SNUD Committee Meeting

SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON NON-MEDICAL USE OF DRUGS

COMITÉ SPÉCIAL SUR LA CONSOMMATION NON MÉDICALE DE DROGUES OU MÉDICAMENTS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Monday, October 1, 2001

• 1836

[English]

The Chair (Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.)): I'll call this meeting to order.

[Translation]

I believe we have the required quorum to hear from witnesses.

[English]

Witnesses this evening are Paul Saint-Denis, senior counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section; and Croft Michaelson, the director and senior general counsel of the Department of Strategic Prosecution Policy.

Gentlemen, welcome. I think you have a presentation for us. We're not getting copies distributed, but there will be rounds of questions afterwards. And before you start, thank you for coming on such short notice and for adjusting your schedule. We really appreciate it.

Mr. Paul Saint-Denis (Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice Canada): Thank you very much, Madam Chair, for adjusting your schedule to allow us to come at a later date.

My colleague Croft Michaelson and I have short presentations to make. They're based a little bit on what we understand you may be interested in.

I will give a short overview of the history of the drug legislation in Canada—and when I say short, I do mean short. I'll speak a little bit about the international drug conventions and what the international community expects of members who have ratified drug conventions, and I'll also highlight some of the key points in our present drug legislation.

Mr. Michaelson will deal with prosecutorial issues and problems with information on prosecutions, some of the costs related to prosecutions, etc. Also, Mr. Michaelson will be speaking about what we believe to be a fairly innovative and very promising approach that we are working on and for which we have established a pilot project, and that's the drug courts.

With your permission, Madam Chair, I'll begin with a very brief overview of what the international drug convention regimes do.

Between the early 1900s and 1972, we had no less than twelve multilateral drug control treaties concluded at the international level with the United Nations. The most recent conventions, however, are the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961, as amended by the 1972 protocol; the 1972 Convention on Psychotropic Substances; and the 1988 Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances.

The international community's main efforts, particularly as evidenced by the first two conventions that I mentioned, are directed toward creating a network of administrative controls. The primary objective of this regime is to regulate the supply and movement of drugs, with a view to limiting their production, manufacture, import, and export, to the quantities required for legitimate medical and scientific purposes. These two conventions also require governments to furnish to the international drug control agencies periodic reports on the conventions' application and to submit to international supervision.

• 1840

The most recent manifestation of the international community's political will with respect to drugs was the adoption in 1988 of the drug trafficking convention, the Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. While the single and psychotropic conventions are regulatory in nature first and foremost, the trafficking convention is a law enforcement instrument. This convention calls on parties to take specific law enforcement measures to improve their ability to identify, arrest, prosecute, and convict drug traffickers across international boundaries.

The ambit of this convention is extremely broad. It deals with a number of drug-related subjects, the most important being: the establishment of specific offences and sanctions; the extension of national jurisdictions; confiscation of proceeds and offence-related property; extradition; mutual legal assistance; and the control of precursory and chemical substances frequently used in the illicit manufacture of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.

With respect to the three conventions, I just want to highlight the fact that the single convention requires that a series of activities be criminalized, most notably the cultivation, the production, the manufacture, the extraction, the preparation, the possession, the offering for sale and the sale, the purchase, the importation, and the exportation of drugs. These activities are listed in article 36(1) of convention.

In the psychotropic convention, the wording is a little more general. The requirement to criminalize certain activities is much broader and does not contain a list of wordings or of activities that need to be criminalized. The single convention targets narcotic drugs, such as heroin, cocaine, or marijuana/cannabis. The psychotropic convention targets chemical substances, such as amphetamines, barbiturates, LSD, and so on.

The trafficking convention picks up some of the wording that we find in the 1961 convention vis-à-vis the activities that need to be criminalized, but it makes it very clear with respect to one issue that had remained something of an outstanding question in the international community. That was whether or not the possession of cannabis should be criminalized. The 1988 convention is quite clear that it needs to be criminalized, or parties to the convention need to criminalize the possession of cannabis products.

With that very quick overview of what the international community expects with respect to the international convention, I'd like to just very quickly touch on a brief history of drug legislation in Canada.

Without drawing the points or the links throughout the last hundred years, the evolution of our own drug legislation will sometimes anticipate, sometimes meet or evolve at the same time, or sometimes immediately follow developments that occur at the international level. In some instances, what Parliament was proposing to do with respect to certain drugs, the international community was also considering doing, was about to consider, or had just finished considering doing. So we are very often in lockstep, either anticipating or reacting to what's going on at the international level.

• 1845

Prior to 1908 in Canada, there were really no laws prohibiting or even regulating drugs per se. It was in 1908 that the first true drug statute came about, and that was the Opium Act. It prohibited the importation, the manufacture, the sale, and the possession for sale, of opium. It was reached as a result of concerns that were expressed by communities in the west, particularly in British Columbia, over the use of opium by the Chinese population on the west coast. However, with the Opium Act, there was no possession offence per se, and no offence regarding the use of opium.

The next important change came in 1911, when Parliament adopted the Opium and Drug Act, which essentially broadened the scope of the Opium Act to cover transportation. It created the possession offence with respect to certain substances, and it added new substances to the list that was contained in the Opium Act. As well as opium, the new act now covered morphine, cocaine, and certain cocaine derivatives.

In 1920, the Opium Act was renamed the Opium and Narcotic Act, and the record-keeping procedures were strengthened, the penalties were strengthened, and police powers were increased. In 1923, the legislation was amended to add cannabis, heroin, and codeine to the list of substances covered.

Between 1923 and 1961, there were a number of changes brought to the drug legislation, always with a view to expanding the list of drugs that the legislation targeted, and also to expanding the administrative controls over the manufacture, the production, and the sale of drugs, usually accompanied with increases in penalties for the offences that were contained in the drug statutes.

The last really major change occurred in 1961, when the Narcotic Control Act was adopted. In essence, that is the drug legislation we've all known and have grown up with, and it was recently amended in 1997. The Narcotic Control Act contains all of the offences that the present legislation, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, now contains. It targets all of the substances that I'm sure you are all well aware of.

Just as a couple of words, presently the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act controls a number of what used to be narcotic drugs. It also controls a number of substances called chemical drugs, which used to be controlled in the Food and Drugs Act.

