SNUD Committee Meeting

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

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

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

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Special Committee on Non-Medical Use of Drugs

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, April 25, 2002

1535

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

1540

1545

1550

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

Mr. Derek Lee

Mr. Réal Ménard

Mr. Derek Lee

The Chair

Mr. Derek Lee

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard

1555

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard

Mr. Guy St-Julien

Mr. Réal Ménard

Ms. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

1600

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

1605

Mr. Derek Lee

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard

Mr. Derek Lee

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard

1610

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard

Mr. Derek Lee

1615

The Chair

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

Mr. Derek Lee

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

Mr. Keith Martin, M.P. (Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca, Canadian Alliance)

1620

1625

1630

1635

The Chair

Mr. Randy White (Langley--Abbotsford, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Keith Martin

Mr. Randy White

Mr. Keith Martin

Mr. Randy White

Mr. Keith Martin

Mr. Randy White

Mr. Keith Martin

Mr. Randy White

Mr. Keith Martin

1640

Mr. Randy White

Mr. Keith Martin

Mr. Randy White

Mr. Keith Martin

Mr. Randy White

The Chair

Mr. Randy White

Mr. Keith Martin

Mr. Randy White

Mr. Keith Martin

Mr. Randy White

Mr. Keith Martin

Mr. Randy White

Mr. Keith Martin

Mr. Randy White

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard

M. Keith Martin

1645

Mr. Réal Ménard

Mr. Keith Martin

Mr. Réal Ménard

Mr. Keith Martin

Mr. Réal Ménard

Mr. Keith Martin

1650

The Chair

Ms. Hedy Fry

Mr. Keith Martin

1655

The Chair

Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. Derek Lee

Mr. Keith Martin

Mr. Derek Lee

The Chair

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

1700

The Chair

Mr. Keith Martin

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

Mr. Keith Martin

The Chair

CANADA

Special Committee on Non-Medical Use of Drugs

NUMBER 040

1st SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Thursday, April 25, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹ (1535)

[English]

The Chair (Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.)): I'll call this meeting to order. Pursuant to the order of reference adopted by the House of Commons on Thursday, May 17, 2001, this committee, the Special Committee on Non-Medical Use of Drugs, is considering the factors underlying or relating to the non-medical use of drugs. We are also considering, pursuant to the motion of Wednesday, April 17, 2002, the subject matter of Bill C-344, an act to amend the Contraventions Act and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act related to marijuana.

Before we turn to our witness, Dr. Keith Martin, we have two motions before us.

Monsieur Ménard, over to you.

[Translation]

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

If I may, I am going to read the motion for the members of the public who watch on TV and who do not know its content. It reads as follows:

That this committee unreservedly denounce the unjust and anti-democratic manner in which the government treated Keith Martin's private member's bill on the decriminalization of cannabis.

Madam Chair, I have been a member of this Parliament since 1993 and I like my work. I like being an MP and I like representing the people of Hochelaga-Maisonneuve and I take my work seriously. I feel offended, shocked, angered and disappointed by what the government has done. Our committee is looking into the whole issue of drugs and therefore cannot remain indifferent to the government's high-handedness and undemocratic behaviour.

Madam Chair, it is clear that if we cave in and do not seek remedy, what happened to our colleague Keith Martin could happen to each and everyone of us.

The people who listen to us need to know that in this Parliament the executive branch wields enormous power. All ministers have the ability to introduce bills. Since you have been around since 1993, you know that the government determines 85 or 90% of the agenda of the House of Commons. There is only a tiny space left to MPs for what we call private members' bills.

Now, the procedure in this regard is not perfect. I have been interested in this issue since 1993. Some of our colleagues even chaired the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. It may well be that the bill introduced by our colleague leaves room for improvement, but it is not acceptable to treat in such a fashion a member who has followed the whole procedure, whose name was drawn by the Speaker and who appeared before the Sub-Committee on Private Members' Business made up of members of all parties. The Bloc québécois representative is Michel Guimond, the member for Montmorency-Beauport-Côte-de-Beaupré-Île d'Orléans. The government has a majority in this sub-committee. This sub-committee makes its decisions not on the basis of a consensus, Madam Chair, but on the basis of unanimity.

I will take the time required to make my argument, Madam Chair. The Standing Orders allow me to speak on my motion for an unlimited time.

So, as I was saying, Madam Chair, a member who followed the process… I am not going to debate here the substance of the matter. In my party, some people support decriminalization, others do not. I have no doubt the same goes for the Canadian Alliance and even for the government party. Once the bill is put to a vote, members will vote according to their conscience and the best interest of their constituents. However, I cannot let the government get away with these high-handed and pigheaded actions that fly in the face of the Standing Orders that members themselves passed in the House and of the decisions of an all party committee.

So what happened, Madam Chair? This committee tabled a report in the House declaring a bill to be votable, the bill of our colleague Keith Martin, and the government used its majority to ram through an action that is very dangerous in a democracy and extremely ugly on a procedural level. It totally disregarded the decision of a committee in which all parties were represented.

¹ (1540)

So, the House leader decided to disregard what the government members at this committee had done and what the committee had decided and to make sure the bill would not be subject to a vote.

Maybe the committee erred, Madam Chair. Maybe this bill should not have been made votable since another committee is already looking into the matter. But since the decision was made and a report tabled in the House, we cannot just let the issue go. I maintain, as a member, that if we let the government decide at its whim that a bill that was made votable shall not be subject to a vote, all our privileges as parliamentarians are being put into question.

Madam Chair, let it be known. In this Parliament, ordinary members, the backbenchers as we are sometimes called, have no power. The only space we have is in the area of private members' motions and bills.

Madam Chair, I am ready to wage a battle for my principles, for remedial action. This remedy could take various forms. I dare hope, Madam Chair, that all members of the committee will show enough backbone, in the spirit of democracy, to recognize that this is a serious breach of the privilege of all members.

Madam Chair, I asked you several times what would happen with this bill. At one point in time, rumours were flying. The government said it would refer the bill to the Standing Committee on Health or to the Committee on Non-Medical Use of Drugs, but I would never have believed that the government could be so cavalier, so undemocratic, so pigheaded as to not respect the work done by members in committee, a decision that is supposed to bind all members of this House.

Madam Chair, let me remind you that this committee works on the basis of consensus and unanimity. If the government did not trust the Liberal members sitting in this committee and did not want this bill to be made votable, he only needed to change the government members. This would be the proper way. But it cannot reverse a process that has been agreed on by all parties.

Madam Chair, if this committee acts as if nothing happened and agrees to consider the subject of this bill, because it is not the bill that was referred to us but only its subject, if the committee accepts this, it will mean that in the coming month or even years, MPs who are not government members will be faced with the probability that anytime we have the slightest controversy, the government will table a motion to prevent a vote; and if there is no vote, there will be no debate.

So one has to wonder. This is the first time since 1993 that the government has acted in such a fashion. Why did the government choose to prevent this debate in the House of Commons, and why did the government choose to refuse to let members of Parliament vote on this bill? I can offer several explanations, Madam Chair. It could be because the government is afraid the bill would pass with a majority of votes. Many Canadians and Quebeckers agree it makes no sense to inflict a criminal record on someone found in possession of a small quantity of cannabis. I know that our colleague Keith Martin had the support of many members from all parties. Such high-handed behaviour is unacceptable.

