Bill C-15 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts

This enactment amends the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to provide for minimum penalties for serious drug offences, to increase the maximum penalty for cannabis (marihuana) production and to reschedule certain substances from Schedule III to that Act to Schedule I.
As well, it requires that a review of that Act be undertaken and a report submitted to Parliament.
The enactment also makes related and consequential amendments to other Acts.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Amendment NDP-7 deletes line 14 on page 3 to line 19 on page 4.

Again, as we've seen in some of the earlier amendments, the purpose of this amendment is to remove schedule II drugs in any amount from the regime of mandatory minimum sentences in Bill C-15.

I do want to speak to some of the testimony that we heard, especially from the United States, and particularly from Mr. Eric Sterling, who was the former counsel to the U.S. House of Representative's Committee on the Judiciary. He spoke extensively of the failed experience in the United States with these mandatory minimums.

So in this particular clause, we are again trying to remove the schedule II drugs, because we don't think, from what we've heard, that this is the real intent of the bill as it's put forward in this committee. It will have a very broad scope, so we put forth this amendment.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much. I will move the amendment.

Basically this amendment is deleting lines 1 to 5 on page 2 of the bill. The purpose of this amendment is to remove item 1(1)(a)(i)(D) from subclause 1(1) so that previous convictions are not considered an aggravating factor that would result in a more serious mandatory sentence.

I would point out to members that this doesn't mean that a previous conviction wouldn't be considered, because under section 10 of the existing Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, prior conviction is already an element that is included in the existing bill. In fact, the current sentence is up to life imprisonment.

We're very concerned that including this particular clause will mean that the bill will be very much broadening the net to go after people with convictions or sentences in the last 10 years. It will only serve to recriminalize drug addicts, users, and people with mental health problems, including street-level traffickers who are often users themselves. We actually see this as a very problematic clause and think that the current act is completely adequate in taking into account prior convictions. We see no need to go further in terms of what Bill C-15 is doing. We put it forward on that basis.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you, Monsieur Ménard.

As with the first amendment, I also have a ruling on that, as I have consulted with our legislative clerk.

Bill C-15, as I mentioned, amends the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. The amendment you have put forward proposes to remove the minimum penalties provided for in this clause and replace it with a provision that gives the court the authority to impose a sentence while considering certain aggravating factors.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice states on page 654, An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.

In the opinion of the chair, the introduction of the amendment is contrary to the principle of Bill C-15 as agreed to at second reading and is therefore inadmissible.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

I call the meeting to order.

This is meeting number 26 of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Today is Wednesday, May 27, 2009.

You have your agenda before you. Pursuant to the order of reference of Friday, March 27, 2009, we're considering clause-by-clause on Bill C-15, An Act to Amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts.

We have with us today Paul Saint-Denis, who is here representing the criminal law policy section. Welcome.

We will move to clause-by-clause.

I call clause 1.

Monsieur Ménard.

[Sarah Inness]

My response to that is that judges do take guidance from Parliament through, obviously, the legislation that it enacts, but the current legislation that's already in place, both in the Criminal Code and within the CDSA, sets out the aggravating factors that are identified in Bill C-15. Those judges have those aggravating factors brought to their attention, and those factors are factored into the ultimate sentence that is delivered. The judges--

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

One thing that hasn't been discussed as much as I think it should have been in our deliberations on Bill C-15 is the so-called date rape drugs and the impact they've had in different centres from coast to coast to coast. I'm wondering if you could comment a bit on that. Obviously we recognize that this is something that has to be taken with the utmost seriousness. We recognize that it's a problem. Can you explain the changes regarding date rape drugs and the act of moving them to a different schedule?

[Sarah Inness, Branch Sector Chair, National Criminal Justice Section, Canadian Bar Association]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, for the opportunity to present to you today the CBA's national criminal justice section submission on Bill C-15.

We acknowledge that this committee has heard numerous presentations already on this bill from different groups with their own particular areas of expertise. We believe we bring a unique perspective to this committee, one focused on the impact this bill would have on the administration of justice.

The members of our organization work in the justice system, including the criminal courts, on a daily basis. We have provided to you our written submission in advance, and I wish today to highlight our primary concerns with respect to this bill for you.

At the outset, I wish to state that the CBA opposes the use of mandatory minimum sentences on the basis that they do not advance the goals of deterrence; they do not target the most serious of offenders, who are already sentenced stiffly; they catch less culpable offenders, subjecting them to lengthy terms of imprisonment; they have a disproportionate impact on those minority groups who are already disadvantaged; and they subvert important aspects of the sentencing regime, including the principles of proportionality and the individualization of the sentencing process.