The Food and Drugs Act was first adopted by Parliament in 1920. It dealt primarily with foods, cosmetics, medicines, and medical devices. It did not touch drugs per se until roughly 1961, when the Governor in Council added schedule G to the act to deal with amphetamines and barbiturates. In 1962, the Governor in Council added schedule H to the act to deal with what were called restricted drugs. Things like LSD and a number of other chemical drugs were added, and they were chemical drugs for which there were absolutely no known medical uses.

• 1850

The Narcotic Control Act and parts III and IV of the Food and Drugs Act—those parts of that act that dealt with drugs—were consolidated into one statute, now called the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, and it came into force in 1997.

The Controlled Drugs and Substances Act as it exists today is really divided into two very distinct notional concepts, if you wish. Part I and part II really are the parts that most people tend to be familiar with. They're the parts dealing with the offences, the penalties, and the law enforcement powers. The remainder of the act deals with regulatory affairs, administration, the supervision of manufacturers, of pharmacists, and so on.

I'm assuming your main interest is in parts I and II. The offences and punishments are found in part I. Very broadly speaking, you have the offences of possession, trafficking, importing and exporting, and the production offence for production of a substance. There's the laundering of proceeds derived from the commission of certain drug offences, and then there's the possession of property, of proceeds. Those are the offences that are in part I.

The penalty regime is based on where the substances are located in the various annexes or schedules to the act. Substances that are more serious or more dangerous are located in schedule 1 and are dealt with through the offences and penalties in the harshest manner. Then, as you go through the schedules, the dangerousness of the substances is less, and therefore the way the law deals with them is less harsh. That's the general regime that is provided for in the act. If you've had the officials from the Department of Health speak to you, they might have spoken about or dealt with that particular issue. If not, you may hear about that again from them.

Part II deals with enforcement powers and with the various provisions covering search and seizure, detention of property, and so on.

Madam Chair, with those few comments and with your permission, I would turn the mike over to my colleague Croft Michaelson, so that he can provide you with information concerning the Federal Prosecution Service.

The Chair: Perfect. Thank you.

Mr. Croft Michaelson (Director and Senior General Counsel, Strategic Prosecution Policy Section, Department of Justice): Thank you, Madam Chair.

My name is Croft Michaelson. I am the director and senior general counsel of the Strategic Prosecution Policy Section for the Federal Prosecution Service.

The Federal Prosecution Service is the federal prosecution arm, and it prosecutes offences in every province and territory under a variety of federal statutes, including drug offences under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. The Federal Prosecution Service is comprised of approximately 300 full-time staff counsel located in 13 offices across the country, as well as over 750 standing agents who prosecute drug cases. It's fair to say that the bulk of our prosecution work relates to drug offences under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

I thought I would mention briefly the jurisdiction to prosecute. Under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the jurisdiction to prosecute is a concurrent jurisdiction. That is to say that the Attorney General of Canada has authority to prosecute, and attorneys general in each province also can exercise jurisdiction to prosecute in respect of proceedings commenced at the instance of the province.

• 1855

If you look across Canada you'll see that, in Quebec, the Quebec Attorney General will prosecute drug offences where they were investigated by provincial or municipal police forces. In New Brunswick, the same happens to a lesser extent. And if you go to Alberta, you will see that, in the province of Alberta, their Attorney General prosecutes young offenders in respect of drug offences.

Again, I thought I would give you a brief overview of the environment so that you would have some idea of how things work in practice. The Federal Prosecution Service is a reactive service. We respond to charges that have been laid by the police. The activities of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and municipal and provincial police forces will determine the number of investigations and, ultimately, the number of charges and the types of charges that we're called upon to deal with. In some jurisdictions, such as British Columbia, Quebec, and New Brunswick, before the police lay a charge, they're required to seek the approval of the crown prosecutor before laying the charge. In those three jurisdictions, the police will therefore come to the prosecutor, provide an outline of the case, and obtain crown approval. In the other jurisdictions, the police exercise their authority to lay charges.

What we have been witnessing in the Federal Prosecution Service is a continuing growth in drug-related criminal activity, as well as an increase in both the volume and complexity of cases we're called upon to deal with. I thought you might find it of some interest to take note of some historical trends.

Certainly, for the number of adults charged with drug offences, there has been a historical downward trend from the late seventies through to the early nineties. That was primarily driven by a decline, a long-term historical downward trend, in the number of charges relating to drug possession. In 1977, approximately 45,000 adults were charged with drug possession. By 1998, that had fallen to 21,200 adults charged with drug possession. Conversely, the number of adults charged with trafficking, importation, and cultivation offences increased during that same period. In the late seventies, the number of adults charged with those serious offences was approximately 8000. By the early 1990s, the number had increased to 17,000.

Certainly, statistical information since 1993 indicates that drug incidents have been increasing. And in terms of recent trends, drug offences have increased between 1998 and 1999.

The Chair: I don't mean to interrupt, but what is a drug incident?

Mr. Croft Michaelson: Sorry, Madam Chair.

A drug incident would typically be something that doesn't necessarily result in a charge. It would be an incident reported by a police officer that they had observed a drug offence or a drug offence had been reported to them. It's something you'll find in some of the statistical reports that are prepared, but it does not mean it's a charge.

If I might add something, the total number of adults charged with a drug offence between 1998 and 1999 increased by 12%. Most of that increase is attributable to an increase in cannabis offences. The trend continued in 2000, with a 9% increase in the overall rate of drug offences. Between 1998 and 1999, the total number of adults charged with a cultivation offence increased by 41%, and trafficking charges was also observed during that period. The total number of adults charged with drug trafficking increased by 15%. As well, from the mid-nineties to the present, drug offences involving drugs other than the typical cannabis, heroin, and cocaine, such as ecstasy, have been becoming more prominent.

• 1900

I thought this committee might wish to have some information on the state of affairs in British Columbia in particular. In British Columbia, the rate of drug incidents for all drug offences, all offence types, is almost double the national average. Drug case volumes in British Columbia continued to increase in 2000. They were primarily related to offences such as trafficking and cultivation. There has been a long, consistent downward trend in possession offences in British Columbia since the mid-nineties.

