Mr. Pennell:

Mr. Chairman, having regard to the question raised by the hon. member in respect of wiretapping, perhaps I may be permitted to quote myself. In this way I could acknowledge the author and also indicate the consistency of my views regarding electronic

March 26, 1968

Supply-Justice

devices and wiretapping. I stated publicly in Calgary last August:

I feel that the interception of private communications either by wiretapping or by the use of electronic listening devices should be made a criminal offence, except for the purpose of collecting evidence in criminal prosecutions by law enforcement officers, where they are acting upon specific authority given in individual cases by a competent court.

I wish to say to the hon. member that I am prepared to urge that view upon my colleagues. Indeed it is my intention to do so. I am awaiting the report of the royal commission on security because this is an element which may be considered in that report.

Upon the question of bail, again if I may be so presumptuous, I should like to quote from a speech that is being delivered this evening, almost at this very moment on my behalf, by the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister which contains the following:

I have now received an interim report of the Canadian committee on corrections dealing with matters of bail. The report recommends-I heartily concur in it-that the criminal code should be amended to provide for a more liberal use of summons-with warrants for arrest being restricted to use on charges of a serious nature. I also believe that courts should have better information upon which to base a decision relating to the amount of bail. Unless the presiding judge or magistrate is given full information about the accused-his background, family, employment and finances, the court may not be able to properly assess bail conditions. To condition bail primarily on the ability of the accused to raise bail funds, rather than his character and background, may tend to discriminate against the accused who is financially disabled.

For the most part the courts have concentrated primarily on the type of offence committed as the criterion for setting bail. I would respectfully suggest that when the alleged offender appears to be a good risk for bail his income and assets should be taken into account so that there will not be discrimination against the financially poor accused. After all, bail is primarily a deterrent to prevent default of appearance for trial.

I do not hesitate to say that I propose to put this as a recommendation before my cabinet colleagues.

In conclusion let me say that the question in respect of marijuana is very serious because of increasing use. I have made a number of statements to the public on this subject. I feel it is a subject about which we do not as yet have sufficient medical knowledge. I sympathize with the suggestion made by the hon. member for Simcoe East earlier today during the question period. It is not a policy of the Department of Justice to suggest the penalty to be imposed on first offenders. Quite to the contrary, as I understand the policy, the

department makes no representation as to sentence unless the court asks for the view of the prosecuting counsel. The case is then dealt with according to the facts.

If I am to judge by the number of prosecutions over the last 11 months, the use of marijuana is increasing. During the last 11 month period there were 1,915 prosecutions launched for offences involving the use of drugs, as compared to 946 prosecutions during the previous 12 months. I suggest that these figures demonstrate the scope and nature of the problem we are facing on the law enforcement side. However I look forward to having consultations with my colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare, with a view to perhaps setting up a new approach and taking further measures to reform the law regarding the use of marijuana.

Mr. Rynard:

I should like to ask the Solicitor General whether he will consider setting up a commission to deal with this problem, which involves both the Department of Justice and the Department of National Health and Welfare. This is one of the most serious problems that confronts the nation today.

[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)

There are in connection with marijuana several problems that remain unsolved and questions still unanswered. Who is pushing it? Who is manufacturing it? From which sources are our young people getting it? I believe these sources have to be uncovered. Perhaps the minister knows the answers to these questions. This drug is getting into all our organizations, high schools and institutions.

The sad part about it is that I am not so sure we really understand the physiological and psychiatric reactions to the drug, nor do I believe we know whether its use leaves any damage to the human system. We do not know the effects of the partial or prolonged use of the drug on the human system.

This is a serious problem and it is growing. The only way to solve the problem is for the Solicitor General to get busy, bring these people together and set up a commission that will study the problem not only from the standpoint of justice but from the medical standpoint, reactions to the drug and what its use does to the human system.

I also believe we must be more vigorous in finding out the sources of supply of marijuana. Is it a Mafia operation? Who is pushing it? I ask these questions because the supply

March 26, 1968

of marijuana is becoming greater all the time. I believe that speed is of the essence in dealing with this problem. All that can be done at the present time is to stop the supplies of this drug which are going into our high schools and universities, because once it gets into these institutions you find pushers right there and students can very easily supply their fellow students.

This is a very important matter and I know the Solicitor General realizes its importance. So many times we become frustrated in this house. We talk about things, but in the long run we do not attack the problem with speed, as we should. I know the Solicitor General sympathizes with what I am saying. I should like to see him really do something about this problem, and do it right away.

Mr. Pugh:

Mr. Chairman, when the Solicitor General was speaking just now I gathered from his remarks that he felt we should go further in handling this problem, namely into the field of national health and welfare. I gathered from his remarks that perhaps talks are about to commence in this regard, because he referred to an increasing number of prosecutions, and so on.