Madam Chair, a few months ago we reviewed the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. We had a take-note debate. I remember speaking at 11:30 p.m. I have no merit for doing so: my health is good, I am in good shape and I am always available to make a speech. At 11:30 p.m., I made a speech where I said what needs to be said in such a debate, reminding that all parliamentarians need to be equal in the House and that we need additional room for members. Madam Chair, even the government majority applauded at the end of my speech. This goes to show how much I thought my views were widely shared in the House of Commons.

How could we accept, as members of Parliament, that the government would use its majority to go against the decisions of a committee that deals with private members' business and deprive a member of his basic right to have his bill subjected to a vote?

Madam Chair, when we look at the public opinion polls, we find that parliamentarians are not held in high esteem by the public. Do you believe that such government action will improve the perception of politicians in our society?

¹ (1545)

Do you believe the people of Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, the people of Vancouver, the people of Ontario, the people of Laval, the people of British Columbia, expect the government to stand by its commitments, expect the government to adhere to the principles of honour, to the principles of ethics? Once again, the government breached ethics, the government breached honour, the government breached the basic respect due to the duty of a member, which is to stand up in the House and to vote on important issues.

Madam Chair, for how long have we been working together in this committee? We always got along well. I respect the work you do. I respect my colleague Derek Lee. I respect Hedy Fry. I respect Carole-Marie Allard. We all want to make progress on one of the most controversial issues in our society, that of drug use.

How can I be expected to maintain the trust that we need to have in each other when the government acts in such a cavalier fashion? The hope I express today, Madam Chair, is that all members in this committee will speak in one voice, will all show democratic backbone and solidarity with Keith Martin. What happened to Keith Martin could have happened to Mr. Szabo, to Stéphane Bergeron, to anyone of us.

The day when the government uses its majority to reverse decisions made by the Sub-Committee on Private Members' Business will be the day where process and procedure will become meaningless. The worst that could happen to us as a committee would be complaisant silence on the part of the government majority. If, at the end of this debate, those members who belong to the government majority vote against this motion or against any amendment that might be brought forward and that still respects the spirit of my motion, it will become impossible to do any work in this committee, Madam Chair.

When we have a debate like this, it is an attempt to rehabilitate the political class. I appeal to all my colleagues. As you know, I have been here since 1993 and I have tabled several bills. I truly believe in this space of influence that belongs to members in order to try and convince the majority. I am sure Keith Martin shares my way of thinking: I would readily have accepted a negative vote, a vote defeating the bill if this were the wish of the House. In a democracy, sometimes your opinions are shared by a majority and sometimes only by a minority.

Let me give you an example, Madam Chair. In 1994, I was a young member in its 30s and I believe, as I still do, in the role of an MP. I tabled a bill that was just as controversial, as ethically divisive as that of Keith Martin. My bill asked the government to recognize same sex spouses. Do you know what the government did? Alfonso Gagliano made sure the vote would take place a Monday morning, which was unheard of. The vote took place a Monday morning, at a very unusual time, and not one minister showed up, except Sheila Copps. You can say what you want about Sheila Copps, but she is a gutsy woman.

However, as time went by, private members' business was enhanced. Members started to believe in this sphere of influence that exists in the House of Commons. Once again, if the committee does not provide remedy to Mr. Keith Martin, I do not see how we can live through the coming months and years. I will not be able to rise in the House of Commons and have faith in our institution and our rules knowing that the bill of Keith Martin cannot be voted on.

When I was elected in 1993, Madam Chair, during our first caucus meeting, Lucien Bouchard, the past premier of Quebec, told us something I never forgot. He told us that in a democracy, representing the people is a privilege.

We live in a system where we choose not to take arms to solve our differences. We choose to live in a system where we send people to the House of Commons in order to represent our interests and we trust that, when we rise in the House of Commons, each of us will vote in the best interest of our fellow citizens and with an understanding of what their wishes are.

Mr. Bouchard even explained to us why the distance between the government and opposition benches was equal to two sword lengths. It is a tradition that dates back to the 18th century.

¹ (1550)

Today, the government used it's sword to cut down one of the most basic democratic principles in our system, the respect for backbenchers, the respect for members who are not part of the government.

Madam Chair, I hurt. I cannot live with this. I will not be able to work in this committee and in the House of Commons while feeling that we are unable to provide remedy.

What would these remedial measures be? They can be of three types. First, we need to send a clear message to the government. Madam Chair, when you took the chair of this committee, you committed to ensure non-partisanship. You committed to ensure that each of us could contribute fully.

[English]

Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough--Rouge River, Lib.): I have a point of order.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Lee, on a point of order.

[English]

Mr. Derek Lee: I raise a point of order on a couple of questions. If the honourable member is going to--

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Madam Chair, he cannot raise a point of order when someone speaks on a motion.

[English]

Mr. Derek Lee: Let me deal with my point of order, Monsieur Ménard.

The Chair: Monsieur Ménard, on a point of order he can interrupt.

What is your point of order, Mr. Lee, please?

Mr. Derek Lee: The first thing I want to indicate is that I assume the chair has accepted the notice of motion and not paid a whole lot of attention to whether or not it was the business of committee to deal with the subject matter of the motion. The member who's given us notice and who has taken up the motion now has indicated he doesn't care how long he takes to speak. I am delighted to extend all the courtesies in the world on a motion, but I'm not prepared to see the committee's business hijacked, in particular if the subject of the motion is not within the terms of reference of the committee's work.

That's why I signalled when I raised my point of order in the beginning. I'm sure all colleagues are prepared to extend all the courtesy in the world to the member if he wants to make his point and then have it dealt with. But if he is going to turn this into an obfuscatory filibuster that will keep us from dealing with the subject matter of Mr. Martin's bill, then I will insist that the chair decide whether or not the motion is in order.

I have a second point of order regarding the procedures here today, depending on the outcome. So perhaps the chair could seek an indication from Monsieur Ménard of what his time-consumption intentions are.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Madam Chair, the motion is surely in order under the Standing Orders. If my speech offends the Liberals because they feel unable to rise to the occasion, that is their problem. The motion is in order and, according to the rules under which we work, this means that speaking time is unlimited. I will finish when I will finish. I have not finished.

[English]

The Chair: I will tell Mr. Ménard, and all committee members, that there is some debate as to whether or not the motion is completely in order. There are some reservations about whether this is in fact questioning a vote that took place in the House of Commons, and it is not in order for members to reflect on votes in the House of Commons. When this has occurred, the chair has been quick to call attention to this. This is from Marleau and Monpetit, chapter 12, “The Process of Debate”.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: We have an order of reference. Madam Chair, the motion is in order because it deals with an order of reference and the future business of the committee. I remind you that there is no limit to debate in such a circumstance. I am going to express myself on a motion because this is my duty as a member. If there is an attempt to gag me, Madam Chair, you are going to have a fight on your hands. I have not finished.

[English]

The Chair: I will also remind the member that this meeting is scheduled until five o'clock. On the one hand, he is suggesting that Mr. Martin has been done some great disservice and that the House of Commons has somehow wronged Mr. Martin. I would suggest that Mr. Martin has taken a lot of time to prepare for this presentation, and he now has just over an hour to--

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Madam Chair, if the government were concerned by the time Mr. Martin has—

The Chair: Excuse me, Mr. Ménard. I was speaking.

Mr. Réal Ménard: I too was speaking when I was interrupted.

¹ (1555)

[English]

The Chair: Monsieur Ménard, I am responding to Mr. Lee's point of order, and—

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Which is out of order.

[English]

The Chair: I am suggesting that not only do I have reservations as to whether or not this is a point of order, I am suggesting to you that on the subject of your speech you are in fact abusing the privileges of Mr. Martin. I am cautioning you and asking you for some clarification as to what you would like to do. Would you like to have this go to a vote, or would you like to use up the next hour and five minutes and thereby ensure that Dr. Martin has no possibility of discussing the substance of his bill?