Dealing with cannabis itself, and simple possession of cannabis in particular, 21,000 people were charged with simple possession of cannabis in 1999. That's 11% more than in 1995. If you look across Canada, you'll see that charging patterns vary significantly from police force to police force, from a low of 25 per 100,000 for cannabis possession in Vancouver in 1998, to a high of 210 per 100,000 in Thunder Bay.

Under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, essentially our prosecution approach is twofold. When the police present a case to us upon a determination that there's a reasonable prospect of conviction and it's in the public interest to prosecute, the prosecutor will prosecute the case. We also have an alternative measures policy in place that permits our prosecutors, when they're dealing with low-level offences such as simple possession of cannabis, to divert an individual outside of the criminal justice process and into some other form of alternative measure if they're a first-time offender.

In the Toronto area, we have a very vibrant alternate measures program that's administered by Operation Springboard. What the diversion would typically involve is some form of community service that the individual would be required to complete. Upon completion of that period of community service, once there's a report advising that there has been a successful completion, the prosecutor would then withdraw the charge or enter a stay of proceedings against that individual.

In respect of addict offenders, we've piloted an approach in the Toronto area again. It's what's referred to as a drug treatment court. It's a pilot project that is funded through a contribution from the National Crime Prevention Centre, as well as through contributions from the Ontario government through their Centre for Addiction and Mental Health and their court services.

Essentially, what happens in the drug treatment court is that individuals who have a demonstrable drug addiction can apply to be referred into the drug treatment court. They have to go through a screening process with treatment providers to determine whether there is a demonstrable addiction. Consultations take place between the prosecutor and the police to determine if the police have any information they can share with respect to that individual and to determine whether or not that person has a drug addition. The individual then goes into a court-monitored treatment program. The individual is required to come back to court frequently, and is subjected to frequent urinalyses to determine compliance with the treatment program that's ongoing. Eventually, at the end of that program, if they've had successful treatment, the individual will receive a non-custodial disposition of some kind.

• 1905

I might add that, apart from the Toronto drug treatment court, there's also work underway to establish one in the city of Vancouver.

That's my presentation, Madam Chair.

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

[Translation]

The first question goes to Mr. Ménard, who has seven minutes.

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm wondering if you would be so kind as to provide me with a copy of your notes, maybe not this evening, but later. I would especially appreciate having Mr. Michaelson's text, as it contained figures that could prove useful to committee members. Since it doesn't look like we'll be getting them this evening, perhaps you could send them to us later.

In the early 1990s, back when the House had a justice and human rights committee, we met with Heritage Canada officials in charge of applying the provisions of all international treaties. This responsibility fell to a specialized unit at Heritage Canada, not to the Department of Justice. I don't know whether this is still the case, but we were advised that international conventions do not give rise to domestic law. Controls and checks could be put in place, but unless expressly noted, these could not give rise to domestic laws to be applied within a country's borders.

I don't know if you're familiar with the writings of Ms. Line Beauchesne, a criminologist who teaches at the University of Ottawa. She contends that if Canada wanted to decriminalize the possession of cannabis, there would be nothing stopping it from doing so under international conventions. Do you share her viewpoint?

[English]

The Chair: Just before you answer, for all colleagues, the blues are taking about 48 hours.

[Translation]

The transcripts of these proceedings will not be available for 48 hours. We will receive them just before we leave for the Thanksgiving recess.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Madam Chair, you are quite insightful. We don't need our colleagues' text. We merely need to consult the blues.

[English]

The Chair: You will have another set of the texts should you need them, but we'll certainly try to get them to deliver everything we can.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Thank you. We have a very dedicated chairperson.

Getting back to my two questions, do you share Ms. Beauchesne's position and is Heritage Canada still responsible for applying the provisions of international treaties?

Mr. Paul Saint-Denis: Madam Chair, to my knowledge, a treaty's subject-matter more or less dictates which department will have primary enforcement responsibility. Health Canada has primary responsibility for overseeing treaties having to do with psychoactive substances or narcotic drugs, provided of course Canada is a treaty signatory. This is in fact the case for the three treaties to which I referred in my presentation.

You stated that in Canada, a treaty does not have force of law as such. That is correct. To give effect to a treaty so that we can fulfil the commitments made pursuant to its provisions, we must adopt legislation. For example, if possession of cannabis is deemed to be a criminal offence pursuant to a particular treaty, we are not bound as such to consider this a criminal offence. However, when we commit to undertaking the ratification process, we begin the process of bringing in legislation to give effect to any commitments made.

Mr. Réal Ménard: I want us to be clear on this point. In your presentation, you said the 1988 convention made it quite clear that the possession of cannabis products needed to be criminalized.

Mr. Paul Saint-Denis: Absolutely.

Mr. Réal Ménard: What I'm saying is that an international convention can mean that we agree to submit to periodic checks, as you mentioned earlier. However, in concrete terms, it does not create a legal imperative, except of course if such imperatives have been introduced and adopted by Parliament.

• 1910

Mr. Paul Saint-Denis: That's correct.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Essentially, the debate, for supporters as well as opponents, involves determining whether under existing international treaties to which Canada is a party, we still have the option, as legislators, of decriminalizing cannabis possession.

Mr. Paul Saint-Denis: Perhaps if you could explain to me what exactly you mean by “decriminalizing”, I might be able to answer your question. I'm not trying to be sarcastic, but “decriminalizing” means different things to different people.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Let's focus on the basics. We both have a capacity for synthesizing information. By decriminalizing, I mean that simple possession would no longer constitute an offence under the Criminal Code or any other drug legislation.

Mr. Paul Saint-Denis: In my opinion, that's not possible. The 1988 Convention is fairly specific. Countries that have signed, or ratified, the convention, must criminalize the possession of substances controlled by...

Mr. Réal Ménard: My colleague wants to interject. Just stop the clock on my time and subtract it from his.

Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): If it's not longer deemed an offence, than we're not talking about decriminalization, but rather about legalization. "Decriminalization" refers to an offence that is no longer punishable by a court of law. That's the nuance. I think we need to be clear about this.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Fundamentally, the debate is as follows: Professor Beauchesne from the University of Ottawa argues that according to international conventions, cannabis possession could be decriminalized. To her understanding, decriminalization means removing all reference to this act in the Criminal Code and other laws.

