Evidence of meeting #15 for Justice and Human Rights in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was drugs.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Ed Fast

I call the meeting to order.

This is meeting 15 of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Today is Wednesday, April 22, 2009.

You have before you the agenda for today. As you know, by order of reference we have before us Bill C-15, an Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts.

Please note we're going to leave half an hour, or whatever time is remaining, after the minister leaves to deal with some committee business, including Monsieur Ménard's motion.

To assist us in our Bill C-15 review, we again have with us the Minister of Justice and Attorney General for Canada, the Honourable Rob Nicholson. With him are representatives from the Department of Justice, Paul Saint-Denis as well as Greg Yost.

Minister Nicholson, I understand you'll be here with us up until five o'clock. Is that correct?

4:05 p.m.

Niagara Falls Ontario

Conservative

Rob Nicholson ConservativeMinister of Justice

If that's possible.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Ed Fast

We may shorten the questions to five minutes and three minutes to make sure everyone gets a question.

You know the routine. You have 10 minutes to present, and then we'll open it to the floor.

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

Rob Nicholson Conservative Niagara Falls, ON

I don't think I'll take that long, Mr. Chairman, but thank you very much.

I'm pleased to be here once again before the committee for this review of Bill C-15, the bill dealing with mandatory prison time for people who commit serious drug offences. I'm hoping, Mr. Chairman, that this process will go well and that you will be able to expedite passage of this important piece of legislation, which I think is welcomed by Canadians.

I can tell you there is support for this bill from many ordinary Canadians who are quite concerned about drug abuse. They're concerned that marijuana grow operations and methamphetamine production and trafficking have gotten out of hand. They're concerned about the dangerous occupation of exporting and importing drugs into this country. They're concerned that these activities pose a serious threat to their own safety and to the safety of their communities, and they are right.

Our challenge as legislators is to try to make sure that our criminal law stays current with the developments in our society. Over the last decade, domestic operations related to the production and distribution of marijuana and the synthetic drugs have dramatically increased, resulting in serious problems in many regions of Canada. This has often overwhelmed the capacity of law enforcement agencies to deal with this phenomenon.

These illegal operations pose serious health and public safety hazards to those in and around them. They produce environmental hazards, pose cleanup problems, and endanger the lives and health of communities. Moreover, Mr. Chairman, the organized crime groups and criminal gangs are resorting to increased violence to establish their dominance over the drug trade in various metropolitan regions of this country. Innocent people are being hurt, and in some parts of the country there exists a serious degree of fear amongst citizens.

This is not to say that all drug offenders are necessarily dangerous and that all forms of drug trades are violent. Bill C-15 recognizes this, and this is why what is being proposed in this bill is a focused, targeted, and balanced approach. What this bill does is focus on the more serious drug offences. Overall, the proposals represent a tailored approach to mandatory prison penalties for serious drug offences, and they would operate as follows.

For schedule I drugs, that is for drugs like heroin, cocaine or methamphetamine, the bill proposes a one-year minimum for the majority of the serious drug offences in the presence of certain aggravating factors. Those aggravating factors are: if the offence is committed for the benefit of and at the direction or association with organized crime; the offence involved violence or threat of violence, weapons or the threat of the use of weapons; or if the offence is committed by someone who has been convicted in previous years of a designated drug offence.

If youth are present or the offence occurs in a prison, the minimum is increased to two years. In the case of importing, exporting, and possession for the purpose of exporting, the minimum penalty will be raised to two years if the offence involves more than one kilogram of a schedule I drug. A minimum of two years is provided for a production offence involving a schedule I drug.

The minimum sentence for the production of schedule I drugs increases to three years where aggravating factors relating to health and safety are present. These factors are: if the person used real property that belonged to a third party to commit the offence; if the production constituted a potential security health or safety hazard to children who were in the location where the offence was committed or in the immediate area; or if the production constituted a potential public safety hazard in a residential area or the person placed or set a trap.

For schedule II drugs, marijuana, cannabis resin, etc., the proposed mandatory minimum penalty for trafficking, possession for the purpose of trafficking, importing or exporting, and possession for the purpose of trafficking is one year if certain aggravating factors, such as violence, recidivism, or organized crime, are present. If factors such as trafficking to youth are present, the minimum is increased to two years.