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Point of order, Madam Chair. Did somebody ask you a question?

[English]

The Chair: You don't have to have a point of order. I've asked you a question.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Just a second. Do not get carried away, Madam Chair. Do you accept my motion? Is my motion in order? If it is, I have unlimited time to speak. If there is anyone supporting our colleague Keith Martin, he is sitting on this side and not the other one. Do you declare my motion in order?

[English]

The Chair: Monsieur Ménard, Dr. Keith Martin is our witness today, so he's on that side of the table.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Madam Chair, I asked you whether my motion is in order.

[English]

The Chair: I'll deal with that in one second.

Mr. St-Julien.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Thank you. The member talks about democracy. There is one thing I would like to know, because I just came in. You talk about the agenda. The agenda says clearly that we have a witness from the House of Commons. I think we should stick to the agenda. Why don't we get on with the witness before dealing with other business.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Simply because points of order take precedence.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Did we have 48 hours' notice?

Mr. Réal Ménard: Certainly. I am an experienced member of Parliament, Guy.

M. Guy St-Julien: Very well. I just wanted to know.

The Chair: We received notice yesterday.

Doctor Fry.

[English]

Ms. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.): Madam Chair, I would like follow up on the question Mr. Lee has brought forward. I don't believe this motion is in order, and I would like us to be able to discuss whether this motion is in order or not, as Mr. Lee suggested. To just continue to accept that it is in order and allow this to carry on doesn't answer the question Mr. Lee has brought up and I am bringing up. I don't see how this pertains to the mandate of this particular committee, a mandate that is written and is very clear.

I would also like to say to this committee that its mandate was in fact brought about by people from the Alliance. Mr. White was one of the people who brought the mandate of this committee forward, and I don't see how this pertains to the mandate of this committee and the work it has to do. I would like that answered.

The Chair: I apologize.

First of all, as I mentioned earlier, there is some question as to whether this is completely in order. On the motion I was willing to suggest that we would hear you present the motion, Monsieur Ménard, and that we would have some debate about the motion, or you could at least make your case as to why you were putting forth the motion. It would now appear that this would take a lot longer than I had anticipated, and we do have a witness.

Marleau and Montpetit suggest that a decision once made cannot be questioned again but must stand as the judgment of the House, and that is in fact how this subject matter came before us. Furthermore, on page 525 in chapter 13, “Rules of Order and Decorum”, it says specifically “Members may not speak against or reflect upon any decision of the House.” In fact, your presentation has done just that, so I will rule that this is out of order and proceed from there.

Yes, Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: On a point of order, Madam Chair.

[English]

The Chair: Yes, Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: I challenge your ruling for two very specific reasons which go to the heart of our Standing Orders.

First of all, you must acknowledge that the committee is the master of its own agenda. Secondly, the motion is relevant because the government chose to refer to this committee the subject matter of the bill, which is the whole point of my motion.

I ask you to let me speak on the motion and we can put it to a vote once I make my case. I need to warn you that if you rule that this debate cannot take place, there will be a breakdown in this committee and you will play into the government's hand. If the government wanted to show respect for the rights of our witness, they would not have done what they did. I am sure the witness we have before us today understands very well the meaning of the discussion we are having here.

I urge you, Madam Chair, to let me speak democratically on this motion. I am willing to listen to any opinion my colleagues might want to share with me. You know I have a reputation for unfailing open-mindedness. I beg you not to play into the government's hand by making this committee into a slavish tool of the majority.

[English]

The Chair: Monsieur Ménard, I have just told you that I believe your motion is in fact not in order according to two specific references to the rules. Furthermore, as to whether or not anyone is showing respect and how this committee will proceed in the future, that will be up to the members of this committee. I would suggest that we have a good history on this committee of working things through. To suggest that I am playing the role of the government might lead others to ask, who's playing roles here?

I have ruled that it's out of order—

º (1600)

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: I do not understand your decision. I raise a point of order, Madam Chair.

[English]

The Chair: Are you challenging the chair, Mr. Ménard?

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: I am trying to understand your decision. You are the committee's servant; I want to understand your decision. The government gave an order of reference to this committee.

The Chair: Mr. Ménard, I have the floor.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Explain the decision to me: I do not understand. Explain.

The Chair: Mr. Ménard, members cannot oppose or criticize a decision of the House, and this motion...

Mr. Réal Ménard: No, no, no. Madam Chair, this is a new order of reference.

The Chair: Mr. Ménard, I gave the explanation. I ruled the motion out of order. If you have a problem with that, you may call the question.

Mr. Réal Ménard: I ask the question, Madam Chair, because I know your sensitivity. Madam Chair, I am asking you this question: the government decided, using its majority—

[English]

The Chair: I'll put the question.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: It is a question. It is a point of clarification. The government—

The Chair: Now.

Mr. Réal Ménard: I ask the question, Madam Chair. The government decided to refer to this committee the subject matter of the member's bill. You are saying, Madam Chair, that this decision is not within the purview of this committee. But it has to do with our future business, the future of this committee. I do not understand how you can rule my motion out of order. Show me the authority. Give me a better explanation than what you said. I am not convinced. I want to see the authority, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Mr. Ménard, I already told you. It is on pages 525 and 495.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Read it.

The Chair: Yes, I have both. It says: “once recorded, a vote becomes a decision of the House and the vote of a member cannot be changed“.

[English]

If you are challenging my ruling, Monsieur Ménard, challenge it now and we'll have the vote, and we can move forward to Dr. Martin.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Madam Chair, I want to understand the rationale of your ruling. Then I will call for a vote. Madam Chair, I want to understand your ruling.

The Chair: Mr. Ménard, I asked you to call for a vote. Do you have a problem?

Mr. Réal Ménard: I have a question for you, Madam Chair. Do you see any difference between a vote taken in the House of Commons and a decision to refer something to a committee? In my opinion, there is a world of difference.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Ménard, you are now out of order and I will turn to Dr. Martin, unless you would like to put your other motion. Would you like to put your other motion?

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: On a point of order, Madam Chair. I challenge your ruling and I ask for a vote on your ruling.

[English]

The Chair: We'll have a vote. All those in favour of—

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: I request a recorded vote.

The Chair: Very well.

A voice: I am coming to vote.

The Chair: Hello, Mr. Bergeron.

Mr. Réal Ménard: We will see and we will respect democracy in this committee. The silence of the lambs, that is over.

The Chair: Yes, it is over.

A voice: [Editor's Note: Inaudible]

Mr. Réal Ménard: You, you are much smarter when you do not open your mouth.

The Chair: We will have to wait a few seconds for another clerk.

[English]

(Motion agreed to: yeas 6; nays 4)

The Chair: Thank you.

Monsieur Ménard, you were defeated.

Mr. Lee, you have a point of order.

º (1605)

Mr. Derek Lee: Thank you.

Given Mr. Ménard's courtesy in alerting us to his need for ample time, I'm going to move that the second motion, which you may or may not wish to move today, be put to the end of our agenda so that we can completely deal with Dr. Martin first. Secondly, I will be prepared to move at any time a point of order terminating television coverage of this committee if I feel it's gone way outside the envelope here. I think we should try to deal with the issue before us today in dealing with Dr. Martin's bill.

So I'd like to move that we deal with the second motion at the end of the meeting, if we have time.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Lee.

[Translation]

On the same point of order, I believe.

Mr. Réal Ménard: [Editor's Note: Inaudible] —request consent.