Mr. Jacques Saada: That's why I would like a very clear definition. I'm not an expert on the subject, but I do believe a distinction must be drawn between the right to decriminalize possession and the right to legalize possession. If possession remains an offence, that's quite different from decriminalization. That's why this is a fundamental question.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Let's assume for the sake of argument that possession is not longer an offence. You're saying that pursuant to the international conventions to which Canada is a signatory, we cannot decriminalize possession.

Mr. Paul Saint-Denis: Pursuant to the terms of the 1988 Convention, the obligation seems sufficiently clear to us. If you look at the text of the convention, which is a formal United Nations document, you will note that countries' obligation to criminalize possession is fairly clear.

However, what is equally clear from these texts and from the commentary on the 1988 Convention is that while possession is a criminal offence, countries are entirely free to deal as they wish with those charged with or convicted of this offence. They enjoy considerable leeway in dealing with offenders.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Do I have time for one last question, Madam Chair?

The Chair: Yes, but please be brief.

Mr. Réal Ménard: If cannabis possession were not deemed to be a criminal offence under the current system, the judicial statistics that you alluded to earlier which show an increase in the number of adult offenders since the year I mentioned earlier would be entirely different. The figures would be lower if possession of cannabis was not considered an offence. At present, the number of cannabis-related charges is quite high. Am I right?

[English]

Mr. Croft Michaelson: I'm not sure what your question is directed at. If we didn't have an offence relating to simple possession of cannabis, then with respect to that, those would be removed from the statistics. There has been a downward trend, although recently it has been increasing. But we wouldn't have those offences to deal with.

If there were no offence relating to simple possession of cannabis, the extent to which that might contribute to increasing incidence of cultivation or trafficking of cannabis is unknown. So in terms of the overall, ultimate outcome on the statistical information, I would say it's impossible to say.

• 1915

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Ms. Davies.

[English]

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Thank you.

I have a lot of questions, and I know we won't be able to get through them all.

It seems to me that one of the barriers to adopting progressive reforms, or even to looking at them, is the incredibly strong mythology, if you will, around international covenants, around the idea that our hands are somehow tied and we can't do anything. Yet, in partial response to my colleague's question here, the reality is that a number of jurisdictions, particularly in Europe, still are meeting their commitments under the international conventions, but they have in effect decriminalized and have moved to a different kind of approach. I think the evidence clearly shows that the pressure is not so much legal as it is political, and that has mostly been as a result of U.S. policy on drug enforcement. So I agree with you that there is actually a fair amount of room to move; however, that's not my question.

The question I have is this: If you look at the history of Canada's drug laws, I think there's a growing body of opinion that would say our enforcement strategies have been a failure. Rather than going through that, I could just take you to the corner of Main and Hastings in my riding of East Vancouver, and show you what the consequences of those enforcement policies are. It seems to me that resources are mostly used against people who are visibly poor because they're easy targets, they're just sitting targets on the street. We do very little in terms of going after bigger trafficking issues.

So the question I have for you...and it's really hard, because this almost becomes sort of a black and white thing rather than a debate, and what we want to have is a debate in order to get your expert opinions on what's working and what isn't. The question is whether you believe the current enforcement policies are actually effective from an economic viewpoint, from a social viewpoint, in terms of stopping further addiction, in terms of stopping drug use. Again, using Main and Hastings as a reference point, have those strategies that you've outlined gotten us anywhere and have they actually dealt with the issue?

Mr. Paul Saint-Denis: I'm not sure there's an answer to that question, because you're asking us to compare what we have in place to something we haven't tried.

It has been suggested that the drug regime, the drug law, or the legal regime we have for dealing with drugs is extremely costly, that it does not work, or does not work very well. Comments along those lines have been made. It has also been suggested, however, that, absent those drug laws, drug use and drug consumption would increase; that, while there would be fewer people in prison, there might be more people in hospitals; that, conceivably, people who do not have the money to purchase the drugs would still be committing crime to buy the drugs even if they're not illegal. So I don't know that one can really answer that question, because you're asking us to compare something that is to something that has never been tried, to my knowledge.

Ms. Libby Davies: But you're suggesting it would be worse in the absence of any other policy, and that's not what I'm suggesting. Surely you must be aware of what is taking place—I think quite successfully—particularly in Europe, where the emphasis has been very different. It has shifted more to a prevention, education, and health-based approach, where you don't have this revolving door of people basically being scooped up by the police, thrown into the judicial system, and coming out the other end as even worse addicts than they were when they went in.

In fact, even the drug courts...I have a lot of questions about why would we even wait to the point at which someone is already involved in the justice system before we make an intervention. It just seems the whole emphasis is completely skewed compared to what the reality is and where we actually need to put the resources.

Mr. Paul Saint-Denis: You raise very good questions, but please understand that I am not suggesting that eliminating the drug laws would make things worse. All I'm saying is that there are some people who hold that view. I'm not sure I could put forward a personal view—and I've been working in this area for a long time. I don't know.

• 1920

I know what's happening in certain areas, in Europe—for instance, in Amsterdam. Amsterdam is usually the European city that's most pointed to because of the way it deals with cannabis. In Dutch legislation, they have a possession offence on the books. With respect to possession of small amounts though, they've chosen a policy of not enforcing the law. As to how that works and how drug consumption and drug-related activities in the Netherlands—Amsterdam in particular—has evolved over the years as a result of that policy, I can't say. I don't know if things are better now than they were just when that policy was starting. I'm not familiar with it.

Ms. Libby Davies: But if you've been involved in this area for a long time, would you agree that the level of use in Amsterdam has actually decreased as compared to the United States, where we've seen heavy enforcement? Just the federal jurisdiction alone there has spent $17 billion, and use has actually increased. So there are models that actually can be looked at, and comparisons can be made. Surely the justice department must do some of that work and come to some conclusions about where Canada sits in that spectrum.

Mr. Paul Saint-Denis: Well, of course some comparisons can be made. But again, based on what colleagues have told me, both from Health and from other countries, comparisons are very difficult to make, because just looking at what one does with legislation is really an incomplete picture. You have to be able to look at the society in which that legislation is drafted and put into place, along with the enforcement policies. It really is a system, and very rarely does one compare systems with systems. They compare the legislation here with the legislation there, perhaps without taking into account, for instance, all of the community services that are available in one community or one country and those that are made available in another country. So you almost inevitably end up comparing apples with oranges, and usually what people do is take the points they most favour and they try to score points with those.