We point out that several factors contained within Bill C-15 that trigger mandatory minimum sentences are already listed as aggravating factors in the CDSA and the Criminal Code, which must be considered by the sentencing judge. Some of the factors triggering a mandatory minimum sentence already constitute separate criminal offences; for example, the offence of uttering threats, the criminal organization offence, or firearms offences. Some of these offences already carry with them mandatory consecutive prison sentences—for example, in the case of the criminal organization offence—and already carry mandatory minimum sentences, as for example for possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm with ammunition. The bill is silent on how these overlapping provisions ought to operate.

There appears also in this bill to be some ambiguity or confusion with respect to the reading of proposed subsection 10(5) in subclause 5(2), which indicates that mandatory minimum sentences will not be triggered when an offender successfully completes a “drug treatment court program”. The legislation as it's proposed by this bill allows for individuals to participate in “a treatment program”; however, it indicates that the mandatory minimum sentence would apply if an individual is successful in completing “a treatment program” but would not if an individual has successfully completed a “drug treatment court program”. There appears to be some confusion with respect to the distinction of the two, because both are required to be court-supervised.

We are concerned about the fact that Bill C-15 would require a mandatory minimum sentence even when the circumstances of the offence and the degrees of responsibility vary significantly. The penalties set out in the bill are also based upon arbitrary factors that do not meaningfully distinguish between levels of culpability. We offer the following examples.

For example, a young adult occasional user of marijuana who is growing ten plants for his own use and to share with some friends attracts an MMS of six months. We would say that this sentence violates the principle of proportionality and the importance of rehabilitation.

A person making a small amount of cannabis resin for use and to share with friends would be subject to an MMS of one year and to 18 months if he did so in a house that he was renting. The legislation apparently fails to address a situation in which the third party owner of the property is aware of and complicit in the use of the property for the offence.

Bill C-15 also imposes escalating levels of incarceration depending upon the number of plants an individual grows for trafficking. For instance, this bill would require an MMS of six months for 200 plants, yet twelve months for 201 plants. It is contrary to common sense and well-established sentencing principles for a person to receive double the length of a sentence for a difference of one plant.

We believe the impact upon the administration of justice of this bill, if it is passed, will be significant. Fewer people will plead guilty, preferring to contest the charges rather than be subject to an automatic mandatory minimum sentence upon pleading guilty. This will increase the length of time it takes for cases to be heard in the courts, increase the number of trials, and inevitably increase the strain on court resources. Given the significant prison terms proposed within Bill C-15, the crown should be required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the aggravating factors triggering an MMS as well as the mens rea component of those aggravating factors; for example, the requisite degree of awareness of the number of plants, or the fact that the offence was being committed at or near a school or at a place usually frequented by those under the age of 18.

We point out the lack of a definition with respect to “in or near a school”, or places “usually frequented” by those under 18. We make the point that the crown ought to be required to prove not only the mens rea of the offence itself but also that with respect to the aggravating factor that would trigger a mandatory minimum sentence.

Bill C-15 does not adequately allow for a fair and just sentencing of those with addictions, including the need for treatment and rehabilitation. Those who sell even small amounts to support an addiction would be captured by a mandatory minimum sentence. While the bill allows for exemptions to MMS in the case of participation in drug treatment courts, we propose that participation in drug treatment courts should not be restricted as under proposed subsection 10(5) in subclause 5(2) of Bill C-15; it should be available for all offenders for whom rehabilitative considerations are appropriate. We wish to note that drug treatment courts are not available in all jurisdictions in Canada, and there are limits with respect to the entry into drug treatment courts depending upon the capacity of each individual court.

Bill C-15 removes judicial discretion. The CBA section believes that Canada's judges have a critical role to play in the operation of the criminal justice system. The judicial discretion that is removed by Bill C-15 plays an important role in crafting a sentence that balances all of the goals of sentencing and tailors individual sentences to individualized cases. Judges are well equipped to consider the circumstances of the offence and of the offender, having regard to the needs of the community where the crime occurred.

In my experience as a defence lawyer, often what happens is that the crown attorney will submit to the judge by way of facts and statements all of the aggravating factors. The defence counsel will do the same with respect to mitigating factors and won't call upon the crown to necessarily go to the strict standard of proof of those aggravating factors. The sentencing judge is then in the best-placed position to weigh all of those factors and principles and come to the appropriate sentence. Prosecutors bring to the judge's attention the facts that warrant lengthy prison terms, and in our experience, repeat offenders and serious traffickers already receive lengthy sentences, even in excess of those proposed in Bill C-15.

The discretion vested with sentencing judges ensures meaningful distinctions made in the sentencing process, taking into account varying degrees of culpability. Judges are able to impose sentences that emphasize rehabilitation, where there's a real prospect of it, and to impose lengthy periods of incarceration for those who need to be deterred. There's appellate review available for sentences that are demonstrably unfit or in which an error of law has been committed.

