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.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-15, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

There is one motion in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-15. Motion No. 1 will be debated and voted upon.

I will now put Motion No. 1 to the House.

Motion in Amendment

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

moved:

That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 3.

Mr. Speaker, we are back in the House debating Bill C-15, which deals with mandatory minimum sentences for drug crimes in Canada.

I have looked at this bill, studied it very carefully, and I heard the witnesses in the committee. I think we had 16 witnesses, 13 of whom were very strongly opposed to this bill and urged us to defeat it. Three witnesses were in favour, and one was quite lukewarm in opposition. I have to say this is one of the worst bills the Conservative government has ever put forward, certainly in terms of its crime agenda.

I think we had some of the best witnesses we have ever heard at committee, but we also had some of the worst. The Minister of Justice himself was a terrible witness. He was pressed to show evidence to Canadians, the committee and members of Parliament that mandatory minimum sentencing will work for drug crimes and that it is an effective public policy initiative. When he was pressed repeatedly to show evidence, not his own opinion, not Conservative ideology, but evidence that this bill was actually a sound public policy, he could not produce any evidence, and he has not to this day produced any evidence, that mandatory minimum sentences work anywhere, and certainly not for drug crimes.

On the other side, we had witnesses, for example, the John Howard Society, that came forward, cited 35 reports, and produced to the committee 17 different studies and reports that show that mandatory minimums do not work, particularly for drug crimes.

We had excellent witnesses who came forward from Canada and also from the United States. One in particular, who I want to focus on, was the former counsel to the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary, Mr. Eric Sterling. He stated to the committee that his decision to promote mandatory minimum sentences in the U.S. was probably “the biggest mistake of my entire career for over 30 years in the practice of law”.

We heard Mr. Sterling via videoconference, and his testimony was very powerful. We also heard Deborah Small, from the Break the Chains organization in New York, who has also been dealing with mandatory minimum sentences. They told us about the real experience of dealing with these kinds of laws.

Mr. Sterling told us that the goal of reducing drug use under these laws had failed. The goal of promoting safety in local communities had failed. The goal of raising the price of drugs while lowering the purity had failed. The goal of reducing organized crime had failed.

The minister told the committee that the purpose of this bill was not to go after the low-level dealers, the people on the street who are addicts, who are facing significant health issues and who should not be criminalized. We were told this bill was about going after organized crime, about going after the kingpins, about putting the big traffickers, the big dealers in jail.

The minister may clap his hands and delude himself that this what he is doing, but I think the government knows that the reality and the evidence shows this bill will do none of those things. This bill is clearly targeted at the low-level dealers. We heard evidence to that effect, and the experience of what has happened in the United States shows us that as well.

In committee, the NDP put forward 21 amendments. They were amendments that tried to remove some of the mandatory minimums, the worst aspects of the bill, and failing that they tried to mitigate some of the damage of this bill by changing the regime of mandatory minimums, for example, getting an exemption for medical marijuana for compassion clubs.

I am so disappointed that those amendments did not go through. The Liberal members on the committee failed to respond to those amendments and failed to support them, which really surprises me. We are now left with a bill that is going to be destructive in terms of local communities and incarcerating more and more people who are dealing with a health issue, not a criminal justice issue.

I feel we are at this terrible place where we have a bill that looks like it is going through. It is simply really bad public policy. It is going to increase the prison population, particularly the provincial prison population, because most of these mandatory sentences that are two years or less will be under the provincial jurisdiction. Again, the minister could not tell us how much that was going to cost. He could not tell us how many more people are estimated to be imprisoned as a result of this bill.

Our fear, and in fact the information we have, is that this bill will target what VANDU in the downtown eastside called the “low hanging fruit”, people who are easy targets on the street. They are the people who are going to be hit by the mandatory minimums in this bill.

We gave so many examples at the committee of how this bill is going to be abused in terms of who is going to be hit by it and how wide the scope of enforcement is. For example, we know that one of the provisions of an aggravated circumstance is if one rents. We might have the situation of a student, a young person or an adult who is renting, and even by giving one plant to a neighbour they would incur a mandatory minimum sentence of nine months and a maximum, potentially, of 14 years.

In the current Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, there would be no minimum, but the maximum would be seven years. We can begin to see how punitive this regime and this bill are and how the bill can be applied to people who are creating no serious harm. They are not the kingpins. They are people who are maybe dealing with medical marijuana, growing medical marijuana. They may be involved in a compassion club. They may have a couple of plants for recreational use.

I think that most Canadians understand that criminalizing drug users, criminalizing marijuana users, has not produced any change. The real emphasis we need to look at in society is prevention, education and treatment, what we call the four pillar approach. That does include enforcement, but the government has decided to focus all its firepower on enforcement and on a punitive regime that is now going to capture so many people who will have criminal records as a result of this bill.

We, in the NDP, are very disappointed that this bill is at the point where it looks like it will go through because it has the support of the Liberals who are supporting the Conservatives. I am very grateful to the members in the Bloc who understood clearly what this bill was about and from the beginning decided they would not support mandatory minimums.

We tried very hard to get those amendments through the committee. One of the things I was most concerned about were the amendments that would have removed or exempted medical marijuana. In fact that adds insult to injury. The federal government has shown a complete lack of respect and understanding for medical marijuana users, even most recently in the court decision where the federal government tried to appeal a decision that would have opened up access to medical marijuana. Thankfully, the Supreme Court of Canada turned down the federal intervention, but even so, with this bill it will now be cracking down on medical marijuana users with mandatory minimums.