Ms. Libby Davies: What if we looked at outcomes, though? Surely there are some points of comparison there? No, you can't compare one system exactly to another. But if you look at outcomes in terms of the level of crime or the rate of addiction or outcomes in treatment models, there are, again, some real success stories going on that I guess we are slowly picking up here in Canada. But we are moving very slowly. We still seem to be caught up in the enforcement model as the main emphasis.

Mr. Paul Saint-Denis: Well, I agree with you that there are certainly some very interesting developments occurring in Europe. And I'm sure that people in Health....

I should point out as an aside that the Department of Health is the department that is responsible for this legislation. The Department of Justice, as my colleague pointed out, will prosecute. We are reactive. If the Department of Health should conclude, for one reason or another, that a particular substance is no longer an issue, is no longer dangerous, or should not be listed, it is the department that will put forward the proposal to its minister to deal with that in the law. So if, for one reason or another, we should eliminate cocaine, then we will no longer prosecute cocaine, and that will take care of the problem of cocaine in terms of the law and enforcement. From that perspective, it is a Health-driven sort of thing.

But to come back to your point, there are extremely interesting developments that have occurred and that continue to occur in Europe, and I'm sure the people in Health are quite aware of those.

The Chair: Thank you.

That was a ten-minute seven-minute round.

Mr. Harb.

Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): First, I want to thank you very much. I appreciate the position you are in, because there are two questions before us, of course. One is the question of policy, which I guess is what this committee is trying to deal with. And then there's the question of the law, which is what you are applying from your end.

• 1925

In trying to help us to sail through this whole issue, I think it would be useful if you could somehow give us some idea of how much you spend on an annual basis in terms of enforcement. In terms of a percentage of the overall budget, what is spent on, in particular, some of the issues my colleagues have raised, on soft drugs like cannabis, hashish, marijuana, and all those things?

As well, could you give us a little bit of an idea about the consistency of the application of the law? I was amazed that 45,000 people were actually involved in 1977. We had a little bit of an increase, then a decrease, and then an increase again. One would say that if we were to calculate, from 1977 to 2001, the number of people who could have been charged and would have criminal records if they were convicted, it probably would be a quarter of the population. That's an astronomical figure.

So my question is whether there's a consistency in the application of the law, in a sense, throughout all of the jurisdictions, or whether there is a little bit of leeway whereby one jurisdiction might apply it in a different way. I guess where you could shed some light is in trying to bring to our attention the lay of the land, in a way, or some challenge you might be facing yourself within the justice department, in a sense, in terms of the application of the law. Tell us some of the holes that exist within the law, and give us as many statistics as you can supply us with. I think that would be very useful.

In particular, of the 750 agents used just for drug offences, how many of those agents are prosecuting the soft drugs, for example, or how many are working on hard drugs? In terms of other jurisdictions, too, like police departments at the provincial level, I think any statistical information would help us greatly.

Mr. Croft Michaelson: We can certainly do that.

In terms of what we're spending on drug prosecutions as a department, our most recent estimate was something in the order of approximately $50 million. That's full-time staff counsel, as well as the cost of agent prosecutions.

In terms of addressing the specific question you asked relating to what you referred to as soft drugs, in terms of something like simple possession of cannabis, most of those offences would be prosecuted by standing agents throughout Canada.

We did an in-house survey recently to try to determine what our cost was, in-house, of prosecuting simple possession of cannabis. The estimate was somewhere in the range of about $250,000 to $500,000 per annum. The cost of agent drug prosecutions relating to simple possession of cannabis would be something in the order of about 20% of the agent budget. Somewhere in the range of 50% to 60% of their overall caseload would be simple possession. In terms of the actual cost, though, it would be somewhere in the range of about 20%, which was somewhere in the range of $4 million to $5 million.

Mr. Mac Harb: The final question, Madam Chair, was on those statistics about the 45,000 people in 1977 until now.

Would you say we're dealing with at least a million individuals, or maybe less? The questions one would ask are, how many of those have really had a criminal record, how many went to jail, how many of them were put into the community to do some probation, and things like that? Any information you could share with us would be great.

And there was the question about the consistency of the application of the law. Maybe you could touch on that.

That will be my last question, Madam Chair.

Mr. Croft Michaelson: In terms of the numbers and how many of those individuals would have obtained a criminal record, I don't know. Let's bear in mind that some of those individuals probably were repeat offenders. It's not unusual to have an individual coming before the court on several occasions.

• 1930

I'm sorry, what was the—

Mr. Mac Harb: What's the consistency of the application of the law?

Mr. Croft Michaelson: In terms of consistency of the application of the law, let's bear in mind that it's almost like we have a two-phase type of process. The police deal with the individual and exercise their discretion as to whether or not they're going to charge. With respect to some offences, there is a variance in charging patterns across the country, as I pointed out in my presentation.

When a case comes to us, we're guided by our deskbook policy, which calls upon us to look at the case and to assess whether there's a reasonable prospect of conviction and whether it's in the public interest to prosecute. Ordinarily, if the evidence is there, then the case will be prosecuted unless the case fits into our diversion policy, our alternative measures policy—and we have articulated guidelines to govern the application of that discretion.

So, really, the big variable is police charging practices.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Ms. Davies, do you want to ask a quick question?

Ms. Libby Davies: Just to continue on with a few more questions about enforcement, would the department have statistics that track enforcement across the country based on socio-economic status? Would we be able to find out, for the last five years or the last ten years, where charges have been laid or where there have been prosecutions, who it is that's being prosecuted, and not so much in terms of using or trafficking, but just in both categories?

Mr. Croft Michaelson: I don't know if there's information on that, or if Justice research and stats would have something like that. I've certainly never seen it, apart from seeing charging rates broken down by municipal jurisdiction. You could look at different municipalities and see the charging rate per 100,000 in those municipalities, but in terms of what I think you're trying to get at, that being who is being charged—

Ms. Libby Davies: Yes, or who is being incarcerated would be another way of looking at it.

Mr. Croft Michaelson: —and who is being incarcerated, I'm not aware of anything.

Ms. Libby Davies: So the Solicitor General wouldn't have that information?

Mr. Paul Saint-Denis: It's possible that either universities or perhaps even the Solicitor General may have done special studies, but, on a regular basis, no one to my knowledge keeps that kind of statistic. They will keep statistics on the number of people charged and where they've been charged perhaps by age. Beyond that, though, the kind of information that I think you're seeking would not be kept on a regular, ongoing basis.