Bill C-15 conflicts with well-established sentencing principles. The Criminal Code sets out the purposes and principles of sentencing that are to guide the sentencing process. The codified principles already in place require a judge to weigh all of the competing considerations. Incarceration is a sanction of last resort, particularly for aboriginal offenders, who are already overrepresented in penal facilities. Section 718 of the Criminal Code requires that incarceration only be imposed when necessary. Sentences must be imposed that are proportionate to the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.

We know that the goals of deterrence and denunciation are already given great weight in sentencing hearings for CDSA offences. Judges have guidance from section 718 of the Criminal Code and from the CDSA in determining the venue and the length of the sentence. Judicial discretion exercised in the delicate balancing of existing sentencing principles is the best mechanism to ensure that individuals are treated fairly and justly within our system of justice.

In summary, we believe that the current legislative tools available already meet the goals of public safety and fair, proportionate, and accountable sentencing of offenders who commit drug offences.

Thank you very much.

[Gaylene Schellenberg, Lawyer, Legislation and Law Reform, Canadian Bar Association]

Thank you. Good afternoon.

I'm Gaylene Schellenberg, a lawyer with the legislation and law reform directorate of the Canadian Bar Association. Thank you for the invitation to present the views of the CBA on Bill C-15 to you today.

The CBA is a national association of over 38,000 lawyers, law students, notaries, and academics from across the country. An important aspect of the CBA's mandate is seeking improvements in the law and the administration of justice. It's from that perspective that we appear before you today.

With me is Sarah Inness, a member of the executive of the CBA's national criminal justice section. The section represents a balance of crown and defence lawyers from every part of the country, and Ms. Inness is a criminal defence lawyer from Winnipeg.

I'll turn it over to her to present the highlights of our submission to you.

[Cathy Sabiston, Director General, Controlled Substances and Tobacco Directorate, Department of Health]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for allowing me this opportunity to speak to you about Canada's national anti-drug strategy. This strategy represents Canada's approach to reducing the supply of and demand for illicit drugs and addressing crimes associated with illegal drugs. I am delighted to be here.

I understand that during your recent deliberations on Bill C-15, a bill to impose mandatory minimum sentences for serious drug crimes, you were keen to learn more about the federal government's broader national anti-drug strategy. After all, Bill C-15 is not an isolated piece of legislation; it is only one element of the government's much larger strategy that partners Public Safety Canada and Justice Canada together with Health Canada to build safer and healthier communities.

Launched in 2007, the Government of Canada's national anti-drug strategy sets out three priorities: preventing illicit drug use among youth, treating people with drug dependencies, and fighting the illicit production and distribution of drugs with the help of legislation like Bill C-15. There are three corresponding action plans: the prevention action plan, the treatment action plan, and the enforcement action plan, which detail the steps the government is taking to achieve its goals.

Health Canada is an integral partner in the implementation of the strategy. Specifically, Health Canada has overall responsibility for the implementation of the prevention and treatment action plans, and it contributes to the enforcement action plan.

It is about the involvement of Health Canada in the delivery of this strategy that I'm here to talk to you today. This involvement focuses on helping youth make smart choices about drug use and supporting innovative approaches to treating and rehabilitating Canadians with illicit drug addiction who pose a threat to themselves and their communities.

Allow me to begin with the Prevention Action Plan. As its name suggests, the Prevention Action Plan aims to dissuade people from ever using drugs. In other words, it aims to eliminate the problem before it arises. Research indicates that the later in life a person tries drugs, the less likely he or she will suffer from substance abuse. In turn his or her community is less likely to suffer from the negative consequences of drug use too. The key is early intervention.

Obviously a number of jurisdictions have roles to play in the area of prevention, but for its part, the Government of Canada has invested $30 million over five years in a targeted mass media campaign that raises awareness among youth between the ages of 13 and 15 about the dangers of illicit drugs. The first of its kind since 1993, the campaign began with a message to parents: reinforce your influence over your teenagers and talk to your sons and daughters about illicit drugs. Early indications are that the campaign is reaching its target and the messages are resonating. In fact, the parent component of the campaign drove over 2,900 calls to our information centre and over 280,000 visits to our website. Also, more than 123,000 copies of the parent booklet have been ordered, with thousands more downloaded from the website.

A post-campaign survey confirmed that parents within our target audience took action because of the campaign. Adults sought out the information booklet and spoke to their kids about the dangers of drugs. It will take time, however, before we can expect meaningful results in terms of reduction in drug use among young teenagers. That is why, in addition to the overall prevention envelope of the national anti-drug strategy funding, Health Canada has also committed nearly $40 million to support health promotion and drug use prevention projects. Through the drug strategy community initiative funds, Health Canada will help reduce illicit drug use among teens by supporting community-based initiatives that help identify and respond to the unique needs of local youth.

