximum. Since Parliament has changed the new maximums to 25 years, the longest sentence given out in Canada, again, was 12.5 years.

Mr. Randy White: Thank you.

The penalty under Bill C-38 for 25 to 50 plants is less than 10 years. That's the maximum. I wonder, can you explain the logic in that? If, let me see, somebody is busted for 45 plants that are three inches high and somebody else is busted for 45 plants that are three feet high, is there a difference in your mind as to the level of the penalty for that circumstance?

Prof. Allan Young: Plant counting is silly because of growth cycles. I do a lot of these cases. The police go and they count every little plant. They say they have 1,000 plants, even though 500 of them might have been seedlings like this.

What disturbs me about the tariff you mentioned is you said, what, 25 to 49 plants would have a maximum 10 years? I will tell you, until recently, which is last year, I've never had a client go to jail for up to 300 to 400 plants. That's what the courts have been doing. There's been a change in the courts, because of Ontario--it came out of Ontario, Kitchener-Waterloo--because the police convinced the Court of Appeal about some of the security risks involved, so now they're getting slightly more.

But the stuff in Bill C-38, it's off the map. It doesn't bear any relationship to the type of sentencing that's been going on. I don't think it's a good idea to introduce a new sentencing regime that is so out of sync with what we're actually doing.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. White.

Mr. Marceau.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Thank you for your presentations and for taking the time to be here today. I have a question, either for Mr. Murie or Mr. Palk. It deals with the problem that was called toke and drive, or driving under the influence of drugs. I do not think anyone feels that it is right to drive under the influence of drugs. But I have a hard time following your argument that compares it to alcohol, something that is often heard. We are not supposed to drink and drive, but alcohol is nevertheless legal.

What if we were to amend C-38 to deal more specifically with the problem of drug-impaired driving. Mr. Murie, you mentioned a little test near the end of your presentation; could you leave a copy of it with the clerk please? Would you be more open to decriminalization if, in the bill, there were provisions to provide strict consequences for driving under the influence of drugs?

· (1315)

[English]

Mr. Andrew Murie: We've made it really clear from the start that any consideration of loosening cannabis legislation had to be accompanied by drug-impaired driving legislation. We've been really clear on that statement, so I think that answers your question.

The second thing is that we've left the background documentation with the clerk. It spells out three things: what is a standardized field sobriety test; what does it include; what does a DRE include, and how the body of sampling could be done as well. So they're clearly articulated.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: I understand full well that the problem does not lie with decriminalization, or fines for simple possession, but rather with drug-impaired driving. Your presentation has made that clear to me.

[English]

Mr. Andrew Murie: That is true because it is the mission of MADD Canada, but as parliamentarians, you can't ignore some of the other issues the police raised earlier today, on which we do not have expertise. But there are some valid reasons that other things need to be considered as well.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Yes, but we heard the police discuss that earlier. I wanted it to be clear.

Mr. Palk, as the spokesperson for your organization, do you share Mr. Murie's position?

[English]

Mr. Lawrie Palk: In general, yes. But I think it's fair to say that without a proper device to measure impairment, and without a measure of what impairment indeed is, you have a very large problem on the roads.

And in that regard, I would pass on something that was told to me by the Solicitor General not more than two months ago, when he said that for the past year the RCMP, in combination with a private concern, has had under development a device to measure drug impairment. Now, what that particular device will look like, at this point, I don't think anybody knows. That's a bit of a scary prospect. What will be the level of impairment? That's a very scary prospect too.

In fact, looking ahead, I can see that once this hits the courts—if it is passed—we are in for some very serious litigation, particularly civil litigation, as well as criminal litigation. As Mr. Murie would know from impairment cases, it's hard enough in court for police officers to prove impairment at 0.08. Once you get into the realm of drugs, I think this, being a new field, is going to result in some long and very painful exercises in our courts.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: But in any case, the problem already exists. Bill C-38 will not make things worse and that is what I would like to hear Professor Young tell us about.

Would I be right in assuming that since you are in favour of decriminalization, or the legalization of marijuana, you would see no problem if we were to spell out, in this bill or another one, that drug-impaired driving should be clearly prohibited?

· (1320)

[English]

Prof. Allan Young:

First of all, to correct a misconception, we do have an impaired driving offence. I've represented people who have been impaired on paint fumes, so we have the possibility, if your driving is that extreme. Of course, it's not foolproof, and I have to agree with the gentleman here: if you don't admit you've smoked marijuana, how would anyone know what the impairment is from?