[English]

Mr. Derek Lee: Madam Chair, I'm not sure that Mr. Ménard should have the floor, because he's going to filibuster.

Perhaps Mr. Ménard should have a minute to respond to the issue.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Madam Chair—

The Chair: Yes, Mr. Ménard.

Mr. Réal Ménard: I would like to raise another point of order.

[English]

The Chair: We haven't dealt with the motion yet.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: I wish that the motion of which I have duly given notice under our Standing Orders, the motion regarding the distribution of documents in both official languages, be put to a vote today and I wish to raise a second point of order, Madam Chair.

The Chair: But, Mr. Ménard, you did not move the motion. Do you want to move the motion now or not?

Mr. Réal Ménard: Before moving the motion on official languages, which have, as you know, been trampled in a cavalier fashion, I want to raise a point of order, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Before?

Mr. Réal Ménard: Now, if I may?

[English]

The Chair: What is your point of order, Mr. Ménard?

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Madam Chair, do not put on airs, we are on TV.

Madam Chair, in the interest of our future work, in order to establish a minimum of trust between the members of this committee who have worked very hard, I would ask you in all friendship to see if there would be unanimous consent for a resolution inviting the government house leader to appear before this committee in order to explain the government's action. I ask you to see if there would be unanimous consent to invite the government house leader to appear before us. Democracy requires it. Madam Chair, if the government is comfortable with its decision, if the Liberals believe in their government, they will allow the government leader to come before us.

[English]

The Chair: Monsieur Ménard, I have a motion on the floor from Mr. Lee that we move immediately to the witness and that we deal with your motion at the end of the meeting.

If you are responding to his motion, get to the point.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: If I may respond—

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Réal Ménard: —before debating my second motion, I would like unanimous consent—

The Chair: No. We are on Mr. Lee's motion.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Madam Chair, you offend me, you are heavy-handed. You hurt me a lot. I am asking you for consent, before dealing with my second motion, to allow our witness to express what he felt when faced with the government's action. I would like to hear the witness before closing this discussion, Madam Chair. This is a democracy; we are sitting in committee—

[English]

The Chair: You're not in order. You're not in order.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Do not say that, Madam Chair.

The Chair: My question is: do you want to speak on the point of order raised by Mr. Lee?

Mr. Réal Ménard: Remind me of his point of order. What was it he said? Could you refresh my memory, Madam Chair? What did he say?

[English]

The Chair: It's helpful when you're having a discussion that some people listen and some people speak in an alternating order, Mr. Ménard.

Mr. Lee suggested--

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Yes, but it would be useful if— [Editor's Note: Inaudible ] —also. Go ahead, I am listening.

[English]

The Chair: —that we now move to Mr. Martin's business and deal with your point of order later. I would suggest that your motion would be unanimously supported in this committee and that you should probably indicate that and move quickly to the witness. Alternatively, at 4:55 p.m., because this committee will end at 5 p.m., I would suggest that we could do the motion then.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: But before recognizing my colleague, the member for Verchères--Les-Patriotes, could I have the assurance that in his statement the witness will express how he felt when the government breached his privilege in such a cavalier fashion?

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Ménard, no.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: But when will he be able to do so? If he does, I agree to proceed. But my colleague wants the floor.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to say something on the motion of my colleague regarding official languages.

The Chair: Which colleague?

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I am talking about my colleague, Mr. Ménard.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: If you are under the impression that this motion could be passed quickly with unanimous consent, why not do so now, before going to our witness, if it can be done without any discussion and debate?

The Chair: Yes, I agree, but it is up to you and to your colleague to decide if there will be a long debate or if it can be done very quickly.

Mr. Réal Ménard: If you want to adopt my motion on official languages...but I want to be certain—

º (1610)

The Chair: Mr. Bergeron, would you like a few seconds to speak with Mr. Ménard?

Mr. Réal Ménard: Madam Chair, do not interfere in our internal business. There are enough problems on the Liberal side; leave our internal business alone.

So, Madam Chair, I want to have assurance that when our colleague will speak, he will be able to say how hurt he was.

The Chair: Mr. Ménard, we are dealing with Mr. Lee's motion. Are you in support...

Mr. Réal Ménard: Let us pass right away the motion on official languages, unanimously.

An hon. member: No.

Mr. Réal Ménard: You do not want to vote for official languages? Just say so clearly.

[English]

The Chair: In regard to Mr. Lee's point of order that we deal with the second motion at the end of the committee, which would be at five to five, if we have time—

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: No, not si nous avons du temps.

Mr. Derek Lee: Cette motion m'appartient.

Mr. Réal Ménard: You will respect mine. It is my motion.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Let's not get worked up.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Don't get worked up. Gardez votre sang- froid.

º (1615)

[English]

The Chair: It is his motion.

And, Mr. Lee, your motion is that we deal with the second motion of Mr. Ménard at the end of committee, if we have time. I will call a vote on that.

I'm in the middle of calling a vote, Mr. Bergeron. Fine, Mr. Bergeron, vite.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Madam Chair, on a point of order.

I must tell you that I am quite troubled by what is happening here. I find the atmosphere very tense. I have had some unforgettable squabbles with Mr. Lee, but I never saw him in such a state.

Madam Chair, I do not want to spoil the party, this is not what I came for. But it seems fundamental, in this Parliament, to pay scrupulous respect to the Official Languages Act. I trust we can very quickly, by unanimous consent, pass the motion of my colleague on official languages. Otherwise, if this motion fails, any proceedings of this committee would be in breach of the Official Languages Act.

I urge you to pass this motion from my colleague. Then we can proceed without delay with hearing our witness. I believe all this discussion unduly delays matters, while we all could, even Mr. Lee, I am sure—

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Without debate.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Without debate, by unanimous consent, we carry the motion of my colleague and immediately thereafter we proceed with our witness.

Please, Mr. Lee, we know your fondness for both official languages. Without any debate, sans débat—

[English]

Mr. Réal Ménard: And don't be impolite with me. I'm very sensitive.

The Chair: Here's what I'm going to do. I'm going to suggest that we suspend this committee and that everyone get a drink of water and come back and sit down at the table in two minutes.

I'll start the clock.

º (1613)

º (1616)

The Chair: Mr. Lee.

Mr. Derek Lee: Following discussions, Madam Chair, I will withdraw the procedural motion that I moved, without prejudice to raising it again, if so advised. I will put a second motion that will call upon the committee to put Mr. Ménard's second motion dealing with the two official languages forthwith without debate.

[Translation]

The Chair: Are we agreed?

Mr. Réal Ménard: Yes.

[English]

The Chair: Then on the motion of Mr. Ménard that this committee proceed with the distribution of documents only when they're available in both official languages, we will vote.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Dr. Martin, we will now turn to you for a presentation of approximately 15 minutes maximum, and then this committee will be adjourning at five o'clock. I would hope that you would leave us lots of time for questions and answers.

Over to you, Dr. Martin.

Mr. Keith Martin, M.P. (Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Madam President, and colleagues. Thank you very much for being here. It's a privilege to be in front of the committee.

In opening, I would like to say I sincerely hope, whatever comes out of the committee and whatever conclusions this committee arrives at, the government will actually listen and employ and use the work that comes out of this committee. I hope it does not wind up on a shelf collecting dust like other good work that happens in this institution called Parliament.

Marijuana, hash, cocaine, and heroin have had, and will continue to have, a devastating effect, both directly and indirectly, on our country and indeed internationally. It is estimated that there are more than 200 million people who abuse drugs internationally, 4.2% of people over the age of 15. It's a widespread, pervasive problem.