Health Canada is also investing another $10 million to support the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse's national youth prevention strategy, an initiative that mobilizes prevention effort, informs drug prevention policy and practices, and builds relationships between not-for-profit organizations, the private sector, and all levels of government.

Unfortunately, prevention comes too late for those who have already experimented with drugs and whose social, physical and mental health suffer as a result. For this reason, the Government of Canada has also made significant investments to implement the second critical component of the National Anti-Drug Strategy: the Treatment Action Plan.

Under the plan, the Government of Canada has allocated $100 million in new funding over five years to help ensure Canadians who suffer from substance abuse can access the treatment services they need. A significant portion of this funding will bolster Health Canada's existing investments in the drug treatment funding program, an initiative that supports provincial and territorial governments in the delivery of quality drug treatment services. Under this initiative, Health Canada is committing over $111 million to provinces and territories to strengthen their ability to deliver treatment services and adopt national best practices, apply new research findings to clinical practice, and better measure and evaluate the effectiveness of their drug treatment systems.

In addition to this national investment, the Government of Canada is dedicating funds to address the needs of especially vulnerable populations: residents of Vancouver's downtown east side and members of first nation and Inuit communities. As many of you know, Vancouver's downtown east side is home to an incredibly vulnerable population, individuals who suffer from addiction to heroin, cocaine, crack, crystal meth, and other drugs. These people need help to regain their health and hope for the future. In response, Health Canada is dedicating an additional $10 million to establish an assertive community treatment team that will work around the clock in Vancouver's downtown east side to provide psychiatric, medical, nursing, therapeutic, and rehabilitation services. This funding has also created 20 new treatment beds for female drug users who are engaged in the sex trade, women who need a safe, stable environment in which to overcome their addiction. Another $2 million is allocated to improve addiction services for aboriginal people living in this neighbourhood.

The Government of Canada's Treatment Action Plan also focuses on first nation and Inuit communities. Drug and alcohol abuse remains a problem. This government is taking a number of steps to help communities deal with these serious issues.

Every year Health Canada provides $59 million through the national native alcohol and drug abuse program to support 54 treatment centres as well as drug and alcohol prevention services in over 500 first nations communities across Canada. Under the treatment action plan, Health Canada is investing an additional $30.5 million over five years to increase access to and improve the quality of addiction services for first nation and Inuit youth and families in Canada.

Mr. Chairman, the third and final component of the national anti-drug strategy is the enforcement action plan, which represents an overall government investment of approximately $102 million in new funding over five years. Under the enforcement plan, Health Canada is enhancing Canada's capacity to ensure compliance with the precursor control regulations and to reduce and prevent the diversion of precursor chemicals by increasing the number of inspectors and investigators. In addition, the drug analysis service of Health Canada receives funding to provide accurate and timely analysis of suspected illegal drugs seized by Canadian law enforcement officers to support enforcement and prosecution efforts and prevent exhibit backlogs.

While the prevention and treatment action plans diminish demand for illicit drugs, the enforcement action plan, under the purview of Public Safety Canada and the Department of Justice, approaches Canada's drug problem from another angle. The enforcement action plan restricts the supply of illicit drugs. It aims to curtail the production and stop the distribution of illicit drugs.

Mr. Chairman, as many appreciate, Bill C-15 represents one component in the Government of Canada's comprehensive and balanced approach to curbing the illicit drug problem in Canada.

In closing, the national anti-drug strategy provides an approach that is tough on the producers and distributors of illicit drugs, but is also compassionate with those who have an addiction and prevents young people from engaging in drug consumption.

Thank you.

I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have, with the help of my colleagues.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Okay members, you have before you the agenda for today. By order of reference, we still 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. This is our last day for witnesses, as agreed.

I regret to have to advise you that two of our witnesses will not be appearing. We were advised that Judge Craig is a member of the Human Rights Tribunal, and it was felt this would make it inappropriate for him to comment on federal policy at this time. Also, our clerk had set up a video conference for Professor Julian Roberts, but unfortunately that has run into technical difficulties. We tried to shift it to another studio, and that didn't work out either. Unfortunately, we won't be able to hear from him. I am asking the clerk to ensure Professor Roberts provides us with a written submission, so we have that for the record.

We still have before us a number of organizations and individuals to assist us in our review of Bill C-15. First of all, we have Cathy Sabiston, Jane Hazel, and Colleen Ryan of the Department of Health. Welcome here. We also have Chuck Doucette from the Drug Prevention Network of Canada. He is appearing by video conference. Welcome here. Then we have Greg Yost from the Department of Justice; he's back before our committee to address one small item regarding the actual bill. Then finally, representing the Canadian Bar Association, we have Gaylene Schellenberg and Sarah Inness. Welcome here.