For the offence of marijuana production, the bill proposes mandatory penalties based on the size of the operation. If the production is between 100 to 200 plants, and if the plants are cultivated for the purposes of trafficking, then the penalty begins at six months. For the production of between 201 and 500 plants, that's one year. Production of more than 500 plants will be two years, and production of cannabis resin for the purposes of trafficking, one year.

The minimum sentence for the production of schedule II drugs increases by 50%, or where any of the aggravating factors relating to health and safety that I have just described are present. The maximum penalty for producing marijuana would be doubled from seven to 14 years.

Amphetamines, as well as the date rape drugs GHB and Rohypnol, would be transferred from schedule III to schedule I, thereby allowing the courts to impose higher maximum penalties for offences involving these drugs.

Lastly, Mr. Chairman, the proposed legislation will allow drug treatment courts to impose a penalty other than the mandatory minimum on an offender who has a previous conviction for a serious drug offence where the offence involves no aggravating factors and where the offender successfully completes a court program.

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, Bill C-15 seeks to protect the public by tackling the problem of serious drug crimes. It's part of our continued commitment to take steps to protect Canadians and to make our streets and communities safer.

Canadians want a justice system that has clear and strong laws that denounce and deter serious crimes, including serious drug crimes. They want laws that impose penalties that adequately reflect the serious nature of these crimes, and this bill does that.

Thank you very much.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Ed Fast

Thank you, Minister.

Now we have time for questions.

With your consent, members, I'd like to reduce the time for each question to five minutes so we can all get questions in. Is that acceptable?

4:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Ed Fast

We'll start with Mr. Murphy. You have five minutes.

4:10 p.m.

Liberal

Brian Murphy Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Minister, it's good to see you here again.

With respect to this bill, I want to zero in on the drug treatment court program specifically, and generally the degree to which there are interdepartmental liaisons with Public Safety and Health.

On the mandatory minimum, we could have a debate on the efficacy of that and whether it will work, but that's really not something I want to discuss. I do want to applaud the part of the bill that gives emphasis to the drug treatment courts as a way to prevent the imposition of the mandatory minimum. I think it's a great idea, and it leads towards treatment, of course. It says to me that people with addictions, which is a health issue as well as a public safety issue, will hopefully seek to treat those addictions through the drug court situation rather than go to jail.

With the imposition of more mandatory minimums in the drug-related field, would it not lead to a concern that there will be more addicts, people with problems, in the system? You may or may not know of unfortunate cases. Certainly we had one in northern New Brunswick, where an individual overdosed with drugs he received within the institution. It is rampant in the corrections facilities of this country. We recently had a letter from the Minister of Government Services from Ontario asking about the use of medical marijuana as it relates to the Department of Health guidelines.

The question, Mr. Minister, is have you consulted with the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Health with respect to what effect this bill will have on the increasing number of addicts, people with problems, who will be in the system--the corrections system and the health system--and what effect do you think this bill will have in successfully treating people with addictions?

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

Rob Nicholson Conservative Niagara Falls, ON

Well, you've covered quite a bit of ground there, Mr. Murphy. I can tell you that both the Minister of Health and the Minister of Public Safety are in full support of and are completely aware of all the provisions of this bill, just like the members of my caucus, who have encouraged us to come forward with this legislation and have encouraged us to bring forward legislation in this area. It has their complete support, so you can be assured of that.

You talked a bit about the drug treatment courts. I'm very supportive of the drug treatment courts. They provide an opportunity for someone to break the cycle and get out of the business, or the unfortunate situation, of being caught with drugs, or taking drugs, or having an addiction. I like the idea that they are given the opportunity, if they are prepared to complete a prescribed drug treatment program, to come back to court and have the charges withdrawn against them. It's a very serious business to have a criminal conviction against you, so I can understand why this would be a huge incentive for some people to try to break the cycle of addiction and dependence and do something about where they are with their lives.

I'm careful when I describe them. We are not talking about the serious drug traffickers, the people who are basically out to destroy our society. This is not who we are talking about. There are a number of criteria--I think I mentioned a couple of them--where there are no other aggravating factors and where they are prepared, of course, and it's always up to them, to go through the treatment. I think this is a great alternative.