The problem of taking drugs and substances that are illegal stems more from what the effects are on the individual to the surrounding effects of using drugs. The actual direct effect of drug use is actually often less than the indirect use it stems from. I'm talking about the spread of disease, such as HIV, hepatitis B, and hepatitis C, money laundering, corruption, and the financing of terrorists. It is exceedingly important post-September 11.

We know al-Qaeda and other terrorist organization groups receive money from the trafficking of drugs. Civil conflict, such as in Colombia and the expanding conflict taking place in South America, results in the deaths of tens of thousands of people. I'll get back to each of the individual points later on.

I want to emphasize to all of you that the work you're doing is exceedingly important. The scourge of drug abuse is not an irreversible problem. It is not insurmountable. There are solutions, but we must have the courage to act on the solutions and implement them.

In the words of the executive director of the UN Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention, “the time has come to change the way we think about drugs”.

The presentation I'm going to give you is perhaps a little different way of what we can do to deal with this scourge amongst us.

The first thing, of course, is demand reduction. There are three parts to this. The first is epidemiology, measuring where the demand is and where it's coming from. The second is prevention.

I would draw to your attention a very significant motion, passed in this House in 1998, that would probably have the most significant impact upon preventing the use of drugs by starting with children.

The head start program, of which great work has been done in this country, focuses on ensuring children have their basic needs met. I draw to your attention the excellent work done by Claudette Bradshaw, the Minister of Labour, who was very successful in her program in Moncton.

If we can take the best models from around the world to ensure children have their basic needs met, there is an underlying fundamental principle that works in early intervention programs. The number one thing is the strengthening of the parent-child bond, basically to ensure children have good parents who have parenting skills and can teach the children the skills needed to become productive adults.

The impact of this program, if it's done properly and focuses on the basics, is dramatic. They saw a 50% reduction in youth crime, a 50% reduction in teen pregnancies, a 99% reduction in child abuse rates in the model in Hawaii, and massive reductions in demands on welfare and other social programs. Furthermore, it kept kids in school longer and they became productive adults. It is a very effective program.

The third part of demand reduction involves treatment. I hope this committee will recommend we look at the finest models of treatment around the world. Exciting work has been done in Europe that focuses on a more longitudinal measure of treating people with substance abuse problems.

I would encourage this committee to look at people who have substance abuse problems not from a judicial model, not from a criminal model, but from a medical model. These people have a medical problem and should be treated accordingly.

Some of the European programs have had 50% to 60% success rates with the hardcore narcotics abusers, who have been very difficult, as we sometimes see on the streets. The reason the programs work is they focus on ensuring the person is away from the drug environment and has the skills necessary to be able to be a productive individual in society.

º (1620)

So keep the person away from the drug environment they're in and get them the treatment they need, and also ensure they acquire the skills treatment and education they desperately need to be productive individuals and integrated in society.

The second part is supply reduction. This involves going to the countries that produce it. I look not only at Southeast Asia, where some very good work has been done in reducing production—primarily of heroin—but also at the situation in South America, where the conflict in Colombia is expanding to involve Peru, Bolivia, and Ecuador, and having an absolutely devastating effect on those countries. In Colombia alone last year, 26,000 people were murdered as a direct result of the trade in drugs and the problems and the crime surrounding it.

If we are going to address this problem of supply, a number of things have to be addressed. Number one is poverty, lack of access to markets, and the situation of having unsuitable soil means they have to trade and change crops. In order to do this, you have to address issues of getting credit to these people and a source of money, so they can alternate different crops. Grameen-Bank-type micro-credit loans have been highly, highly successful in ensuring that impoverished individuals have the basic capital to engage in alternative forms of economics.

The second issue is the reduction of trade barriers. It is unthinkable to me that we continually persist in erecting trade barriers to developing countries. One of the things the countries producing poppies for opium and coca for cocaine absolutely need are reduced barriers to trade, so they can actually gain access to our markets and trade in alternative goods.

The third point is judicial. One of the major beneficiaries, or the major beneficiary, of our current drug laws is organized crime, which has been proliferating, particularly in this era of globalization. It is what I call the “dark side” of globalization, because with the removal of trade barriers we've also seen an increase in the effectiveness of organized crime. These individuals are not the bikers you see as part of organized crime, but they are individuals with three-piece suits and $5,000 computers.

We need to establish and implement effective laws to deal with money laundering and have RICO—the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act—legislation that will enable us to go after the money. My colleagues, the most effective way of dealing with organized crime is to go after the money. It is what they fear most. And if we, as a nation, can convince other nations to implement RICO-like amendments, then we will be able to cut the legs off from organized crime gangs.

We also need to look at offshore financial centres, where more than $5 trillion is laundered every year--a massive amount of money. These offshore financial centres currently exist with impunity and need to have some form of oversight, so that we can gain access where a prima facie case exists against groups engaged in organized crime. This involves international banking reform.

On the issue of marijuana—if you'll permit me a moment to give you a little background—let me say this much about Bill C-344, which I introduced in the House. It was introduced four years ago as a direct response to the situation in my province of British Columbia, where 12 courts had been closed as a result of financial cuts. What happened was that the courts, overfull as they were, became even more choked. So individuals accused of serious violent offences were not getting their day in court.

Some of the things that were clogging up the courts were people who were charged with the simple possession of marijuana. In response to that, I introduced Bill C-344. I took it through the whole process of going through the lottery, having it made votable by a House committee, and brought it to the House. At the second hour of debate, the government introduced a poison-pill amendment that killed that bill by preventing our colleagues, across party lines, from voting on the bill fairly.

The issue became not the substance of the bill, but the amendment, which has forevermore killed private members' business in this country. I would encourage each of you to look in your heart, to go to your respective parties—and especially the government—to change that issue, because, forevermore, with that amendment, private members' business for all of us is killed.

On the issue of marijuana, the bill seeks the decriminalization of marijuana. Why? It's because roughly $150 million a year is spent on prosecuting and dealing with people who are in the simple possession of marijuana.

º (1625)

My bill would give people a system of fines, $200, $500, and $1,000 for first, second, and third offences. The outcome of this would be a massive savings to our judicial system, and we could use our judicial system to go after more serious criminals such as the organized crime gang individuals I mentioned before. Those moneys could be used to pay for prevention, treatment, and education programs so we can deal with the root and try to diminish substance abuse by dealing with children.

Furthermore, the bill would enable individuals who were picked up and received a fine not to receive a criminal record. I want to draw your attention to this issue because it has a profound impact upon our country.

Some 600,000 Canadians have been charged and do have a criminal record for the simple possession of marijuana. In the words of one of our colleagues fairly high up in this institution, “I have a lot of friends who have been charged and who have had their lives destroyed by a transgression of possessing a small amount of marijuana when they were teenagers. It makes no sense to have the current system where we criminalize people for the simple possession of marijuana.”

Let me emphasize at the outset that I'm against marijuana use. I don't use it, and I've never used it. I'm not in favour of it. I'm against its use. But we have to deal with the current situation. It is utterly absurd that the current situation, of criminalizing people for the possession of small amounts of marijuana, continue. Not only, as I said, is this a savings to the taxpayer, but it will prevent people's lives from being ruined by a criminal record. They can't travel, they can't get access to professional faculties, and basically it ruins their life.

We can't forget that the vast majority of people who are picked up for simple possession are between the ages of 18 and 24. In getting a record at that age, their lives are ruined forever.

On the issue of harm reduction, I want to say this much. The Government of Canada, in their drug strategy of 1998, said one of the cornerstones of our drug strategy in this country is harm reduction. I want to emphasize and go through six points that I hope we implement.