I think you've been apprised of the routine we have here. You'll have 10 minutes to present as an organization, and then we'll open the floor to questions.

Why don't we start with the representatives from the Department of Health, whoever is going to go.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

You commented that the crack addict who's living under the Wellington Street bridge is not the focus of your police force, and I appreciate that. I think common sense dictates that. But one of the other hypotheticals that's been brought to this committee's attention with respect to Bill C-15 is the very small grower, the person who might grow three plants. Given that the definition of trafficking is not exclusive to those who sell--sharing can be trafficking--can you tell me what role police discretion plays, in your view, with respect to an individual who grows a couple or three to four plants and shares it with his buddies on a Saturday night?

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses, both here and on video conference, for their input.

I'll start with my questioning of Chief White. I've been reading your 2008 activity report. I'm just going to read a couple of excerpts and then I'm going to ask you to expand on them.

Under the heading “A Safer Tomorrow”, you say: “Policing is not limited to enforcing the law, but also preventing crime and assisting victims of crime. The Ottawa Police Service strives to protect the vulnerable in our community.” Then you go into the various aspects, such as education, diversion, restorative justice, particularly for youth, and you talk about working with the province for residential drug and alcohol treatment facilities. Then you go on to say: “It will also assist in reducing crime--studies have shown that drug addicts will commit up to eight crimes a day to support their habits.”

Then over on “Tackling Quality of Life Issues on Ottawa's Streets”, you say, “After seeing the street level drug problem firsthand”, you understood that “substance abuse was the main contributing factor to many downtown crime-related issues”. You went on to say, “The situation required a more effective, consistent and targeted policing plan”, and then you talked about your response to that.

Then a little further down on the same page, “Responding to Youth Violence, Anti-gang Strategy”, you say: “In the last few years, there are more youth gangs appearing in the suburbs. Children as young as 10 are being recruited by gangs and more females are getting involved in what has traditionally been the domain of males.” You go on to speak about that.

If I were to suggest to you that targeting specific areas of enforcement, prevention, etc., is the right thing to do, then I would suggest to you that the law we're talking about, Bill C-15, is not just an overall blanket drug strategy, it's actually targeted to specific areas, such as people who deal in drugs with a weapon or violence, people who deal in drugs, heroin, or methamphetamines, and it says specifically to youth, or dealing drugs near schools, in places frequented by youth. It talks about marijuana, but it says large marijuana growing operations of at least--that's the minimum--500 plants. Then, of course, cannabis production, and then of course the last one, which is most troubling, especially to young women: tougher penalties for trafficking in GHB and the common date-rape drugs.

I wonder if you wouldn't mind tying all those together and telling me how Bill C-15 fits into your strategy.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank all the witnesses for testifying today. It's all very interesting to hear the debate about mandatory minimums rise again. We've been sort of at this for three and a half years.

I'm very interested, Mr. Sterling, in your comments, and I hope to get back to you in later rounds, but we have a police chief in the room, so I'm going to go to what may pit the chief against Mr. Alexander.

The chief has been very clear in written statements--and of course the press always get things right--so I'll put those comments back to you, Chief. You say that under Bill C-15, the choice of diversion to the drug treatment court may be a good crime prevention tool. It's something on this side that we haven't seen in three and a half years, a way to sort of use the mandatory minimum as a lever or incentive, by way of avoiding it, to better oneself.

However, Professor Alexander, you were suggesting that one of the elements you don't like about this bill is sort of the push aspect, the idea of pushing people to the drug treatment court, pushing people to treatment. You probably didn't have enough time, but you were saying, I think, that anybody who knows anything about treatment or therapy knows that won't work.

I'm sort of in between the two thoughts, because we have heard a lot of evidence, and everybody's read about addiction as a health issue. There are underlying factors, and people have to want treatment to have that treatment succeed. But we come from all walks of life, and we also know there are defining moments when people seek treatment, such as when their wife's going to leave or when they have no money or when they end up on a park bench. Those are the sorts of pushes to get treatment, and often they do work.

First of all, I want to give the chief a chance to perhaps reiterate the comment that was ascribed to him and say what he has to say in support of drug treatment courts as a tool, as a positive, as something that can be used by somebody trying to avoid a mandatory minimum sentence. Then perhaps I'll give Professor Alexander a chance to flesh out his comments with respect to the push to treatment.

[Professor Bruce Alexander, Professor, Department of Psychology, Simon Fraser University, As an Individual]

Good afternoon.