Ms. Libby Davies: Okay. Maybe we can follow that up in some other way.

Earlier this afternoon, we had a presentation from the CCRA, and I was surprised to learn...I'm from B.C., and as you've said, B.C. is, I think, double the national average in terms of drug incidents and so on. The CCRA people said the cultivation and the export from B.C.—well, I'm not sure it was from B.C., but from Canada—amounted to about 0.2% of what's going into the U.S. as far as cannabis is concerned. That really surprised me, because it's very contrary to the attention that it gets through the media and through enforcement actions. You'd think it was just the top of the list.

I think one of you mentioned that there has been a 12% increase in cannabis, but I'm not sure whether that was in prosecutions or whether it was in drug incidents as you described them. Anyway, whatever that 12% increase is in, where does that stand in the hierarchy? It seems on the one hand that there's an awful lot of attention paid in terms of cannabis and the growing operations, yet we have other information that says it's really minor relative to a lot of other stuff that's going on as far as what's actually being sent into the U.S. is concerned. It seems like a somewhat conflicting position.

• 1935

Mr. Croft Michaelson: The 12% figure that I provided to you was in respect of the increase in the total number of adults charged with any drug offence from 1998 to 1999. Between 1998 and 1999, the total number of adults charged with a drug offence increased by 12%. During that same time, if you look specifically at cultivation offences, the total number of adults charged increased by 41%, and trafficking offences increased by 15%.

Ms. Libby Davies: And that was for all drugs, not just cannabis?

Mr. Croft Michaelson: Yes, all trafficking offences increased by 15%.

From a prosecution standpoint, we're certainly seeing a lot more cultivation cases in British Columbia being presented to us for prosecution. In terms of the volume of cannabis that's exported to the United States, I don't know what the numbers are.

The U.S. DEA issued a report recently—I think it was in December of last year—that related specifically to cannabis cultivation in British Columbia. They indicated in that report that cannabis seizures along the British Columbia-Washington state border had increased from 325 pounds in 1994, to 2,900 pounds in 1999. So there was an upward trend, but in terms of where 2,900 pounds fits within the grand scheme of things in the United States, I don't know in terms of their overall border seizures.

Ms. Libby Davies: Well, we have the information from the CCRA.

Do I have more time? No? Okay.

The Chair: Mr. Saada.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: Thank you. I'd like to focus for a moment on something you said at the start of your presentation. Are the Netherlands party to the treaties or conventions that you mentioned?

Mr. Paul Saint-Denis: To my knowledge, they are signatories to the three principal treaties.

Mr. Jacques Saada: I see. Mr. Ménard alluded to something very interesting earlier which I feel is fundamental.

As I see it, three distinctions must be drawn, no question about it. The first involves decriminalization. An offence may be punishable, but not necessarily in a court of law or before a judge. This is true of violations of the Highway Traffic Act.

The second distinction is legalization which would allow people to possess cannabis for their own personal use, but not for trafficking purposes. Am I making myself clear? Legalization implies no fault and no restrictions on use.

The third option, the one favoured by the Netherlands, is a kind of hybrid formula. Domestic legislation is brought whereby municipal authorities are authorized to sell small amounts of marijuana for personal use. It's as if this practice were legal, even though in reality it is not. This may be one way of getting around the decriminalization issue.

My question is this: Are you aware of any instances where... I'm talking about the Netherlands because I've been focussing on this country in particular for some time now. Are there countries in the world with a structured judicial system in place which have truly moved to decriminalize cannabis? I'm not aware of any.

Libby Davies spoke earlier about the changing climate in Europe. The Netherlands haven't actually decriminalized cannabis. They merely tolerate its use. If there are other countries with a similar attitude, I'd like to know about them.

Mr. Paul Saint-Denis: To my knowledge, some US states have moved to decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana. According to the latest figures, I believe a dozen or so states have instituted a kind of ticketing system, much like the one in place for violations of the Highway Traffic Act.

• 1940

Mr. Jacques Saada: If you have that information, could you kindly share it with us? I'd like to know which states are involved and how their systems work.

Mr. Paul Saint-Denis: The only state that immediately comes to mind is Oregon. I know the state of Alaska tried to do something similar, but ultimately backed down. I don't know about the other states.

Mr. Jacques Saada: I see. I assume that this information is readily available over the Internet.

I have a third question for you. I'd like your opinion on something, although I realize you're here to provide us with information, not to give us your opinion per se. In the segment of your presentation on the schedules to the act, you talked about the link between the dangerousness of a drug and the harshness of the sentence, both in the case of serious and less serious substances. Are you satisfied with the formula used?

Mr. Paul Saint-Denis: First of all, there is no mathematical formula as such. The law may deal less harshly with some substances that may seem more dangerous than it does with substances that may in fact be less serious.

Mr. Jacques Saada: In other words, there is no hierarchic penalty regime.

Mr. Paul Saint-Denis: Correct. It is a general, rather than a stringent regime. No doubt there are exceptions, that is cases where at first glance, the penalty is somewhat doubtful.

As to whether the penalty regime is adequate or proper, I really don't think that is up to officials at the department to decide. You have to understand that the drug legislation is truly a reflection of Canada's drug policy. Pursuant to the policy, it has been determined that the law should deal more, or less, harshly with certain substances. Therefore, I'm not in a position to say whether this is proper or not. We're dealing with a policy.

Mr. Jacques Saada: I understand and I respect that. I simply wondered if you had any opinions on this subject.

I have one last, quick question. You mentioned - or I believe it might have been Mr. Michaelson - that the provincial attorneys general were responsible for investigating cases uncovered by local police forces or, for instance, by the Sûreté du Québec, whereas the federal government handled cases identified by the RCMP, or so I would assume. If some form of decriminalization were considered, would that mean the provinces would see an easing of the financial burden that they must assume, as compared to that of the federal government?

The figures provided to us earlier mention a cost of $50 million per year to prosecute drug-related offences. And that's just at the federal level, I would assume. Financially speaking, would decriminalization result in more substantial savings for the federal government, or for the provinces?