The first is prevention. Implement the head start program that this Parliament passed in 1998. You will have to work with the provinces to do it, but please do it for the sake of the children of this country.

Already Ontario has implemented some 144 early learning centres. In my province of British Columbia, Minister Reid is looking at doing a similar thing. We have it for aboriginal people; let's ensure that all children, regardless of their race, get access to this highly effective prevention program that saves approximately $7 for every dollar used.

Secondly, on the issue of prosecution and legislation, let us not only have RICO-like legislation here in Canada—and we've gone a long way to doing that—but let us also ensure that RICO-like legislation is going to be adopted by other countries, not only in our hemisphere but also in the west.

Let's also look at ways we can deal with offshore financial centres, to put blockages to the money laundering that has gone through there with impunity for too long.

Thirdly, on the issue of treatment, let us look at the new models of treatment from Europe that are highly effective. Let's not persist with the revolving-door syndrome that we have in too many cases within our country. It involves, as I said before, a longitudinal approach toward a substance abuser, a flexible approach, and one that not only involves treating them with counselling and perhaps other medications, but also involves taking them out of the drug environment they're in and ensuring they have the skills and the education to become integrated members of Canadian society.

Fourth, we must remove the barriers to trade to developing countries, so that impoverished farmers in places like Colombia can grow other crops and do have markets to deal with that.

On the issue of trying to reduce the problem of supply, I would emphasize—and this is a key point—that we will never reduce the problem of supply at source unless we reduce the demand for drugs in North America and the west. We can stand and point fingers all we want at countries like Colombia, but unless we get our own house in order here, we are hypocrites.

º (1630)

I want to emphasize the devastation that's wrought on those countries. I was down there. I met with President Pastrana.

I might add that for the motion I will be showing you, I have about 17 Latin countries onside, including the Colombians, because they recognize this multifactorial approach works very well.

Fifth, on the use of import-export permits for the precursor chemicals, the United Nations justifiably rapped our knuckles for allowing the precursor chemicals to be sold to countries producing illicit drugs. We talk about reducing drugs, but we turn a blind eye to it.

A system of import-export permits for these precursor chemicals would go a long way to enabling us to track who is producing these illicit drugs. The Organization of American States says the only thing holding this system of permits up is bureaucratic intransigence. It's easy to use, easy to employ. Let's get on with it.

Sixth, let's actually implement the decriminalization of the simple marijuana possession. We found that where laws of possession are more liberalized, particularly in Europe, there's less hard drug use, less disease, less use of marijuana, and less crime.

I would strongly urge you, if you have any doubts of what I'm saying, to compare the more liberalized drug laws of places like Holland, Denmark, and Switzerland to the more punitive drug laws that they have in the United States. In the U.S., you'll see higher use of all drugs, including marijuana, cocaine, heroin; higher rates of disease—hepatitis B, hepatitis C, and HIV; higher rates of drug death; younger age groups using; much more crime; and much higher costs to deal with this problem.

Permit me to close on a personal note.

I have been a physician for 16 years, and I've had a chance to work in detoxification units for about 13 years. I've worked in jails as a guard and as a doctor. I've seen many people's lives destroyed. I've seen children die. I've seen them overdose. I've seen children sold by their parents on the street for prostitution so that their parents would have access to the drugs they needed. I've seen those same children suffer in their teenage years, get strokes from the drug abuse they get into as a result of the environments they're in. I've seen them die as a result of murder, and I've seen them prostituted out and acquiring diseases. I've seen people incarcerated for years as a result of substance abuse, and I've seen lives, as you have, destroyed as a direct result of the crime, the money laundering, the property damage that our current drug laws actually aid and abet.

I know all of you are committed; otherwise you wouldn't be here. I just make an impassioned plea that whatever solutions you come out with here—and I know you'll come out with the best ones you can find—please, please, for all those people out there who have substance abuse problems, get those solutions acted on. Get them implemented. For God's sake, don't let the solutions you come out with merely go onto a shelf to collect dust like so much other good work in this House.

Thank you.

º (1635)

The Chair: Thank you very much, Dr. Martin.

I'll now turn to questions.

We're a bit over, so Mr. White, can I give you seven minutes?

Mr. Randy White (Langley--Abbotsford, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Keith, I'm not sure, in the battle of the drug problem in this country, whether merely giving a fine to somebody who's caught with an amount of marijuana...I don't believe that resolves the problem in any way, shape, or form. Do you?

Mr. Keith Martin: Well, decriminalizing marijuana possession should be in keeping with a multifactorial approach.

I draw your attention to my motion 358, which I introduced on May 3, 2001. It had the four or five points in there: reducing domestic consumption through drug rehabilitation programs based on the European models; prevention through the head start program; pursuing hemispheric free trade; introducing RICO-like amendments... Those kinds of things have to work in conjunction.

I might add that decriminalizing marijuana possession was supported by the Canadian Medical Association; the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, in conjunction with the other more holistic approach that I mentioned; church groups; and the Canadian Bar Association, to name just a few.

The Canadian Medical Association said that although there are problems with drugs, a much larger problem is the ancillary, indirect costs surrounding drug use.

Mr. Randy White: I understand and know everything you're saying. But my question is, do you think that decriminalizing it, providing a summary conviction for marijuana, does anything for the drug problem we have in this country? What does it resolve?

Mr. Keith Martin: The short answer is yes, and I draw your attention to the facts. If you look at the European experience of marijuana use, and indeed because we want to reduce drug use writ large, I ask you simply to compare the experience of, say, the Netherlands and the United States, one country that has more liberalized drug use laws and another country that has a very punitive approach towards substance abuse. If you look at both of those, you see widely different parameters and statistics on substance abuse of marijuana and other drugs, as I mentioned, on crime, on disease, and on the costs associated with apprehension of people with drug problems. There's a very big difference, and for all it's less in the Netherlands and for all much greater in the United States.

This is supported by Senator McCain and by the Governor of New Mexico.

Mr. Randy White: That's fine.

Do you believe that the THC component of marijuana is addictive?

Mr. Keith Martin: The THC is not addictive; it is habituative. The difference is that with habituation you want something; with addiction you actually have a physiological response to withdrawal. So, for example, heroin is addictive. Marijuana is not. It's habituative.

Mr. Randy White: Your opinion does differ from other doctors in that regard.

Mr. Keith Martin: It's also congruent with many others too.

Mr. Randy White: Would you suggest that marijuana is a gateway drug?

Mr. Keith Martin: According to a gentleman, a physician, one of the leading experts on substance abuse in Canada, marijuana is not a gateway drug and there is no evidence to demonstrate that marijuana is a gateway drug. And it isn't.

But if your objective is to reduce drug use, and I think we all have the objective of reducing drug abuse, including marijuana, which I'm as committed as you are to reducing, again, if you decriminalize marijuana, it's been found that in conjunction with other elements there is a reduction in drug use writ large, including the reduction in the use of marijuana.

º (1640)

Mr. Randy White: In the last five years in my province of British Columbia, and your province, I am not aware of anybody who has received a criminal conviction for a very low amount of marijuana use.

Mr. Keith Martin: I can only talk to you about the statistics. According to the statistics I've seen the costs now are about $150 million, and 63,500-odd drug convictions take place roughly every year.

Mr. Randy White: Not for small amounts, to my knowledge.

Mr. Keith Martin: Let me finish, Randy.

Some 63,500 people are arrested for drug abuse charges in this country, and 31,000 of them are arrested for simple possession. Those are the facts.

Mr. Randy White: Do I have any further time?

The Chair: You have one minute left.