I'm honoured to appear before the committee on these important deliberations. I will try to add something that I hope you haven't already covered in the deliberations so far.

I'm very, very serious about drug addiction. The last 40 years of my career as a psychologist have been spent doing research and treatment work in the field of drug addiction. Indeed, I think of it as a scourge. I've heard that word used in the introduction to the bill, and it makes a certain sense to me. I think drug addiction is very serious, and I look to the federal government hopefully for guidance and leadership in dealing with this important problem.

However, I see Bill C-15 as a big mistake, and I'd like to say why. I have three points to cover. One has to do with mandatory minimum sentences. The second has to do with pushing or coercing people into treatment for fear of mandatory minimum sentences. The third has to do with the theory that underlies the bill.

First I will address mandatory minimums. I think a lot has been said about the American experience, which I think is very important. However, I think the more important experience is the Canadian experience, and we have a long history of mandatory minimum sentences. I'm not even sure if everybody knows this, because it hasn't been spoken of much. Many Canadians have forgotten that mandatory minimum sentences for drug offences were built into Canadian drug law during the last century, when Canada reached its historical peak of being tough on drug crime.

Successive amendments to Canada's Opium and Narcotic Drug Act, originally passed in 1920, allowed a fearsomely punitive instrument into existence by 1950. The amended law allowed for long sentences—some of them mandatory—and it also allowed whipping for convicted offenders at the discretion of judges, and deportation of drug offenders who were not citizens. Police could legally break into suspected drug users' homes without warrants and wreck the interiors in their search for drugs. Police could legally damage individual suspects as well, by choking and punching them hard enough to disgorge any drugs they may have swallowed to avoid detection. In fact, several people were eventually searched to death in this way.

My point here is that Canada has a very long history of getting tough in drug laws. It culminated in the 1950s, when the utter failure of this extraordinarily punitive regime in Canadian drug-law enforcement had become evident. In the 1950s, panicky headlines in Vancouver and across Canada warned of a growing crime wave, which was attributed to drug addicts, and warned of the recruitment of juveniles into heroin addiction and of the terrible sufferings of drug addicts. History repeats itself. Vancouver's skid row, now the downtown east side, was said to house 2,000 addicts in the 1950s—a large number. In fact, that was one for every 250 inhabitants of the city. Maclean's magazine said in those days that at the current rate of growth, there would soon be one junkie for every 16 inhabitants of Vancouver.

My point is that there is no reason to suppose that mandatory minimums or any kind of getting tough policy is going to work better now than it worked in the previous cycle of getting tough, based on the Canadian experience. We do not need to rely on the American experience.

My second point has to do with forcing convicted drug users into treatment. I'm a psychologist, and I've done treatment. Most of my friends do treatment. And all of us, I think, will agree that it's a very bad idea. Again, I will discuss this by reference to Canada's history.

By the 1970s, treatment for drug addiction—which had only a small place in Canada's response to the addiction problem prior to World War II—had grown into a major enterprise. We're now talking about the 1970s.

The psychological and psychiatric profession had flourished in the decades following World War II, and virtually all of their new treatments were tried on drug addicts and alcoholics. There was so much money for treatment that the federal government built an entire prison—the Matsqui Institution, near Vancouver—in 1966 as a centre for treating drug-addicted prisoners. The newest group therapy and therapeutic community methods were the centrepieces of treatment at Matsqui. The prisoners were also given generous exposure to occupational therapists, social workers, and educators. The public had pinned its hope on treatment and government funding was generous.

The results of this experiment in treatment of convicted drug addicts at Matsqui Institution were studied meticulously. They were horrible, with over 90% recidivism of treated addicts who were still alive five years after release. Worst of all, the most intense treatment produced more recidivism than the less intense treatment, even though this came short of statistical significance. Matsqui, with its well-funded, optimistically launched program, had quickly proven that psychologists could not treat convicted drug users out of addiction any more than police could enforce them out of it.

I have elaborated on this, but I don't think I'll have time to include it all. I was in the treatment business myself in the 1970s and 1980s. I can tell you that it's no panacea. Of course, there are sometimes successes. There are often failures, sadly, much more often.

The results of newer forms of compulsory treatment, including drug courts and boot camps, are no more promising than the old forms. Occasional successes can be documented in individual cases, but there are also cases in which drug treatment has done much more harm than good.

My third reason for opposing Bill C-15 is the underlying theory. Of course, the bill does not state a theory, but it is clearly based on the way of looking at drug addiction that grew out of the American temperance movement in the 19th century. This is a way that puts the focus on drug addiction, as opposed to all the other kinds of addiction, and which conceives of addiction as something that is caused by being exposed to a drug. If this theory were true, then of course the logical thing would be to be extremely punitive with drug producers, importers, and traffickers. And the thing to do would be to treat drug addicts for the presumed disease of addiction, which they have gathered.

