Justice Committee on June 19th, 2007

[Greg Yost]

The only other thing, of course, is that if you're transporting enough, you're going to be into a charge of trafficking under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, which is much more serious than this. If this were adopted, there would be a variety of tools the police officer could use.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Yes, the tool box would be much better with this adopted. However, I'm just trying to assure myself that there's no gap, that someone who possesses one of these drugs while they're in a motor vehicle or a vessel or an aircraft is still subject to the provisions of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

[Greg Yost]

That is correct.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Mr. Pruden, you also wanted to add something.

[Hal Pruden]

It would be perhaps better to characterize it as additional to the CDSA rather than redundant. It's an additional penalty of driving prohibition that would attach.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Monsieur Petit.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

My question may seem similar to Mr. Lee's, but I want to be sure that you understand what I'm getting at. The question is for Mr. Yost. You are the victim, this morning.

Regarding amendment G-1, which the government has moved, and you have a copy of it in front of you, if we remove the words “substance included in Schedule I, II or III of the Controlled Drugs and Substances”, the police officer will have far more options. A person could be incarcerated even for a medication. On the other hand, if we limit this to drugs included in Schedule I, II or III, that is to say, to hard drugs, aren't we limiting the police officer's powers?

[Greg Yost]

You said that even people who have taken medication could be jailed. Normally, a person in that situation would, I believe, have what we call a lawful excuse.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Yes, indeed, we call that a lawful excuse.

[Greg Yost]

Consequently, there is no problem with medication. When we looked at this clause again, we realized that it was the same provision as the one passed by the standing committee in the last Parliament. When we added the prohibition against driving, we didn't think of the effect it would have on Schedules IV, V and VI, which list drugs that do not impair a person's faculties the way hard drugs do, the hard drugs listed in Schedules I, II and III. We are suggesting that it be limited to the illicit hard drugs that no one should have in his or her possession, according to the current act. The prohibition against driving is the major change that has been made.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

It's a reference?

[Greg Yost]

Yes.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Do you see it as a reference or as an opportunity to enforce Schedules I, II and III? Let's suppose that I am a police officer and I arrest someone along the side of the road. If I don't have to enforce Schedules I, II and III, I can arrest the person for any old reason, given that I have nothing to guide me. However, Schedules I, II and III, as well as the lawful excuse in the case of medication, serve as a guideline. Under such circumstances, can a person get off the hook?

[Greg Yost]

I would just add that in the case of cannabis, the lawful excuse offence would apply to a person who has received permission to possess cannabis for medical reasons. In that case, for all practical purposes it is a medication.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Petit.

Monsieur Ménard.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I want to make sure I understood this.

Parliamentarians are already been asked to be bold when it comes to this bill, in so far as we have been told, generally speaking, that when it comes to drugs, the studies are not as conclusive that they can lead to impairment. There is no effective detection technology, but we understand that there is a responsibility to society, we see that. But I really don't understand what this clause is doing in the bill.

I have two questions for you. First of all, at the present time, under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the possession of drugs in a vehicle or in another place is already illegal. So I wonder what this clause adds, and in particular, what link there is between possibly having prohibited drugs in the glove compartment or in the back of a car and impaired driving. There is no such link between the two, even though from a social policy point of view you may not be in agreement, of course. Other legislation already covers this.

Secondly, is cannabis in Schedule I, II or III of the act?

I am trying to understand what additional tool this would give police officers, since they already have all the tools they need to take action in the case of illegal possession. I really think that this clause 2 certainly goes too far, both in terms of jurisdiction and in terms of consistency.

Please be specific. What more will this give police officers? This is what we want to understand. Where is cannabis? Is it in Schedule I, II or III of the Act?

[Greg Yost]

First of all, in the part of this bill that has to do with drugs, the provision is nearly exactly the same as the one passed by the committee during the last Parliament. This new offence, which would apply in the case of all drugs, was added by the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. Of course, it is now up to your committee to decide whether you wish to retain that provision.

When we looked at the provision, we wanted to improve it, make it more useful. In order to send the message that drugs and driving don't mix, we wanted to have the option of taking away your driver's licence if you have drugs in a motor vehicle. That is why the clause has been drafted this way. It was not in the bill that was introduced by the former government, it was something that the standing committee added and we retained.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Your answer has changed slightly. You and I may both understand that this adds nothing for police officers, contrary to what you have stated. This is a different sort of argument, and you can believe it or not. With regard to dissuasion, you say that you want to send a message to society that people should not drive when there are drugs in the car. That is another rationale. But we do agree that this adds nothing for the police officers. Even if it weren't in the bill, a police officer could always take action if he found drugs inside a vehicle. We agree on that point.

[Greg Yost]

Currently, if a police officer finds drugs in your possession that are listed in Schedule I, II or III, obviously he can lay criminal charges against you. It is enforcement of the law.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

No, but that adds nothing for a police officer. A few moments ago, one of you said that it would provide a police officer with additional tools. In my opinion, that is not so.

[Greg Yost]

It gives—

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

It gives a police officer absolutely nothing more.

[Greg Yost]

I agree on that point. Pardon me if I said it that way. It may give the court an additional tool. If the person is found guilty under the suggested section 253.1, he or she will be prohibited from driving. I did not express myself properly. The police officer roadside is not the one who will have another tool. He observes possession of drugs, and he can decide to enforce the suggested 253.1.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Where is cannabis listed in the schedules?