Mr. Randy White: In regard to your schedules for the amount of marijuana that one would get a summary conviction for, would you describe for me the minimum and maximum amounts? How much is that? What does it equate to?

Mr. Keith Martin: In the laws of this country, as they now stand, in Canada—

Mr. Randy White: In your bill. That's what I'm asking about.

Mr. Keith Martin: That's what it is in this country today.

What's in my bill is exactly the possession amounts in Canada today as they stand in the law books in schedules 7 and 8. Schedule 7, sections 5 and 60, in the laws of this country today, state that simple possession for cannabis resin is more than a gram and less than three kilograms; and marijuana, more than 30 grams and less than three kilograms.

Mr. Randy White: I see that. I want you to describe for me how many joints that is, for instance.

Mr. Keith Martin: I would have absolutely no idea. But I'm sure it's a function of how much you put in it.

Mr. Randy White: I'd suggest to you it's actually around two to three joints. That's my understanding. And a joint is not very big.

So I don't know of anybody, quite frankly, who gets a criminal conviction for that today. I want to point that out to you. I do study those kinds of things.

Mr. Keith Martin: According to StatsCan statistics for this country, 63,500 people are picked up on drug charges—

Mr. Randy White: I meant marijuana convictions.

Mr. Keith Martin: —and 31,000 are picked up on the simple possession of marijuana. Those are the facts.

Mr. Randy White: That's all I have.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard, you have seven minutes.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Before dealing with the substance of the bill, I would like to have an exchange with you on the trauma that the full House, one could say, experienced because of the treatment you have received. Could you tell us if the government House leader communicated with you in any way before tabling this motion? Did he offer an alternative that would be respectful of your rights, since your bill had been made votable, or did the government act in its usual cavalier fashion, without respect and in a rather fascistic way?

M. Keith Martin: Thank you very much, Mr. Ménard, for the impassioned speech you made at the start of this meeting.

[English]

As to what happened, the short answer is that no one contacted me from the government when they introduced the poison-pill amendment, which effectively prevented the House from voting on this bill. It was an egregious violation of the rights of every member of Parliament and, by extension, of the rights of every single citizen in this country, preventing their elected representatives from voting freely on a bill.

This amendment came out of the blue as it was introduced on second reading. Even the Speaker took 15 minutes to rule on whether the government's amendment, which effectively prevented the House from voting freely on this bill, was in order. The Speaker, in his words, said he was not going to make any comments on whether the amendment hijacked the bill, but he said the amendment was in order. In other words, the amendment hijacked the bill--the Speaker's own words, my emphasis at the end.

It is a shame and a tragedy, because the substance of the bill, as I mentioned before, was really not relevant once the amendment came into play. What was relevant is the fact that a fundamental right Canadians have died for, to preserve the right of voting.... The basic democratic rights in this country were violated, and since that amendment was passed a little over a week ago, it has forevermore killed private members' business for every single member of Parliament, including members of the government party.

I just draw to your attention, Monsieur Ménard, that there have been some 239 private members' bills introduced into this Parliament. Only five have been made votable. Only two got as far as my bill. None have gotten to committee. And the cost is about $45 million.

One wonders why, on the day I was admonished by the House, I was being admonished, yet the House was dealing with Canada's horse instead of dealing with issues such as drugs, health care, jobs, the environment, and the myriad of other issues that really affect Canadians.

º (1645)

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Allow me to ask a second question. When you appeared before the Sub-Committee on private members' business, I believe government members had an opportunity to ask you questions; they had an exchange with you.

How did you rate the quality of the exchange you had with the government members? Do you agree with me that since the Liberals came to power in 1993, setting aside the business about bill C-20, there has never been such an undemocratic behaviour, one that is such a blemish on the institution of Parliament? Do you believe that in your province, in British Columbia, there could be a backlash against the government because of this?

[English]

Mr. Keith Martin: We don't live in a democracy in this country, unfortunately. This Parliament is not a democracy, and that's a profound tragedy. It has happened before in this Parliament, repeatedly, whether in committee structures or in the House.

We know that Albina Guarnieri's bill--a member from the government party--went to committee, and that was a bill that was votable, passed by the House on consecutive sentencing, yet the government committee members were forced by their leadership to remove every word, letter, and period from that bill, even the title, such that it was completely destroyed and all that was left was a piece of paper.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Would you be tempted to say that the government's action is akin to a betrayal and do you consider making representations to the Speaker of the House of Commons who is, as you know, the guardian of parliamentary freedom? I know you are not expecting anything from the Liberal caucus since we know by now how slavishly they follow the government's orders.

Are you considering making representations to the Speaker of the House of Commons?

[English]

Mr. Keith Martin: I want to emphasize, Monsieur Ménard, that what happened last Wednesday is something that affects all of us regardless. As we know, for the government members, the opposition members, every single member of Parliament, and every single citizen of this country, the fundamental right to vote was violated a little over a week ago, and that was the issue. I pity all of us, having to labour under this environment that is not a democracy. It's run by the Prime Minister's Office; it is a dictatorship. If we don't change that, then this institution is irrelevant and the Canadian public will not get the treatment they deserve.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Did any Liberals show enough backbone to express to you, in private—I am under no illusion that they would do so publicly—their indignation about the action of their government or did they express sympathy in any shape or form?

A voice: How about you? A delaying motion...

Mr. Réal Ménard: Madam Chair, may I ask my question?

The Chair: Mr. Ménard has the floor.

Mr. Réal Ménard: It is Mrs. Allard who is upset. Mrs. Allard, you disappoint me very much. Try to get a grasp.

Now, we know that Liberals do not have much backbone in defending democratic principles, but did any find within themselves enough courage—this is a hypothetical question—to express in private some form of support or sympathy? Have there been any?

[English]

Mr. Keith Martin: Monsieur Ménard, there were six members of the Liberal Party who had the courage to stand up against the government amendment and fight for democracy. I certainly salute them because they're clearly extremely courageous for doing that. No doubt there will be penalties that will be imposed upon them internally.

But after that, and subsequent to picking up the mace, members from all political parties, including members from the government, said thank you for picking up the mace; thank you for drawing attention to the fact that all of us in this House want to do work for the betterment of Canada. We all want to do work for the public good, but we are prohibited and inhibited by doing the work that we were sent here to do by our constituents. We are muzzled and hamstrung by a Parliament that is run in a dictatorial fashion by the Prime Minister's Office.

º (1650)

The Chair: Dr. Fry.

Ms. Hedy Fry: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Keith, I'm pleased because when I read your Bill C-344, all it talked about was decriminalizing marijuana. It didn't talk about a comprehensive package, and obviously you have brought forward a comprehensive package.

I must tell you that we have heard from very many corners. Lots of people have talked about decriminalization. We have looked at the European models, we've looked at the Australian models, etc., so this is not a new concept. However, I know that the Canadian Medical Association has very clearly suggested that it will not support the decriminalization of marijuana unless it is made certain to people in education that marijuana is not a safe drug and that in fact it has very many side effects to it--ones that are similar to alcohol. It creates a decrease of the ability to have any kind of cognitive ability. It decreases your memory, long term and short term. It also can create impairment if you're driving, and there is also concomitant use of marijuana with alcohol.

Having said all that, what I'm saying is that I'm pleased to see that you are coupling this with prevention, etc., because one would not want to get the message out that by decriminalizing marijuana one is saying it is necessarily a drug that one should use without thought.