I don't know if this has been part of your deliberations up to this point, but you must know that this view of drug addiction is severely challenged and antiquated. There are all kinds of important new research done by researchers all over the world, including several in Canada, which has called this into serious doubt. This does not mean that it isn't still being actively promoted by the National Institute on Drug Abuse in the United States, and it's still not being actively promulgated by all our media, but it is indeed an antiquated point of view. There are newer ways of looking at drug addiction, and the government has not paid any attention to them, in my opinion.

I end with my recommendation. I urge the House of Commons to reject Bill C-15 and to recommend that the government seek advice from Canadian historians and addiction professionals who work outside the conventional paradigm before formulating future legislation in the addiction field. Blind faith in punishment and coerced treatment will never solve the problem of addiction.

I conclude by saying that I speak only with respect for the Government of Canada, the government of my country, but I do believe that this is a case where their considerable intellectual talents must have been focused elsewhere when this piece of legislation was designed.

Thank you.

[Prof. Line Beauchesne, Associate Professor, Department of Criminology, University of Ottawa, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

According to the Auditor General of Canada's 2001 report, the federal government spends somewhere between $404 and $426 million on the fight against drugs: the RCMP receives $164 million; the Correctional Service of Canada receives $157 million; the Department of Justice, $70 million; and Health Canada, $8 million. Actually, Health Canada receives $15 million for this field of endeavour and allocates more than half of this funding to the analysis of drugs seized by the police—$5 million—and the administration of legislation that deals with drug use—$2 million. As for the remaining $7 million, more than half goes to the RCMP for its drug awareness programs. In comparison with these amounts, $28 million is allocated to prevention and treatment, including the $4 million that the RCMP receives for prevention. In all, 5% of the funding goes to prevention and treatment, while 95% goes to enforcement. In addition to the federal government's expenditures on enforcement, we must consider expenditures by the provincial governments and the municipalities. All in all, the grand total is somewhere between $700 million and one billion dollars per year for Canadians, according to the Nolin report.

With the Canadian government's new National Anti-Drug Strategy, which began on October 4, 2007, we still find the same proportions. Of the $590 million allocated to this strategy, $60 million is for prevention and treatment, but one portion is allocated to the RCMP, for prevention, and another portion is for drug-treatment courts. And for those who don't see any problem with these last items, at best this means that 90% of the funding goes to enforcement and 10% is for enforcement and treatment.

Thus, Bill C-15 is in keeping with this desire to focus on enforcement as an anti-drug strategy, a strategy that is useful in political terms, but totally pointless in terms of health promotion and reducing problem drug use, as multiple studies have shown. In this presentation, I will be focusing on three aspects of Bill C-15: the results of assessments of the effect of minimum sentences for drug offences that show that these minimum sentences are ineffective, the role of drug-treatment courts, which remain a very limited solution, and our international obligations, which in no way justify these enforcement-based strategies.

Minimum sentences for drug offences were first assessed in the 1970s in the United States. The experience of the State of New York is worth looking at for a few moments, because it is a good example of these minimum sentences' results.

Between 1973 and 1976, the State of New York was the American state with the harshest drug legislation owing to the establishment of minimum sentences, a strategy that cost millions of dollars. The objective of the policy was to reduce the consumption of illicit drugs and trafficking in illicit drugs throughout the state, and to reduce the level of property crime associated with drug use. This strategy was established against the advice of all the stakeholders in society, and even against the advice of the New York police.

In actual fact, in 1971 the New York police observed that efforts to arrest drug dealers nearly always resulted in the arrests of low-level dealers and that no matter which drug dealers were arrested, new dealers would take their place immediately and there would be no effect on the illegal drug market. To save the resources that were being wasted, the police recommended greater investments in drug awareness programs and health programs, which would do far more to reduce problem drug use. But politicians refused to implement this advice, because this kind of tough-on-drugs strategy was very popular with the electorate.

The New York Bar Association then asked for a study assessing the affect of these new measures. This study was conducted over three years, and was a joint effort by the Drug Abuse Council and the National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice.

After three years of assessing the program, what did the two institutions conclude?

First of all, no reduction in drug consumption or drug trafficking was recorded in the state.

Secondly, despite the injection of more than $100 million to set up new courts for drug offences, the courts were still overcrowded. They were not overcrowded because of an increase in arrests or charges. On the contrary, arrests and charges had dropped considerably over the period of time, because the police were hesitant to make arrests in many cases, because they thought that the person might receive an overly harsh sentence. The courts were overcrowded because of the lawyers. Because the sentences were so harsh, lawyers advised their clients not to plead guilty to avoid a court appearance. Then the lawyers would use everything at their disposal to delay the trial, hoping that the proceedings would be dropped or that there would be a trial before jury.