We have a lot to learn about marijuana. We don't know what blood plasma level results in intoxication, because one of the unique things about marijuana, both pharmacologically and, I can tell you, from personal experience, is it's different for every person. We have a saliva test that will determine current consumption, so we have a prototype. It's expensive.

We can combat this, but I say, and my response is, despite the fact that we heard some statistics that sound astonishing when you hear the numbers, I've looked at these driving studies very carefully and I've seen a lot of cannabis drivers: it's not the type of problem we have to address directly in dealing with the liberty issue of whether people should consume this. The number one cause of traffic accidents is fatigue. Are we going to debate whether or not we should have a law that requires people to sleep at least eight hours a day? No.

We have the tools for impaired driving, so people who are really extremely impaired we can deal with. My answer is the empirical data are not that compelling. Most of the studies are confounded because of alcohol use. Unfortunately, multi-drug use is very dangerous. Also, many of these studies are like urine-test studies where we know consumption in the past 30 days, but there's no driver culpability at the time.

I'm concerned about this. I don't want our streets any less safe than they are, but in my personal and professional experience, I don't think this is the issue that should be driving the resolution of the decriminalization debate. It has to be there in the background. I'm happy the police are being trained in multi-drug detection. All those things I applaud. But to continue to curtail the liberty of 2.5 million Canadians because of worries about dangers on the road, which have not been empirically verified—and I ask, why doesn't Europe have...? Well, actually France and Italy do have high rates of accidents, but we haven't seen the report that they are induced by cannabis.

I can tell you that drug prohibitionists would be parading them on the front page of the Wall Street Journal if suddenly, because a decriminalized Europe became too reliant on cannabis, there were reports of increased accidents. We'd know about it, and we haven't seen it. Also, when you know how many Canadians smoke marijuana, if this is a real issue to be concerned about—the sole issue in addressing this legislation—I think we'd see it in data already, but we're not seeing it. Although 2.5 million Canadians smoke marijuana, I haven't seen one study that indicates an increase in driver culpability and increased carnage on the roads as a result. There should be a concern, but it shouldn't be the main issue.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Okay, merci.

The Chair: Merci beaucoup.

Madam Davies.

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): I thought Mr. Mark was going next.

Mr. Inky Mark: Yes, I'm sitting in the wrong place.

The Chair: Okay, Mr. Mark.

Mr. Inky Mark: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to thank our witnesses.

I'll put a question to Professor Young. We know Europeans take a different approach, but the fact remains that it's still on their books as illegal. As a society, why is it so difficult for developed nations to legalize it? Is it because of the international conventions of the UN?

Prof. Allan Young: There are problems relating to UN treaties. The UN does not require a criminal prohibition for possession; that much I'm certain of, and I've been through these treaties.

But legalized distribution gets to be a little confusing. It's not correct to say the law is on the books. Italy changed their law; Spain changed their law; Portugal changed their law. Most of the other countries, such as Luxembourg and Holland, do it informally. So some countries have gone forward and actually changed their criminal law, and there has not yet been a report from the International Narcotics Control Board at the UN saying “Don't do it.” They only look at us, because it's really an American-driven proposal, and we're too close to the States. I don't see complaints in the UN about what's happened in Europe.

But there will be problems down the road with legalization. If we really want to address this issue politically and in all its facets, we have to go back to the UN. That treaty was signed in a state of ignorance, basically, and a 1961 treaty shouldn't govern what we do today, in the year 2003.

That's a bigger issue. I'm not here looking for legalized distribution; I'm just looking to protect a few Canadians who indulge in what I consider a harmless habit.

Mr. Inky Mark: That's the very question we need answered, the one you raise. In terms of this bill, who are the winners, or are there winners, with Bill C-38?

Prof. Allan Young: You're trying to please too many sides with this bill. You can't please everybody simultaneously and try to really walk this tightrope between the activists and the prohibitionists. Ultimately, that's why—and I may be wrong, you people have heard from other people—I can't imagine anyone here supporting this bill. I'd be surprised if anybody did, because it's not enough for the activist and it's too much for the prohibitionist. It almost seems like a bill that was designed to fail.

That's why I made the invitation today to not do this legislatively. It's not working. Let's do it administratively, like Europe, and see how things work.

· (1325)

Mr. Inky Mark: Is that a responsible thing to do, even administratively, if we don't have the checks in place, like testing?

Prof. Allan Young: No question, we have to be responsible about it. But as I address the issue about impaired driving, I don't think there are no controls in place. I think there are controls in place. If we care about liberty, then the issue is to spend the money to develop the saliva prototype test.

I always favour liberty as my response. Then we'll figure out what the costs are to society to do this, and we'll do it properly.