We have to move on this. I've had discussions with people not just in Canada but outside of Canada. Drugs and trafficking in drugs are a scourge, and we have to do what we can. We have to send out the message. I am particularly pleased with, for instance, the importing provisions. They tell me the people who are importing drugs are not the persons we're talking about who get involved with the drug treatment courts. This is organized crime. These are the real gangsters who are bringing drugs into this country. I want to send out a very clear message to them that if you get into this business, you can expect jail time under this particular bill. I think that's exactly the message we have to send out.

On the one hand, we want to help addicts. We don't want people to get involved with drug addiction; we want to help them get out of that. For the people who are in the business of trafficking, or selling to children, or using violence, bringing these things into this country or destroying neighbourhoods, the message to them is very clear: you can expect serious consequences under this new bill.

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Ed Fast

Thank you.

Before we go on to the next witness, I also want to welcome Mr. MacAulay. You're visiting this time.

4:20 p.m.

Liberal

Lawrence MacAulay Liberal Cardigan, PE

Will I get the chance to ask a question?

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Ed Fast

Yes, you will.

Ms. Davies as well and Mr. Allison, welcome here.

The next questioner will be Monsieur Ménard. You have five minutes.

4:20 p.m.

Bloc

Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good afternoon, Minister. This is a bill that is not without merit and that asks important questions.

I would like to remind you tongue-in-cheek that a few years ago, we had a meeting on the non-medical use of drugs. Your former colleague Randy White tabled that motion in the House, which was then passed by all parliamentarians. He allowed himself to be seduced by the idea of decriminalizing the possession of a small amount of marijuana, but knowing that this would never happen to you is some comfort to me. I wanted to establish that historical perspective.

I understand your concerns very well. We have been told many times that organized crime owes its existence to the drug market. Every parliamentarian knows it. What bothers me with your bill is that you have not made the distinction between marijuana and other kinds of drugs. Why did you not make this distinction? Is there any reason to believe that the possession of small quantities of marijuana could result in disproportionate charges?

I understand that minimum sentences will only apply if there are aggravating circumstances and I would like you to confirm that for me. I would also like to know what the rationale is for the use of a building belonging to a third party. Are the mandatory minimums that you are proposing similar to those handed out by judges today?

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

Rob Nicholson Conservative Niagara Falls, ON

You've covered a lot of ground, Monsieur Ménard.

With respect to decriminalizing small amounts of marijuana, this will never happen under a Conservative administration. We have no intention of doing that. Quite frankly, we think that in the last number of years prior to our taking government, the wrong message was being sent out to people: that somehow marijuana was okay and that we may be legalizing it or we may not. We think it sent out the wrong message, quite frankly, to people.

I can tell you what people, for instance, have told me. I've been out to British Columbia about three times in the last two months. I can tell you what law enforcement agencies have told me with respect to the production of marijuana, because one of your questions was why don't we make a distinction or why are we lumping in marijuana with some of these other drugs.

I don't have to tell anybody in this country what a curse it is to start having grow operations. I see my colleague, Dean Allison, and he knows what I'm talking about. In the Niagara area, when they're uncovering these things, many times the house is destroyed. The people lose the house because of these operations. They are completely illegal. We want to send out the right message to these people that this sort of activity will not be tolerated.

Here's what law enforcement agencies in British Columbia were telling me, and this is no different, quite frankly, from what I get when I go right across this country. They're telling me that sometimes, in many cases, marijuana is the currency that is being used to bring in other drugs, other serious drugs, from outside of the country. They're being exchanged. They're shipping the marijuana out of the country and they're bringing in other drugs, like cocaine and heroine.

So, again, I have law enforcement agents telling me this is currency, this helps get the business going, this lubricates the business. Well, I'll tell you that makes me nervous.

4:20 p.m.

Bloc

Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC

Mr. Minister, have you ever sat in the same caucus as Pierre Claude Nolin? Obviously I do not want to minimize the importance of drugs.