Third, because the courts were so crowded, public prosecutors did drop many cases. In other cases, thanks to plea bargaining between the prosecution and the defence, the sentences were one year, the minimum under the act. As a result, there were no more prison sentences than there had been in the past.

In 1976, the state of New York had to relax its drug laws so as to reduce the overcrowding in the courts. This crackdown on crime over three years was a political act that may have won some votes, but cost a great deal in terms of overcrowded courts, and what's more, the initiative had absolutely no effect on problem consumption of the illegal drugs or even on drug trafficking.

People thought that this evaluation would put an end to claims that harsher measures were effective and would reduce the problem use of illegal drugs, or even drug trafficking. All efforts had been made to carry out this evaluation, and millions of dollars had been spent to implement this tougher approach. Not only was this punitive approach shown to be pointless, but also, the citizens of New York State had to spend millions of dollars on this political spectacle, which did nothing to reduce the violence that they could be subject to in certain neighbourhoods.

And yet, the punitive approach continues to go along its merry way in the United States, and as we speak, one person is arrested every 20 seconds for a drug offence.

Minimum sentences that require judges to jail drug dealers, longer sentences and tens of thousands of more arrests provide the media with ample material and provide the enforcement bureaucracies with endless work, representing investments of billions of dollars; but these billions of dollars could be allocated to poverty reduction, prevention and treatment. Many people who have analyzed America's get-tough-on-drugs policy have said that the war on drugs is really a war being waged on the poor. As the studies continue to show, even though the United States has the harshest anti-drug measures, it remains the western country with the highest rates of consumption and a flourishing illicit market, with the less fortunate in society paying the price of these tough measures.

One must remember that of the total amount of drugs on the illegal market, very little is intercepted: between 5% and 10%, according to various police estimates. It's not that the police aren't trying or that they lack resources, but rather, it is impossible to restrict such a huge business, where anything goes in order to keep this market afloat, owing to the huge amounts of money at stake. As General Viviani said, “Even if the police and the military devoted themselves solely to efforts to halt the drug trade, from production to retail sales, they would only manage to drive up drug prices”, or just shift the places where drugs are sold, the means of production and the product being sold. In fact, the prohibition on drugs and efforts to crack down on drugs ensure that the black market is a prosperous one.

Subsequent studies to assess the impact of minimum sentences for drug offences have only confirmed these results. Furthermore, other studies have clearly shown that there was no link, no matter what country the study was done in, between the rates of illegal drug consumption and the severity of sentences. In other words, the rates of consumption of various illicit drugs go up and go down, with no link to an increase or decrease in the severity of sentences. And when someone is wanting to buy drugs, there's always someone to sell him drugs.

The same thing holds true in prison. The consumers and the sellers are locked up, and we have a market. But in this particular case, given the conditions under which illegal drugs are consumed, the public health costs, both for inmates and the general population when they get out, are very high. I won't go into any greater detail about the public health costs because I think that the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network did testify before this committee on this matter.

In the 1994 Cain report, J.V. Cain, who at the time was British Columbia's Chief Coroner, responsible for investigating the rise in fatal heroin overdoses in that province, recognized that for most people, problems related to illicit drugs should first and foremost come under the authority of the police and the courts. People have this perception because they hold two beliefs, explained Mr. Cain: first of all, that prison is a good way of doing away with these problems; and secondly, fear of a jail sentence is a good deterrent. In his report, he explained that these beliefs are mistaken. On one hand, it is easy to obtain drugs in prison, and some inmates even began using hard drugs while they were behind bars. On the other hand, the prison environment tends to exclude people from society, rather than encouraging them to take up more balanced social and personal activities that would lead to the person enjoying better quality of life. All in all, prison is not a good place to solve drug problems nor is it an effective deterrent. Not only that, but our prisons make it easier for people to have personal contact with members of drug dealing networks once they are back on the street. Actually, prisons are places where people learn how to be criminals and their criminal activities continue within the “old boys' network”.

These conclusions from the Cain report were echoed in reports by various committees in Canada and the United States. These conclusions also raised the fact that all too often, we tend to forget about the costs associated with the families of inmates and the fact that the people who are mainly covered by these measures were among the less fortunate in society. Considering the reversal of the onus of proof that is provided for in clause 10, we know who will have the money to pay for the lawyers needed to provide that proof.

My second point is very short. It's about drug-treatment courts. The latest trend, once again from the United States, is to establish specialized drug courts that would replace imprisonment with mandatory treatment for some users. The first court of this type in Canada was established in Toronto in 1998.