If I thought there would be carnage on the road as a result of the increased marijuana consumption, because of liberalization of the law, I would not be here in good conscience. You may not believe my opinion about the fact that it won't lead to carnage on the road, but I can guarantee you that I would not be making these types of submissions. It would be reckless.

Mr. Inky Mark: With this particular bill, is the message consistent or is it very inconsistent?

Prof. Allan Young: It's a horrible message. One of the most disgraceful things was the introduction of the bill, when I watched all three ministers say this product, marijuana, is harmful to society. It was like it was scripted.

I'm thinking, if you say that, shame on you for introducing this bill. If you truly believe that marijuana is harmful to society, we shouldn't be liberalizing it; we should be getting tougher.

Mr. Inky Mark: Health Canada is saying it's a harmful substance.

Prof. Allan Young: No question. I'm only saying there's a real inconsistency. You asked me if there was a consistent message, and I said no, it's actually a contradictory message.

The Chair: Ms. Davies.

Ms. Libby Davies: Thank you very much for coming today.

We've held a lot of meetings, but I don't think we've had any witnesses who have actually come forward and supported the bill at this point, on either side. I could be wrong, but I don't remember anyone who actually came forward and supported it.

I think we're all in a bit of a quandary, those of us who favour true decriminalization and those committee members who favour prohibition. We're in a bit of a catch-22.

Picking up on Mr. Young's points, assuming we can deal with some significant amendments, this is the bill we have. This is the reality. I wish we could change it. I hope we can change it. We will be looking at amendments.

One of them, I think, does have to deal with cultivation for personal use, as you said, to allow people to become self-sufficient. It's a terrible contradiction when you say that possession is allegedly decriminalized, but you still have to go to the illegal market to get stuff.

In terms of cultivation then, how should this be done?

At some point, we do have to get a bit technical. I don't know whether you have any ideas. We've had a bit of a discussion about the number of plants, and there are varying opinions on this. There's some suggestion that maybe it could be done by square footage, electricity voltage, and so on.

What is a reasonable way to ensure that, for personal use, people are not being arrested and no warrants are being given?

I want to see a regime where the onus will be on the enforcement agencies to show that it's for the purposes of commercial trafficking. That's a different situation. But if it's for personal use, how do we actually create that space—literally “space”—to allow it to happen?

Prof. Allan Young: Whatever we do will be arbitrary, in the same way driving at 16 years of age is arbitrary. Some people can drive at 16 years of age and some can't. We're going to have to pick a number out of a hat.

I would rely upon the police estimates of yield per plant. I do a lot of cultivation cases. They always testify, as experts, that you get 2.5 ounces per plant. I see absolutely no harm in letting people grow five plants. It gives them 10 ounces and will last them for a few months. It takes three months to grow, so ten plants would be fine.

Then you get the problem that not everybody knows how to grow it and you're not always going to be able to yield. Do you want to maximize it or minimize it?

I think it's going to be an arbitrary figure. But do you know what? It doesn't matter. We'll live with it. The pot community will live with it. If you say to people they can grow 20 plants, they'll grow 20 plants. They'll take whatever they can get, instead of living with the spectre of possible raids on their homes and the violence associated with raids.

I can tell you that the limits in Australia are quite high. They go up to about 100 plants. It's a ticketing system, so it's not perfectly legal.

I don't think we have to go that high. I don't think you can do it, by the way, by square footage. I don't think you can do it by wattage of the lights. As much as I make fun of plant counting, it's the only thing that's immediately ascertainable to the eye to know whether you're within the limits of the law or not.

· (1330)

Ms. Libby Davies: Another area I'm very concerned about--and we have had some testimony on this--is the question of records. We did have some very interesting presentations from the RCMP about CPIC and how even if someone doesn't have a criminal record, the pieces of information or the individual records on that database are immense. There's nothing now to prevent the sharing of information that, of course, goes to the U.S., and we all have stories about people who have been prevented from crossing the border.

Should there even be a database? I guess the question is, what happens if you're fined? What happens to those records? If it's something that ends up being shared, even if it's a fine, then potentially you're leaving yourself vulnerable to that information being used by the Americans, and before you know it you're denied travel access.

So do you have any further suggestions about how to deal with the question of sealed records, or no records at all?

Prof. Allan Young: Most definitely. I think we actually know how to do this when we care to do it.

Records are created all the time. It doesn't matter if you call a contravention a crime, or whatever; the police are a bureaucracy. They have to keep records. So the question is, what do we do with that piece of paper or computer entry?

