I will. Thank you.
Finally, let me offer a couple of thoughts as to why--beyond those health considerations--implementing this variant of mandatory and minimum sentences for drug offences would not be particularly effective. A study done for Justice Canada in 2002 looked at the available evidence at that time and concluded that mandatory minimum sentencing approaches do not work for drug offences. As has been noted before, because of the way it is drafted right now, Bill C-9 would go beyond instances of violence and other serious offences, and as has been pointed out by our colleagues from Quebec, this goes in the face of fundamental sentencing principles. We note that the government's concern with Bill C-9, as stated, has been principally with crimes of violence or potential for violence.
Our basic conclusion is that the evidence shows us that mandatory minimum sentencing approaches for drugs don't work. They do have potentially adverse consequences. From a health perspective, they will not permit us to easily distinguish between those who are so-called dealers and users--especially if any quantity of trafficking in a drug is criminalized and is not available for conditional sentencing--and they lead to bad public health outcomes.
In light of all of that, we ask ourselves why we would proceed with legislation that would have this potentially unintended consequence. This is a position that's been adopted not just by those who work in the field of HIV or addictions, but in fact a former Chief Justice of the United States, William Rehnquist, has himself said that mandatory minimum sentences for drug offences are a good example of the law of unintended consequences.
I urge the committee to think about that particular dimension of this legislation in your deliberations. I thank you for the chance to bring that to your attention.