Have you ever had a discussion with Pierre Claude Nolin and could you show us, using your hands, the size of a marijuana plant? Have you ever seen a single marijuana plant? We are not discussing 500 plants, but a single one.

Do you think that Pierre Claude Nolin would support this bill?

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

Rob Nicholson Conservative Niagara Falls, ON

Mr. Chairman, this bill has the complete support of the government. I can tell you, if you're talking about grow-op production, you'll notice there is a distinction. We are not trying to get the one person who's grown one plant in the backyard; we're after the people who are into the business of trafficking. We've made it very, very clear—

4:25 p.m.

Bloc

Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC

But is Pierre Claude Nolin—

4:25 p.m.

Conservative

Rob Nicholson Conservative Niagara Falls, ON

—that for up to 200 plants, if these people are using this for the purposes of trafficking, they fall within this law. Obviously, and I think you would agree with me, the people who have 200 or 500 or 1,000 plants are in the business of trafficking, and this is who this bill is designed for and directed at.

As I say, I made it very clear what we're after. We're after the people who are into the business—the business of trying to destroy lives in this country—the organized crime that gets involved with this, the people who are trafficking. This is why we have a whole list of aggravating factors. I think if you look at it very closely, as I'm sure you will when you go clause by clause on this, you'll see that, yes, we've got it right. These are the kinds of things we want to take into consideration.

4:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Ed Fast

Thank you.

We'll move on to Ms. Davies. You have five minutes.

4:25 p.m.

NDP

Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC

Thank you very much.

Thank you for coming today, Minister.

I think this is a very significant bill because it does show a very changed direction, in terms of Canada's drug strategy. I think the central question before this committee in examining the bill, and I want to put to you, is the question of mandatory minimums for drug crimes.

You're probably familiar with the justice department report from 2002 that pointed out that mandatory minimums are the least effective in relation to drug offences. Certainly in the U.S., where there was a huge movement to mandatory minimums, they're now moving away from that. Many states are repealing their mandatory minimums.

One question I have for you is this. What evidence do you or the department or your government have that mandatory minimums will work for drug crimes, and will you table that evidence? I think we need to see what studies you rely on. Or is this just a continuation of a political position the Conservative government carries?

I think we also have to consider the consequences of this bill if it were approved as it is. For example, mandatory minimums that are less than two years would be an issue, for sure, for the provincial courts and prison system. They would bear the costs of that. So I'd like to ask you directly what you have estimated in cost to the provinces for the implementation of this bill. Secondly, what increase in the size of the prison population would result? I'm sure you've done this research to know what the consequences of this are.

I guess to point out what a blunt instrument this bill is and how it's using this hammer approach for all aspects, I'd like to raise this question with you. How do you believe that a mandatory minimum sentence for the possession of one plant of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking would stop organized crime or gang-related crime?

Finally, could you offer any observations? Do you think the war on drugs in the U.S. has been a success?

4:25 p.m.

Conservative

Rob Nicholson Conservative Niagara Falls, ON

Can I have half an hour on that one, Mr. Chairman?

You've covered quite a bit of ground, Ms. Davies, I have to admit.

Your first comment had to do with mandatory prison terms. I agree with you--

4:25 p.m.

NDP

Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC

For drug crimes specifically.

4:25 p.m.

Conservative

Rob Nicholson Conservative Niagara Falls, ON

Yes, for drug crimes. So you have no trouble with mandatory penalties for gangs or anything else? That would be good.

4:25 p.m.

NDP

Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC

No, no, I'm not talking about that; I'm talking about mandatory minimums for drug crimes, and what evidence you have on that.

4:25 p.m.

Conservative

Rob Nicholson Conservative Niagara Falls, ON

I have no trouble with that.

I first of all believe...and the government has taken this as a comprehensive approach. As you will know, under the national anti-drug strategy we're getting the message out to particularly young people that drugs are a bad idea, that this is not the way to go in life. We're doing that through education and advertising. We're working with non-governmental groups and government organizations to try to get the message out. I approve of that.

I just talked to the Liberal MP about drug courts; I agree with that.

You say we're using a club on this. I disagree. I don't think there's anything unreasonable about sending to jail for a year somebody who's bringing drugs into this country for the purposes of trafficking. I think they should go to jail--