Well, when we've cared about young people's records or we care about the records of people who are pardoned, we do three things, and it's quite easy. You seal the record, meaning it has to be kept in a separate place from the usual record, and you have non-disclosure prohibitions. So you seal it; you keep it separate; you have non-disclosure prohibitions, and it's a fine or a criminal prohibition to release that information.

Does it work? I don't know. Ask the people in youth criminal justice if it works. I haven't heard a lot of complaints about young people showing up for employment or going across the border and finding their record mysteriously there.

So I think we know how to do this, and that's one of the things that's sort of a signal to me that Bill C-38 isn't a genuine effort at law reform, because we know how to do this with records.

Moving into the Contraventions Act, all that does is protect you when you apply for federal employment--and hopefully there are a lot more jobs out there than federal employment.

Ms. Libby Davies: I have just one further question. I don't think you listed this as one of your five or six, but it's the question of some sort of amnesty provision.

Something like 600,000 Canadians have a record, and there's nothing in the bill right now that deals with that. It seems to me that's also an important area, because people are facing discrimination now as a result of a conviction for simple possession. It's the law that's causing the harm, not the substance.

So we've had some testimony that suggests that we shouldn't do it through the pardon act, that we should set up a separate provision. But the idea would be to make it relatively easy and rational. So do you have any thoughts on the idea of some sort of amnesty provision?

Prof. Allan Young: I haven't because I haven't really thought through the issue, although to me it is again a no-brainer. If you're going to decriminalize, then you have to address the issue of past convictions.

Maybe I'm too simplistic on it, and I know my colleague Paul Burstein addressed you on this, but it seems to me just one section demanding the expunging of all records relating to simple possession from the year 1952, or whatever, until today.... I don't see it being that difficult, but I don't know if it's that simple. I've never dealt with retrospective amnesties before, so I don't actually have a bright idea about it, but I thought it would just take one legislative decree.

Ms. Libby Davies: Okay.

The Chair: And a whole lot of paperwork.

Prof. Allan Young: That's always the case.

The Chair: Mr. Lee, and then Mr. Barrette.

Mr. Derek Lee: And a whole lot of committee hearings.

I have two questions. I want to ask Mr. Young to clarify on the issue of the preamble. To be honest, I hadn't even noticed it, or at least not attached any significance to it. Can you give us a hint of whether you see any unintended consequences as a result?

Prof. Allan Young: No, it's purely symbolic, and I don't like the symbolism.

I was prepared completely to support Martin Cauchon's proposal. I've been working on this for a long time. So when I saw Bill C-38, on the face of it, okay, the Contraventions Act seemed like it was moving towards a non-criminal regime, but I was still prepared to support it. Then when I looked at it carefully and I saw the preamble, that was the first thing that turned me off. They changed the preamble so that the Contraventions Act is not the piece of legislation to deal with regulatory offences. All it is now is an alternative criminal process. So to me, the fireworks went off that said, if you're going to decriminalize, do it properly. Don't take the legislation you're going to use to accomplish that and then change that legislation so it actually isn't a decriminalization bill.

I just saw that as a very sinister part of this, because I couldn't see any reason to change the preamble otherwise. It's not something we usually think of changing.

· (1335)

Mr. Derek Lee: So it's somewhere between cynical and sinister, then. We change the necktie on the suit in the Contraventions Act.

Prof. Allan Young: The Contraventions Act no longer became the perfect forum for a decriminalization measure, because symbolically it didn't represent regulatory crime; it represented an alternative to crime.

Mr. Derek Lee: Okay. I'm sure you had your experiential reasons, but you just didn't like the look of the new necktie, if I can draw that analogy.

Prof. Allan Young: No, I just don't like the symbol. It's the same thing I said when the minister was saying it's harmful to society. It's a mind game, quite frankly, that I don't really want to play.

Mr. Derek Lee: Well, that's politics.

Now that we have you here in the political arena.... I've always viewed this bill as one very small, a little beyond symbolic, step away from the criminal prohibition model in the direction of a health-based model for dealing with the drug issue in our society.

Now we have raised by the other witnesses here and other witnesses who've written to us this spectre of increased THC impairment as it affects driving. We don't have a lot of evidence on that, but we've looked for it, and as you point out, it just doesn't seem to be out there. This is driving people away from this small step. It's a real small step, but it's a step nonetheless, and politically, in the mind game business, a small step can sometimes involve a lifetime.

So can you help me out here? Would you agree that it is a small step, albeit infinitesimally small in the envelope you work in, and do you really think there's merit--I know you'll be honest with us--about the THC impairment issue? Do we have a potentially serious problem?