I wonder if the Solicitor General would tell us whether he is paying more than lip service to the problem and that he has already approached the Minister of National Health and Welfare in order to arrive at some way of combating the pushing of drugs. Perhaps the minister is going so far as adopting the suggestion made by the last speaker, that a commission should be established so that there would be carried out an inquiry in depth as to the drug pushing and the use of drugs in Canada, including the effects of their use on the human system.

I am sure the people of Canada would be most happy to hear the Solicitor General's words on the subject, if he can give us some idea that more than lip service is being paid to the matter and the government is not just considering the problem but is actually doing something about it.

The doctor who has just resumed his seat, the hon. member for Simcoe East, suggested in the House of Commons earlier today that a commission should be set up. This has been the theme of many, many speeches that he has made not only in the house but in committee. He has said that the establishment of such a commission is an absolute necessity for Canada if we are to combat the pushing and use of drugs. It is not good enough to give

Supply-Justice

responsibility to just one department such as Justice or the Department of the Solicitor General. Our national health and welfare is involved in this question and it is an absolute necessity that this department be extremely active in combating the problem. Therefore, if the Solicitor General has anything to say on this problem, I would ask him to do so now.

Mr. Pennell:

Mr. Chairman, I wish to state explicitly that I share the concern that has been voiced by hon. members opposite with regard to the law enforcement aspect of the problem. I would again advise the committee that the deputy commissioner of the R.C.M.P. made a special visit to Washington less than a month ago to confer with the officials of the narcotics bureau in that city. Within the last seven or eight weeks the commissioner also convened a special meeting of the assistant deputy commissioners heading the several divisions across the country and they discussed, among other things, the drug problem.

The R.C.M.P. is in continual touch with all other law enforcement agencies concerned with trafficking in drugs on the North American continent. I say sincerely that I share the view expressed by the hon. member for Simcoe East, who said that we do not yet know enough about the dangers involved in the use of marijuana. I agree that we ought to carry out more research and bring together the experts who have the necessary medical knowledge. I say sincerely that I will take up this matter with my colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I am not of course in a position to say what form the inquiry will take, if my efforts are successful.

Mr. Peters:

Mr. Chairman, this is a very interesting subject and one that has received a great deal of attention. I should like to hear the Solicitor General say that his department is not advising the imposition of the six months sentences that I hear the courts are imposing at the present time. Even the use of the word "drug" is rather a travesty of the technical term. I have read the articles which established marijuana as a drug and have discovered that there is a great deal of difficulty selling to the rest of the world the idea that marijuana should be included in the list of drugs.

It seems to me that if this kind of prison sentence is imposed we will not eliminate or cure the problem at all. I believe that the Solicitor General should be recommending that no prison sentence be imposed, under

March 26, 1968

Supply-Justice

any circumstances, on the users of marijuana. As the hon. member tor Simcoe East pointed out, the difference between a user and a pusher is where the difficulty has arisen. The use of marijuana now takes place not only in our universities and colleges but has become a very serious problem in that its use has extended into our high schools, and indeed down to the public school level and involves children of the age of 10 or 12. It is a very cheap product. It is very easily obtained. It seems to me that if we are to put in jail all those people who are experimenting with marijuana, it will really be a travesty of justice.

I can see no point at all in giving a person a prison sentence for using marijuana if it is not detrimental to his health or to society in general. The police have been awfully stupid in some areas in regard to this problem. A great effort should be made, as the hon. member for Simcoe East said, to study the problem and find out why and how marijuana is being pushed.

I believe we have made very serious mistakes in the past in regard to drugs and the manner in which they are dealt with under our law. Surely we are not going to take marijuana and put it in the category of whisky during prohibition. The situation we now face in respect of drugs is parallel to that which existed at the time of prohibition. Many people then drank whisky only because it was hard to get, and its sale was illegal. We now find kids saying to each other: I tried marijuana; I'll bet you are scared to try it. This is almost the same situation that everybody faced when smoking his first cigarette. To make the use of marijuana a criminal offence is not, I think, receiving from the Department of Justice the consideration that the problem warrants. I certainly feel that the community is not being helped by putting a 15 or 16 year old in jail for having used marijuana when everyone knows that marijuana has been available to almost everyone in the school.

[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)

I understand there is a more serious problem about which the police should start worrying, and that is the extent to which heroin is being added to marijuana and circulated in the schools. It is going through the mails from Toronto and Montreal to be distributed in various areas. This is the sort of thing about which the police should be worried. The criminal part of the operation, as the hon.

member for Simcoe East mentioned, is the pushing of marijuana. Why is it being pushed, and what money is involved? I think the Department of Justice should be interested in ascertaining how marijuana is available in such large quantities and at such low prices. How is it being distributed in such a formidable way in high schools and colleges without the police being able to make a haul of this marijuana?

