Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, our witnesses have given us three good presentations. We favour the principle and the goals of the bill. However, I rather agree with the Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers and the B.C. Civil Liberties Association that we could, in fact, remove some provisions of the bill without prejudicing its basic goal.
I wonder about the link between possession of drugs in a car and the capacity of driving without being impaired. I believe that this Committee should consider removing that part of the bill. I was a member of the Sub-Committee which has been sitting for several months following the introduction of a motion on the non-medical use of drugs by Randy White, one of the Chair's colleague.
It seems to me that in regards to driving, there have been rather some serious expert views that cannabis use might interfere with driving as it could reduce the capacity to follow a straight line. I am not ready to accept that it is acceptable to drive after using marijuana. Does it justify the offence regime proposed in this bill? Maybe we should provide for reduction measures. I think that this is a social issue that should concern us.
My question is for the B.C. Civil Liberties Association and the Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers. You gave the example of people who might lose their driver's licence in rural areas of Canada. This is really not what we are looking for. If the possession of drug-in-a-car provision was removed from the bill and if there was a better definition of “reasonable grounds”, would you find the bill more acceptable? I do not wish for the student to go against the teacher. I am perfectly aware of the respect you both have for academic authority.