Prof. Allan Young: First of all, about small steps, I actually think the way to approach large social problems is step by step. Not to get too pedantic about it, but Lao Tzu said a thousand-mile journey begins with a single step. So I usually encourage small steps. I don't know whether this is a step that's forward, lateral, or backwards. I'm not really sure, and the reason I don't like it is because normally I'd say, yes, incremental small steps, but I also know the legislative process. Generally when you change the law, you're content; you're complacent. You know, you changed the law of soliciting to communication. You had a five-year study that came back saying this law is not working. We still have communication law.

So I don't want a small step, because I'm afraid it's a step that's carved in stone, ultimately--I know I'm mixing metaphors. As soon as you make that step, that's the end. It doesn't accomplish the goal.

It's a small step, but it's not clear that it's in the right direction, and the legislative process is probably not going to do this incrementally. Let's get it right the first time, without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I'm not saying let's go right to legalization, which is the position I would advocate, because Canada is not ready for it. So a small step is decriminalization, but this isn't decriminalization.

On THC levels, I think you asked me to answer honestly. I'm not sure what “honestly” can mean, but I can tell you that I can't imagine that the increased level of THC is what this is all about. As I said earlier, people self-titrate. Increased THC is a welcome development because people smoke less. The harm from marijuana is the smoking. We want people to smoke less.

Marijuana is unique in the sense that you can only get so intoxicated. So basically it doesn't matter if you have increased potency; you're not going to get more intoxicated than you would with the old marijuana, where you smoke more. You're going to reach that level where you believe subjectively that you've reached the level of intoxication you want to be at.

Most people shouldn't drive, but I'm not actually going to be honest. If you want me to be honest, I'm not going to tell you that marijuana is a prime cause of impairment. It doesn't lead to the same sort of cognitive impairment as alcohol; it doesn't lead to the same motor-skill loss.

Do you know why people shouldn't smoke marijuana? You're highly distractable, and you should never be distractable in a car. There's nothing pharmacologically about marijuana that makes you a bad driver, but quite frankly, I want people on our streets to be alert. So I would support what my colleagues say here, that we have to be really careful about it. Again, my point is that I don't think it should be driving the car. It's not a side issue; it's an important issue--security on the roads. But we're just looking at the wrong drug when we're using that as a reason not to make the proper first step.

· (1340)

Mr. Derek Lee: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Barrette.

[Translation]

Mr. Gilbert Barrette: I have a brief question. What role do you think police officers should play in enforcing the law or ensuring that the rules are respected? How much leeway should they have?

[English]

Prof. Allan Young: First of all, the police role should be to fight and combat serious predatory crime, not to go after pot smokers. In terms of increasing their latitude, that's the worst thing about Bill C-38. It's like Parliament didn't want to make the decision to decriminalize, so we say to the cops, you decide at your discretion whether you're going to arrest or issue a ticket.

I like our police. I'm not a cop basher. But the one thing I know is you don't give people with guns and nightsticks more discretion. You have to constrain their discretion. They should not be making our public policy decisions.

Actually, I think the police have very little role in this debate. I'm surprised they're not more warmly embracing liberalization. Frankly, I don't meet a lot of cops who want to waste their time with this law. They have a serious job, and they know it's a serious job. It seems like they're always supporting decriminalization, but when you get to situations and forums like this, they back off a little bit.

My answer is that the police should have absolutely no role to play with marijuana because it's not an activity that's endangering society. That's something of a rhetorical answer.

[Translation]

The Chair: Are there any other questions?

Mr. Gilbert Barrette: You say that they have no role to play, but they are called upon regularly, when walking the beat or taking part in prevention activities in the schools, for example. So, surely, there must be something they can do.

[English]

Prof. Allan Young: No question. When I said earlier that I invite the government to suspend prosecutions for a year, I should have actually added this to it, to be more responsible and responsive to government concerns. The moratorium I'm proposing is that no one should be arrested and prosecuted for under 30 grams unless they're smoking it in a car, to address the concerns we do have, or what they do in Australia--and I don't like it much but it satisfies--or they're within 100 metres of a school. The police would have a role if they saw someone smoking by a schoolyard. Then criminal law kicks in. If the police stop a car and smell marijuana, the criminal law can kick in.

But what I'd really like to see happen in this country is to get them away from marijuana prosecution and investigation except in those two narrow circumstances. Though my guarantee means absolutely nothing to this committee, I guarantee that after 12 months of a decriminalized Canada, you will understand fully why this is folly that we're still sitting here debating this. We should have resolved it post-Le Dain in 1973.

The Chair: Thank you.

I know a couple of people are running to question period. I'll turn to you Mr. Mark.