However, what I wanted to ask you is this. Do you believe marijuana should be the only drug that is decriminalized, or do you believe all illicit drugs should be decriminalized? I know this has been suggested to us by many other groups, from the same point of view that you are making, that in fact one needs to treat the person who uses drugs from a medical model and the people who supply drugs from a criminal model, and that one needs to look at it from both of those separate models and not penalize the user.

I want to know if you thought you should extend this to other than marijuana. Should it be done in the same way with cocaine and heroin, etc.? Do you think there is a benefit to that? We have heard from some people that there is a benefit to that.

And finally, I want to ask whether you believe there should be harm reduction such as needle exchange programs. Do you think methadone programs are useful? What do you think about harm reduction, as it's currently being practised, as part of a public health model of reducing harm to the user over the period of time?

I'd like to hear your opinions on that.

Mr. Keith Martin: Thank you, Dr. Fry.

On your question on whether to decriminalize all illicit drugs, I'm of two minds. The jury is out in my own mind on that, and I don't know the answer. There are very persuasive arguments on both sides. I dealt with decriminalizing marijuana because, from what I've seen, the jury is very much in, and there is a very strong argument to change that, for many reasons I have mentioned.

On the issue of harm reduction, I draw to your attention the Mersey model in the United Kingdom, which is excellent. I am a very strong supporter of needle exchanges and methadone, when done in conjunction with an obligation on the part of the user to engage in treatment programs and skills training. As physicians, you and I know it is absolutely necessary to take the holistic multifactorial approach to get somebody off their drugs for a long period of time. I might add, I introduced the bill and the motion together because simply introducing the motion would not get any attention, unfortunately, because it's a little bit too comprehensive.

I would also draw your attention to an article in The Lancet in 1998 that gave a very cogent argument--as you quite eloquently mentioned--that there are physiological problems and medical problems associated with marijuana use. I, like you, oppose its legalization and use for other than highly restrictive medicinal purposes, but the circumstances around drug use--the corruption, disease rates, organized crime and such--are far greater problems than the drugs themselves.

I hope this committee, using your wisdom and the collective wisdom of those you hear, will be able to answer that question of whether or not to decriminalize a larger number of drugs.

º (1655)

The Chair: We may need to have Dr. Martin back. This meeting is ending at 5 p.m.

Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance): Do I get to ask a question?

The Chair: Earlier you told me you didn't have any questions, Mr. Sorenson.

If I can go to Mr. Lee's question quickly, perhaps you and I can talk later.

Mr. Derek Lee: There are many questions we could get into, but I'll just address one quickly.

It has been suggested that marijuana is not as benign as many people think, in terms of its physical impact on the human body. In some of the material, someone has suggested that smoking three joints of marijuana a day is about the same as smoking half a pack of cigarettes, or worse, in terms of risk of cancer. I also admit that if somebody were to eat three or four chocolate bars a day or drink a couple of bottles of liquor a day, they would have a problem.

From your point of view, as a medical professional and as a parliamentarian, do you think this committee could accept that marijuana was just not dangerous enough or toxic enough, so we could decriminalize it in a manner similar to what you're suggesting?

Mr. Keith Martin: I draw your attention to the Le Dain Commission, a parliamentary commission that studied this issue exhaustively. It emphatically stated 20 years ago that simple marijuana possession should be decriminalized.

So while I completely agree with Dr. Fry's comments that marijuana is not benign, it is no more dangerous than alcohol.

Mr. Derek Lee: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Sorensen, do you have a quick question?

Mr. Kevin Sorenson: Yes, thank you, Madam Chairman.

Thank you, Keith, for coming here.

I think the Canadian public has followed this one because of your courage to stand up against what was wrong. We saw a Liberal government that had lost touch with private members bringing forward business and members wanting to bring their constituents' concerns forward in this place. Members of Parliament like you, who used the proper process to submit and to spend their time and efforts, energy, and money to see a private member's bill built, had to watch a Liberal government who so indiscriminately just takes it... After getting it pulled, first of all, and secondly, getting it voted on, the Liberal government then says, “No, we will not allow that to be voted; we're going to siphon it off and push it off”. Yet you've brought it forward.

More to your motion here, although I applaud you, I do question this bill. I think there are a number of questions we have seen as we've travelled throughout this country.

First of all, we've already heard the Liberal response in the questioning today. This bill would cause the decriminalization of marijuana. Right away, the Liberal approach is, “Do you think everything should be decriminalized? Do you think all drugs should be decriminalized?” I realize that was a question, but what I am saying is that is the general concern Canadians are having. We live on a slippery slope. If we decriminalize marijuana today, then all of a sudden the floodgates are opened and other drugs are added to the list.

I have a number of constituents who have written with grave concern. If we decriminalize marijuana, how long before we see some of the other illicit drugs, perhaps in the name of harm reduction, being added to that list for decriminalization?

So my question is about the slippery slope and also the messaging. Keith, one of the huge concerns I have is that children receive the message that it is no longer a criminal offence. All of a sudden, the messaging is mixed.

We have heard that people on different sides have been discouraged with the police going out to the schools with the DARE program. We've sat and listened in this committee when some have said that they're police officers and all they basically speak about is “just say no”, as if that's a wrong message. They say what we need to have is a balanced approach, and that would be to do drugs safely. That would be the liberalized society's balanced approach to drugs.

So where do we go from here? Disapproving and “just say no” don't sell. We want balance.

» (1700)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Sorenson.

Mr. Martin.

Mr. Keith Martin: Thank you, Mr. Sorenson.

On the issue of the slippery slope syndrome, if we look at the facts, as I said before, and compare the punitive, very tough measures against drugs that exist in the United States to the more liberalized versions in Europe, you find it doesn't hold water at all. I've looked at this quite extensively. The facts clearly don't bear it out. Decriminalizing simple marijuana possession does not lead to a slippery slope. In fact, it can do the opposite.

The reason they believe this to be so is it's the forbidden fruit syndrome. If you tell children they cannot do this and you prohibit it, what are they going to do? They're going to go out and do it.

By losing the cache of actually using it, by losing the forbidden fruit attractiveness and seductiveness, they've found fewer people use it. I mentioned the litany of reasons. Less drugs are used. Less marijuana is used. Less hard drugs are used. The hard drug users are older, which is a parameter to show how effective it is. It's not a slippery slope.

I'll tell you what doesn't work--legalization. If you look at the needle park experience in Geneva, it was devastating for many reasons. You had a large attraction from organized crime. Drug use actually went up.

On the third issue of prohibition, I would say compare the U.S. to the European models. The facts speak for themselves.

Mr. Kevin Sorenson: Are you saying send messages to the children?

Mr. Keith Martin: I think what works, Mr. Sorenson, is to educate the kids. You start early, with the head start program, strengthening the parent-child bond, saying very early on that this is really not a good thing; it is damaging. Educate them not only on the impact upon themselves but also on the impact upon the surrounding environment.

One thing that has worked very well is to illustrate that if you do heroin and cocaine here, you're literally killing somebody in another country. You're killing somebody with cocaine. If you shoot up with heroin or free-base cocaine, you're going to kill an innocent person in Colombia or another country. It's a very powerful message.

I'll finish, Madam President. I hope this committee actually develops a national advertising message campaign to show our children and adults, if they do illicit drugs, they'll kill innocent men, women, and children in Colombia. You can show fairly graphic details about what it does to men, women, and children.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Dr. Martin. I guess the committee will reserve the opportunity to invite you back before us at some point in time.

On a personal note, my private member's bill was rolled into another bill and went to the subject matter of another committee. Sometimes things do get adopted in different ways.

I appreciate the enthusiasm you have for the subject matter and the time you have put into your presentation today.

This meeting is adjourned.