I can remember one occasion, Mr. Chairman, when the R.C.M.P. went into an Indian reserve and cut 20 tons of marijuana. I do not know how many cigarettes 20 tons would make, but that would be like cutting 20 tons of hay. The amount of marijuana being circulated is in the tons, not pounds. If the police are going to do anything, let them concentrate on that end of the problem. This country is not going to solve a social problem by putting teenagers in jail because they have experimented with marijuana. They are not committed or continual users of hashish. This is a problem the police have not tackled. I believe the minister should be interested in how this stuff can be transported around the country without any indication of its importation. If we do not import it from other countries, then we must grow it. The material still has to be transported in very large trucks because it is a weed that has to be handled in a manner similar to the handling of sweet hay. I suggest that some consideration should be given as to how this circulation takes place. We should not send young offenders to jail just to satisfy the do-gooders.

Let me suggest to the minister that he is going to have to act on this problem very quickly. If he does not, then no one is going to give a dam about the law. They will not care what happens to L.S.D. because there is nobody who has really considered this matter who believes that marijuana is in the same category as other drugs. The reason the covenant was signed with marijuana in it is that after a great deal of study it was believed this problem had got out of hand, not in a narcotic sense but in an international trade sense. We have not faced this problem in the 40 years since that time. I think it is time we looked at it, or we will not be able to solve the more serious problem of L.S.D. If the younger people are convinced that the law is an ass in this case, and they are the citizens who are going to be making the laws tomorrow, then you are going to find that their respect for the law will be nil. I believe the minister is sufficiently aware of the social

March 26, 1968 COMMONS

changes that may take place to realize that something should be done very quickly or there will be a whole generation of children growing up who have no use for the law because it does not appear to be reasonable or fair.

Mr. Gilbert:

Before the minister speaks on this problem of marijuana, I should like to set forth the suggestion that has been made in legal periodicals. It is that when young persons are charged with the possession of marijuana the magistrate or judge should have the power to not proceed with that charge for a period of 12 or 18 months. If the person has not been charged with a similar offence during that period, then the charge should be dropped. The hon. member for Timiskaming pointed out the danger of convicting young people for the possession of marijuana, people who may be trying it for kicks, as they say. I believe the minister should give serious consideration to this approach. It is an approach that some European countries are taking, not only to marijuana but to other offences when young people are charged because the consequences of conviction bear heavily on employment, bonding and travel. Young people could be tagged with a criminal conviction at an early stage in life as a result of the consequences of some dare or experiment they may have taken up.

There are two other points to which I should like the minister to speak. The first is the problem of expunging criminal records. The standing committee on justice and legal affairs made a report on the expungement of such criminal records. I should like to ask the minister if the government intends to act on that report. Many people across Canada are concerned and we should really become active with regard to this problem.

The second problem relates to fingerprints. When a person is charged under the Criminal Code he is photographed and fingerprinted. Then the trial takes place, and if that person is acquitted I should like to know just what happens to those fingerprints. Surely Canadians have the right to have those fingerprints destroyed. We had a dramatic example in Toronto last week when a person was found dead. There was difficulty in identifying the person, but they did identify him through fingerprints that had been obtained when he was charged with a rather minor offence of assault. I feel Canadians are entitled to have fingerprints destroyed if they are acquitted of

DEBATES 8099

Supply-Trade and Commerce charges. I should like the minister to comment on that problem.

Mr. Pennell:

If I may be permitted a word or two, Mr. Chairman, I am sure the hon. member for Broadview will be pleased to learn that yesterday I affixed my signature to a memorandum to my cabinet colleagues on the matter of vacating criminal records. I hope to join with that proposal one relating to bail bonds. If the memorandum receives approval of my colleagues I hope to translate it into a bill. If it comes to pass that I am in a position of ministerial responsibility, I would hope to introduce the bill and send it to the appropriate committee of the house for examination.

Mr. Gilbert:

I wonder if the minister would express his views with regard to the problem of fingerprints? Just what is the policy of the government? Does it destroy these fingerprints if a person is found not guilty of a criminal offence, and why should they not be destroyed if the person is not convicted?

Mr. Pennell:

Mr. Chairman, I speak subject to correction on this point. It is my understanding that for the most part where a person has been acquitted the fingerprints are destroyed. I must concede that there have been instances, to my own knowledge, in which the fingerprints have been retained. However, in my memorandum to my colleagues relating to the vacating of records I also dealt with the question of fingerprints.

This completes the supplementary estimates of the Department of Justice.

[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)

The committee will now consider the supplementary estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce.

Mr. Knowles:

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask one question on this item, and I am looking at the Solicitor General. Perhaps he will either answer my question or tell me who will answer it. Is anyone in a position to make a statement?

Mr. Pennell:

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask that this department be stood temporarily. The Minister of Industry is dealing with this item and he has been called out of the house. If I can have the approval of the committee I should like to move to another department.

Is it the

desire of the committee that the legislation estimate be stood until the minister appears?

Agreed.

Item stands.