I wanted to let all committee members know that John Walters and his deputies are not available this week to come before the committee, so they will not in fact be coming.

As well, in terms of records, it was nearly impossible to identify who in fact is responsible for the records in the United States. Mr. Thompson, who was before us the other day, volunteered to write us a paper that would more clearly identify the record situation. We expect that to arrive today or tomorrow.

In terms of the panel on solicitors general, the only one who was interested was Yukon for tomorrow. But with all the votes we weren't quite sure how that would work, so we didn't get our solicitors general.

Ms. Libby Davies: Can I just clarify something? We do have a meeting this afternoon at 3:30?

The Chair: Yes, at 3:30. I just wanted to let everyone know because you're going to be asked, I know.

Ms. Libby Davies: I have a further question before people rush off. We did get a memo--I'm not sure whether it was from the researchers or the clerk--

· (1345)

The Chair: The clerk.

Ms. Libby Davies: --reminding us about amendments. But I don't actually remember ever getting the first notice.

The Chair: It was more of a reminder. Since it's a bill in clause-by-clause, the people need to be reminded if they want amendments.

Ms. Libby Davies: We are working on our amendments, obviously, but the question is, is there a deadline that's been issued? Presumably we have to finish hearing the witnesses.

The Chair: Yes. We're working on scheduling the minister for tomorrow evening. Then we would have exhausted our witness list, and we would be ready to do clause-by-clause on Wednesday.

Prof. Allan Young: I'm sorry to be rude, but I'm actually late for my next appointment. I didn't want to get up and rush out.

The Chair: All right. I just wanted to make sure Mr. Mark didn't have a question for you.

Mr. Inky Mark: I did actually, a very important one. My question to you is this. Because we spend so much money in supply suppression, over $600 million a year because of the huge job police have in the prohibition regime we're into, how can we rationalize? On the other hand, a parking ticket, the use of it and the message it sends out.... The whole thing doesn't make sense with this current legislation.

Prof. Allan Young: No. Actually what's really strange is that we do spend...you say about $600 million; I think it could be closer to $1 billion when you put in municipal law enforcement moneys. Not only are we spending a lot of money and it doesn't reduce consumption--in fact, consumption is the highest it's been since 1979--but we're losing a lot of economic opportunity. I don't think it's proper to go about ticketing to make revenue.

If I were to tell you about revenue, it's the same thing you do with gambling; you legalize it and you tax the hell out of it. I support vice taxes, quite frankly, I think they're good things if you want to indulge in activities that may end up being a charge on health care. It's funny, we spend a lot of money and we're probably conservatively losing a few billion dollars a year in revenue, but that's ahead of the stage.

As was said by Mr. Lee, we need the small step. Maybe if we take the small step and we realize we've demystified marijuana--it's not destroying the youth of Canada or the fabric of this nation--then we can go about making some money from this, which I think would be good for all Canadians.

Mr. Inky Mark: Your belief is that it is essential that we take one small step before we look at the....

Prof. Allan Young: I think so. I represent a constituency that wants legalization. I represent tens of thousands of marijuana smokers who I've met who all seem to be healthy, productive people. They don't understand why we're here.

I just came back from Edmonton and Calgary, and I spoke to some people there who don't understand what this government is doing. I think we have to move slowly and show Canadians that a decriminalized zone is not a dangerous zone. Then we'll be able to do something constructive. There's still too much mystification because of years and years of false information. It takes a long time to get beyond that.

Mr. Inky Mark: How many plants are permissible in Europe right now in terms of personal use?

Prof. Allan Young: Europe basically has a hands-off approach. It's Australia that has set up what's called graduated expiation schemes. I believe for four of the five states that have it--I think it goes up to 100--the fine changes: if they have 10 plants it's $50, for 100 plants it's $200. I don't recall the details of it, unfortunately. Other regimes haven't been that specific.

Ms. Libby Davies: Can I ask you one more thing before you go?

The Chair: Mr. Lee has a question too, but you can go, Libby.

Ms. Libby Davies: It's this question of the fines.

I agree with you that a real step in decriminalization, as something moving us closer to an understanding that these prohibitionist laws are an utter failure, is something that's supportable. But if that's actually what we are doing--and I think there's lots of evidence that it's not what we're doing; we're actually going backwards--relative to fines, then how do we deal with fines? I've been asking people what is the purpose of fines. Is it a deterrent? There's no evidence that it's a deterrent. Is it simply to collect money? No one is going to admit that; the police won't admit that. So you are caught in this weird space that if we say decriminalization is a first step, then does it mean there has to be fine?

Prof. Allan Young: No.