[English]

Mr. Croft Michaelson: I think I should remind you that, when I was talking about the provincial AGs actually exercising their jurisdiction to prosecute, that has only arisen in Quebec, to a lesser extent in New Brunswick, and in Alberta with respect to young offenders.

Mr. Jacques Saada: But not in Ontario?

Mr. Croft Michaelson: No, not in Ontario. The cost of prosecuting drug offences in Canada is primarily borne by the federal government.

• 1945

With respect to your question about decriminalization and whether decriminalization would result in a reduction of costs, there's no question that the use of the criminal process is—

Mr. Jacques Saada: I'm talking about the cost to the justice system, not to the other impacts.

Mr. Croft Michaelson: Yes, the cost to the justice system.

There's no question that resorting to the criminal justice system has costs associated with it. If decriminalization resulted in a less costly approach, then certainly there would be some cost savings if other things remained equal.

The Chair: Thank you.

[Translation]

Go ahead, Mr. LeBlanc.

Mr. Dominic LeBlanc (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, Lib.): Thank you very much, Madam Chair and thank you to the witnesses for their presentations.

[English]

I just wanted to follow up a bit on something. Mac Harb, in fact, zeroed in on what I wanted to ask you, but I just wanted to make sure I understood some of what you said. When he asked you, Mr. Michaelson, about the cost of prosecutions for what he called soft drugs—possession of cannabis, for example—you said that, from your department's staff counsel, it might be that from $250,000 to $500,000 would be devoted to the prosecution of the possession of cannabis. You also thought that, as a percentage of the total budget of standing agents, it might be $4 million to $5 million in total. That would roughly be the envelope of money currently devoted to prosecuting the possession of cannabis.

Mr. Croft Michaelson: That's correct. That would be our best estimate at the current time of the cost of prosecuting simple possession of cannabis. It's somewhere in the range of $4.5 million to $5.5 million.

Mr. Dominic LeBlanc: Okay, thank you very much.

A bit of what Mr. Saada was getting at intrigued me. I understand that, in New Brunswick, where I practised law, the obligation to have prosecutorial approval to lay a charge is different from the practice in other provinces. I appreciate that, but I never understood how the Government of Canada appoints a standing agent to prosecute federal offences. As you said, if it's in the Fisheries Act, if it's in drug control legislation, or in immigration, standing agents are appointed all the time by your department.

I had the impression that it's a bit of a patchwork quilt across the country. In some provinces, the provincial crown prosecutors may prosecute some parts of federal legislation. I was interested in the example of Quebec, where, if the charge emanates from a provincial police force.... Can you briefly give me a picture of how the different provincial jurisdictions across the country might handle the whole business of federal prosecutions? I thought it was through standing agents or staff counsel of your department, but that's not true in some cases, is that right?

Mr. Croft Michaelson: I'm not particularly well equipped to talk about prosecutions outside the prosecution of drug offences, organized crime, or proceeds of crime offences. That's really the mandate of my section, so if your question is directed at the question generally on federal prosecutions—

Mr. Dominic LeBlanc: Oh, no, not at all. It's on drug offences. I'm sorry.

Mr. Croft Michaelson: On drug prosecutions, we are the primary prosecution agency in the sense that we have a prosecution presence in every province and territory. As I indicated, municipally and provincially investigated offences are prosecuted by the provincial Attorney General in Quebec. In New Brunswick, my understanding is that, in some parts of that province, they prosecute drug offences where they have been investigated by a municipal agency. In some other parts of the province, we would prosecute where the RCMP was acting in a contract policing role. In Alberta, we prosecute all drug offences with the exception of young offender cases.

That's not to say that, from time to time, at a local level, we enter into cooperative approaches with the provincial AGs, with those approaches primarily aimed at supporting one another and dealing with matters in an efficient way. It may well be...for example, in Manitoba, we may have entered into an arrangement with the provincial AG whereby we ask that, in northern Manitoba, they speak to some of our remands and help us out there, and we'll help them out in Winnipeg by doing some of their Criminal Code matters. It sort of works out at the end of the day. That happens to some extent, and we try to have cooperative arrangements.

• 1950

Mr. Dominic LeBlanc: Thank you. Merci.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Lee.

Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): We're just beginning this exercise on this special committee, gentlemen, so we have a lot of questions, and we're perhaps somewhat less focused now than we will be as we get toward the end of the exercise.

Ms. Libby Davies: Maybe we can have them come back.

Mr. Derek Lee: Well, that's the hope.

Can I ask you which Canadian ministry would be the lead ministry for dealing with what I've heard described earlier today—and not earlier this afternoon—as the Canadian drug strategy? Is that the Department of Justice?

Mr. Paul Saint-Denis: The lead department that deals with the development or the implementation of the Canadian drug strategy is the Department of Health, but it very much is a collaborative effort, because the drug problem cuts across so many areas that are important to other departments. There are usually up to eight or nine departments that sit on this interdepartmental working group that looks at the drug strategy, but it is at the call of the Department of Health.

Mr. Derek Lee: Okay, so there's a strategy. Does the strategy embody the Canadian government policy in this envelope totally, or is the strategy just to go get that interdiction done, to go get that prosecution done, and to get that intelligence gathered? Is that what the Canadian drug strategy is? Is it a tactical list of things we have to do, or does it look at the whole envelope of policy, social costs, and legal costs?

Mr. Paul Saint-Denis: The strategy such as it is covers the whole range of virtually all aspects of the drug problem. Essentially, the way we describe it is to say that it's relatively well-balanced between demand reduction initiatives, which deal with treatment, rehabilitation, education, and research, and supply reduction, which deals with issues relating to law enforcement, prosecution, and border interdiction. These two broad aspects of the drug question meet together in the drug strategy, so all departments having various interests on these points come to bear.

Mr. Derek Lee: Okay, so your department plays its role with the other departments and agencies in executing the strategy.

Mr. Paul Saint-Denis: In developing the strategy, that's correct.

Mr. Derek Lee: In developing it.

Mr. Paul Saint-Denis: Yes.

Mr. Derek Lee: Is it still under development?

Mr. Paul Saint-Denis: The drug strategy has gone through several processes. There was an initial drug strategy in 1987, followed up by a subsequent strategy in 1992, I guess it was. The latter was a five-year, funded strategy that ended in 1997. With the cooperation of federal departments, the provinces, and NGOs, it was again the Department of Health that developed a document called Canada's Drug Strategy. It outlined pretty well the broad approach that we want to take in Canada vis-à-vis the problem of substance abuse. It wasn't just drugs, it was—

Mr. Derek Lee: Okay, you don't have to walk me through each chapter of it.

