37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

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

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Monday, November 3, 2003

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Randy White)

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

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Randy White)

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Chair

Professor Allan Young (Osgoode Hall Law School)

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

Excerpts from the EVIDENCE

Monday, November 3, 2003

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?

. . . 

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.

   (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.

   (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.

   (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.

   (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.

   (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.

   (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.

   (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.

   (1234)  

Updated:Thursday, 07-Oct-2004 07:57:17 PDT| Accessed:9237times