Ms. Libby Davies: If you don't have a fine, is it actually legalization?

Prof. Allan Young: Decriminalization means the absence of criminal law, and a fine is part of criminal law. Decriminalization is the absence of legal control. Why are we fining an activity if it's not wrong?

Ms. Libby Davies: So you could theoretically have decriminalization that isn't legalization without a fine.

Prof. Allan Young: Correct. It's the absence of legal control; it's much ado about nothing. We say as long as it's under $30 we don't care, or 30 grams, we turn away from it, but we still have the enforcement mechanism for people who have more than that, or who grow more than what's allotted, or who traffic. Eventually we're going to have to deal with the supply side, not just the demand side. This is a little bit myopic, what we're doing. But again, you can't change the world in one fell swoop.

· (1350)

Ms. Libby Davies: Yes. But it seems as though the fines are being put forward as somehow a step--

Prof. Allan Young: It is a step.

Ms. Libby Davies: --because it is decriminalization. But I wonder what the heck is the purpose of the fines.

Prof. Allan Young: It's a money grab, like a parking ticket.

Ms. Libby Davies: But is it? I don't know. The cost of the enforcement may end up actually being more.

Prof. Allan Young: If imprisonment didn't deter young people from smoking pot, surely you don't think the fine will. All we're doing is grabbing a bit of money. I think that's fine, but it should be done as a vice tax. I will support a fine/ticketing system if you get rid of imprisonment upon default and get rid of arrest.

Here's what I don't like. A cop is going to come up to a young person and say “Here's your little ticket”, and the young person is trying to be a rebel and will say “Oh, cop, you're a pig”, to use the old expression from the sixties. Then suddenly it's going to go from ticketing to arrest. I don't think that's fair and I don't think that's right.

I will support a fine system, but not with all of the flaws that are already in Bill C-38. I don't like the fines, but that's a small step I would approve of.

The Chair: Mr. Lee.

Mr. Derek Lee: I didn't realize Mr. Young had to go. He's late for another appointment. We'll give him a pink slip, if we have to.

Prof. Allan Young: You have to buy my book. I'm promoting my book.

Mr. Derek Lee: It's about medical marijuana.

I wanted to question the two organizations, MADD and the Brantford Drinking and Driving Countermeasures Committee.

Medical marijuana has been driven first by the courts, then by changing government policy, and then by some common sense. Now medical marijuana is out there. Did your organizations make submissions to the courts at that time? Surely the risks of THC impairment are the same. The courts have obviously come to the conclusion that while there may be an issue, it's certainly not enough of an issue to warrant changing the medical marijuana arrangements that have been made so far. Am I right in that? Do you take a different view?

Mr. Andrew Murie: Well, we were very strong on the medical marijuana, and very concerned when the letters came out that they didn't contain within them an exemption for driving.

At that time, we met with Minister McLellan and said to her that there needs to be an exemption in those letters. Even though you're allowed to use medical marijuana, there should be certain exemptions of activities that you should not participate in while using the drug. We have been very adamant about that since the whole process started.

Mr. Derek Lee: Okay.

Mr. Palk, do you have something to add?

Mr. Lawrie Palk: One of the recommendations in our letter of recommendations of April 1 concerned this issue. As far as our committee is concerned, there's a very real legal problem with offering consent to use medical marijuana through a doctor, in our opinion. In particular, what happens if someone who is under sanction to use such a drug goes out and, as has happened before, ends up in an impaired situation? All I can see is one big legal problem.

I'm very disturbed by the fact that doctors, as an example, are not licensed to, if nothing else, sign a waiver saying they will not accept responsibility for the behaviour of their clients should they end up in an impaired driving situation.

Mr. Derek Lee: Well, they don't do that with other drugs, but I realize you have a concern that may not have been adequately addressed by the current arrangement.

Mr. Lawrie Palk: Yes, very true.

Mr. Derek Lee: Mr. Young, do you have anything to add there?

Prof. Allan Young: Not really. I think the government is well aware of the fact that there are lots of people who use marijuana medicinally and are now allowed to apply to get it.

To the best of my recollection, they now have a form when they send you your authorization. One of the 20 dangers they list is about driving. Really, I wouldn't want to use marijuana after I read the Health Canada warnings. I think they're cognizant of it.

My point would be the same. CMA says there are 400,000 medical users. I don't think that's true. But assuming that, I think there would be carnage on the roads if there were 400,000 medical users all driving under the influence of cannabis. Either they're not driving or the fears are somewhat overstated.

· (1355)

Mr. Derek Lee: Thank you.

Prof. Allan Young: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you.

I have one quick question.