The lead ministry is Health, so if we're looking for a broader perspective on this, we have to go to the health ministry. I shouldn't be looking to Justice to have a window on the whole thing. I'm just trying to be fair, because I'm going to ask you some questions that you won't necessarily have all...I'm going to just go through a list of things.

• 1955

The Chair: You have 30 seconds.

Mr. Derek Lee: I have 30 seconds?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Derek Lee: I'll wait. I'll come back.

The Chair: No, I mean—

Mr. Derek Lee: No, I'll come back, Madam Chair. I can't do much in 30 seconds. It'll take me 30 seconds to ask the question, so let's carry on. I'll take another round.

The Chair: You are the last round, Mr. Lee. This meeting ends at 8 p.m.

Mr. Derek Lee: We'll have to have the witnesses come back then, because I have—

The Chair: If you would you like to pose your questions, maybe we can ask them to get—

Mr. Derek Lee: Well, do I have 30 seconds, or do I have—

The Chair: Pose your questions.

Mr. Derek Lee: —the last round? Ms. Davies—

Ms. Libby Davies: [Inaudible—Editor].

Mr. Derek Lee: Okay.

The Chair: Stop wasting time.

Mr. Derek Lee: All right. I'm just going to go through the list of things I thought the department might have a handle on, like the costing, the kinds of areas in which we're expending resources.

You definitely have a handle on the prosecution costs, because you've told us that the federal expenditures are at least $50 million or so. Do you have any cost figures on what we spend on intelligence gathering vis-à-vis crime syndicates and prosecutions? This would include undercover operations. It's okay if you don't, because someone else will.

Mr. Croft Michaelson: No, that would be the RCMP.

Mr. Derek Lee: That's the RCMP. Okay.

On court processes, litigation, and appeals, when you give prosecution costs, you're talking about the costs of the prosecutors—what you pay the prosecutors to get the prosecutions done—but do you include the costs that we spend on court time and appeal time? Are they in your figures?

Mr. Croft Michaelson: The numbers I gave you would include all the costs to the Department of Justice associated with prosecuting drug offences. If you're asking about what the appeal court costs, I don't know.

Mr. Derek Lee: Okay, those would be additional costs, to the extent that there are appeals.

Mr. Croft Michaelson: Yes.

Mr. Derek Lee: The costs of running the courthouse are borne by the provinces?

Mr. Croft Michaelson: Yes.

Mr. Derek Lee: And for the corrections costs, the costs of incarcerating people who have been convicted and are in custody, are those from the Solicitor General?

Mr. Croft Michaelson: They would be from the Solicitor General, along with provincial costs, of course. Individuals in reformatory would be provincial officials.

Mr. Derek Lee: What about property crime losses? Do you track those, or does another part of the Department of Justice track the property losses that occur as a result of people who are out supporting their addictions?

Mr. Croft Michaelson: In terms of the property offences that may be attributable after drug offences, you'd have to get that from some other source. I don't have that information.

Mr. Derek Lee: That's okay. I know it's out there. At least, I hope it's out there somewhere. And medical costs we'll get from Health Canada, hopefully.

Has your department ever tried to quantify what I would call “corruption effect costs”, when the apple in the police department goes bad, when organized crime actually gets in there and does what it tries to do? You don't track that stuff?

Mr. Croft Michaelson: I'm not aware of anything that has ever been done in that respect.

Mr. Derek Lee: But it does happen from time to time, though. We'll lose a police officer—

Mr. Croft Michaelson: Fortunately, it doesn't happen too often.

Mr. Derek Lee: Yes.

So no one has ever had a...to your knowledge, there is not a handle on this, at least a cost that would be visible on some balance sheet or—

Mr. Croft Michaelson: I'm not aware of anything.

Mr. Derek Lee: Okay, that's pretty much my list.

Mr. Paul Saint-Denis: Just on that last point, Madam Chair, some of these costs, particularly with respect to the corruption question, would be Criminal Code offences. You therefore would probably wish to look to provincial authorities to find out what those costs are, either for prosecuting those things or for the costs of the corruption itself. I know the Department of Justice will not have those figures.

The Chair: Thank you.

I know you've had a really long day. With your indulgence, could I just ask two quick questions?

On Operation Springboard, Mr. Michaelson, if you go through that program and you've been diverted, technically you probably don't have a record in Canada. When you go to cross the border into the U.S., do you have a record or not?

Mr. Croft Michaelson: No, in the Operation Springboard program, ordinarily the charge would have been withdrawn, so you would not have a criminal record.

• 2000

The Chair: Could you maybe get us something that identifies what kinds of convictions lead to records? I seem to deal with an awful lot of people in my office who had minor charges, some of which they thought were stayed or—I'm not a lawyer—for which they got a discharge or something, but, sure enough, on that family vacation, they're on their way to Hawaii, and all of a sudden a U.S. customs agent says they have a drug conviction, plus they lied to the customs agent, so they're not allowed across. It would be helpful to see what a conviction is, and how we interpret things versus how they do.

The only other question was...Mr. Saint-Denis, you said we are in compliance with the international agreements. They do obviously get amended from time to time, and then we change our laws to reflect those changes. If there is something beyond that—perhaps The Economist's article about what's being talked about in the world—are there meetings right now amongst the UN team? Are we participating in any meetings in which they're talking about the decriminalization of cannabis, for instance?

Mr. Paul Saint-Denis: The United Nations has regular meetings on drug-related matters. In fact, there is the Commission on Narcotic Drugs that meets once a year, and sometimes twice. To my knowledge, there is no discussion of decriminalizing cannabis or removing it from the ambit of the existing conventions.

The Chair: As Ms. Davies and others have suggested, we may have further questions for you. We certainly appreciate it that you took the time to come to this committee on a Monday evening. In light of your current responsibilities on the security agenda—and I know how hard you're working, and all of us thank you for that—we especially appreciate your efforts in coming to see us this evening, and we hope you get some sleep.

Thank you very much. This committee is adjourned until 3:30 p.m. on Wednesday, when we will hear from the Health Canada people on Canada's drug strategy.