Mr. Palk, you and I have discussed this many times. I think if you really want to send a message to young people, particularly about drinking and driving.... I'm concerned that there are already people—and Mr. Murray brought it up exactly—-who think they shouldn't drink and drive because there's a test. Right now, 50% of those people, as one of my colleagues mentioned, who are encountering a police officer and have a joint in their pocket get no message. In fact, they get the worst message that it's probably legal. They're getting behind the wheel of a car, and we have a problem.

I think under this system, 20-year-olds with one or two joints are in fact going to have a punishment. There is going to be a message. There is a price for doing what they're doing. This bill will in fact make a difference in that they find out, perhaps for the first time, that the substance is illegal.

What do you say to that?

Mr. Andrew Murie: I would say you have to separate the two. It's like the situation when you come to drinking and driving. The consumption of alcohol is basically a private matter when you're consuming it yourself in the privacy of whatever jurisdiction. But once you combine—

The Chair: Assuming you're the right age.

Mr. Andrew Murie: That's correct—and all that type of framework. But once you consume a product that can impair your driving or any operation of a motor vehicle, then it becomes a public concern, because not only are you endangering yourself, you're endangering others on the public roadways.

Consequently, what stops young people from drinking and driving is the fact that it is a criminal offence. What has been really effective with young people is the zero BAC as part of graduated licensing.

The Chair: You mean in Ontario?

Mr. Andrew Murie: It's not only Ontario; it's Nova Scotia, it's Quebec--

The Chair: It's not every province, but yes.

Mr. Andrew Murie: A lot of jurisdictions have graduated licensing. In fact, there are very few now that don't.

It has been effective. The biggest thing that has increased the consumption of cannabis and driving among the youth is that they've learned the police have no powers to apprehend them—from whatever message we want to send. That is really noticeable in provinces like British Columbia, where there's a real incidence of impaired driving.

I think when you can have the measures and the youth know the police have the tools, just as with alcohol it balances the playing field out there. There will still be risk-takers who will undertake this activity, but it certainly would not become the norm.

The Chair: In the interim, while we're getting those measures in place, and they're already being tested, and they're already working with the police officers and training them on drug detection, do you think it will have no impact to give 20-year-olds tickets today—absolutely no impact—and that there will be no change in their understanding of the current laws?

Mr. Andrew Murie: It's the cost of doing business.

The Chair: Well, maybe that would be an impact.

Mr. Andrew Murie: The thing is, if you look at some of the other offences, such as speed-racing and those types of things, the fine has very little deterrent. It's the cost of doing business.

The Chair: Mr. Palk.

Mr. Lawrie Palk: As far as our organization is concerned, the levels of the fines under this bill on a first offence and in succeeding numbers of offences are entirely too low.

I'll use an example of someone who's a youth representative on our committee, who said to me approximately a month ago that a $100 fine means nothing to someone under the age of 18. They can spend that much or more on a concert ticket on any day of the week. Why is $100 all of a sudden going to scare the living daylights out of them?

The other thing that we certainly notice in our area is there is a tremendous amount of misunderstanding about this bill. There are people who believe it's not decriminalization but legalization. They believe you can do whatever you want because it's not like alcohol; you can do absolutely whatever you want. The belief in the schools is that this is a big ha-ha.

The Chair: Currently? Not this bill, but the current situation vis-à-vis marijuana?

¸ (1400)

Mr. Lawrie Palk: No, I'm talking about this bill. People believe it's a big ha-ha when they look at a $100 fine and say, this is going to be a first-offence fine. They really think it's a big ha-ha.

The Chair: That's better than the high school students I've heard who think it is already legal.

Mr. Andrew Murie: The greatest deterrent for young people involves the ability to drive. They value the opportunity to drive a motor vehicle. Anything that infringes or threatens to take that away.... That's why the zero BAC has been so effective: it's because they want to drive. They'll obey the rules to drive. This bill has none of that messaging in there; it has no impact on their driver's licence.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Macklin, quickly.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Thank you.

I just wanted one question, and it was to Mr. Palk. I noticed in the extra submissions you made that you said you wanted the allowable maximum of marijuana possession dropped from 15 grams to 10 grams. You would find that supportable, would you?

Mr. Lawrie Palk: Yes, I would feel a lot more comfortable with that than the way it is at present. However, having said that, in a perfect world I wish it were zero, in the same way that I wish it were zero with alcohol.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: But living in the imperfect world, 10 grams you could handle.

Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Palk, Mr. Murie, thank you very much. We appreciate your coming on short notice.

Thank you. This meeting is adjourned until 3:30 p.m., colleagues.