Our amendment today would remove clause 3, which has nine mandatory minimums within it, eight of which are for marijuana. We believe this is a very problematic part of the bill. We think it should be deleted.

I would urge my colleagues, particularly in the Liberal Party, to think twice about what they are doing in terms of supporting a policy and a law that is going to hurt people, put more people in jail and criminalize drug users instead of approaching this as a health issue. I think the Liberals know that mandatory minimums do not work. They have seen the evidence as well.

We urge the House to reject this bill and to deal with the issue of substance use in our society from a comprehensive perspective, not simply by bringing in these wacky laws that criminalize people, put more people in jail and, in the end, do not actually change the situation.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I guess it is back to business as usual for NDP members. They completely oppose to a bill that is directed at drug traffickers. We are zeroing in on drug trafficking all the way through the bill, but they now completely oppose it. That is a slightly different message than I received on three trips to British Columbia a couple of months ago. I had reporters say to me that I must be somewhat encouraged because the NDP had said it would keep an open mind about getting tough on some of the problems that B.C. that involved drugs, gangs and guns. I told them that I hoped it continued.

I do not know quite where the dividing line was. I think it was about 10 seconds after the British Columbia election was completed and then it was back to business as usual. The NDP is no longer in the business of getting tough on crime and standing up for victims and law-abiding Canadians, and that is very disappointing. It is a mischaracterization of the bill to say that it is going after users. Users want to be helped and we want to help. We are going after traffickers.

I disagree completely with the member. The last time she spoke, I did not get an opportunity to say this, but she went on to say that the government was targeting people who were trafficking in drugs around schools, that this was somebody who maybe used to go to the school and was back talking to a few friends and that a little drugs and money went back and forth. This is the last kind of individual school boards and schools need, a former student back to sell a few drugs on the playground or in the neighbourhood surrounding it.

School boards, parents, teachers and law-abiding students, who are there to get an education, do not want them. However, the NDP has spoken out against that and all the other things. It says that these poor dealers are selling a bit of drugs for a bit of money.

We are sending out a very clear message to those people and we are standing up for law-abiding Canadians who do not want this problem in their backyard. I am very disappointed that the NDP has completely folded 10 seconds after the last B.C. election.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we are willing to stand and tell the truth. We heard the minister say that the Conservatives were sending a clear message and getting tough on traffickers. The fact is the bill applies to one plant all the way up to over 500. I have given examples where people could be convicted of trafficking for simply giving one plant to a neighbour or for being in a car and transporting a plant.

I will tell the minister what people in B.C. are saying. Ann Livingston, the executive director of the Vancouver Area Network of Drug Users, says:

There's a term that's used for arresting people who use drugs in our neighbourhood and it's the low-hanging fruit. There's a sense of shooting fish in a barrel.

That is what the minister is doing. Those are the easy targets. The bill will not go after the kingpins, otherwise it would not make references to the drug treatment courts.

Philippe Lucas, who is from The Vancouver Island Compassion Society, says that Canadians deserve policies that will actually achieve this goal of dealing with problematic substance use and not ill-considered responses that have been proven to actually increase judicial and incarceration costs, as well as the transmission of HIV-AIDS and hepatitis C.

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

Mr. Speaker, my friend has appeared with us at justice committee, arguing her case with respect to this issue. However, she was not with us in British Columbia when the committee travelled there to hear about the scourge that drugs had played on society there.

She pretends that the bill is not about trafficking. Her amendments are largely about trafficking in marijuana. One of the amendments made was to increase the lower threshold to five plants, from zero plants, but still growing for the purposes of trafficking. The Criminal Code has a definition of what trafficking means.

As the father of three young girls in school, trafficking is probably a bad thing. She is saying that higher levels of trafficking are worse. I do not disagree with that. However, the government is only offering us a few tools. Why do we not embrace this, recognize that drug treatment courts are an option to avoid sentencing and get on with pressing the government for more meaningful attacks on the war against crime.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is very unfortunate that the Liberal members have chosen to support the bill for what are purely political purposes. They are so concerned about their image of not being tough on crime. The fact is there is such overwhelming evidence that mandatory minimums not only do not act as a deterrence, but they will actually increase backlog of the court system, they will increase incarceration and the cost of doing that without stopping drug use itself. Therefore, I think the member—

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. I will have to stop the hon. member there.

I should remind all hon. members that when they are in the chamber they should ensure that cellphones, pagers and laptops volumes are turned off. I do not know whose that was, but I heard a cellphone ringing.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Edmonton—St. Albert.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise and speak in opposition to the NDP's attempt to amend Bill C-15, an amendment which in my view would eviscerate it by taking out all of the minimum mandatory sentences.

The legislation was introduced as part of the government's commitment to tackle crime and to provide safer communities for all Canadians. The bill proposes, among other things, a number of mandatory minimum penalties, or MMPs, for serious drug offences involving schedule 1, which includes heroin and cocaine, and also schedule 2 substances such as cannabis and where there exists certain aggravating factors such as where violence was used to commit the offence or the offence was committed for organized crime.

One of the most important elements of the bill is the MMPs proposed for the offence of production of schedule 1 drugs such as cocaine and methamphetamines and schedule 2 drugs such as cannabis. This motion proposes to remove this very important clause from the bill. As I indicated, it would essentially eviscerate the bill and render the rest of the clauses meaningless.

Clandestine drug labs and marijuana grow operations, or MGOs, have increased significantly in the last few years. They very often constitute a serious threat to the personal safety of persons who are not even involved in the commission of the offence. Meth labs, for example, pose significant risks to public health and security because of their production process. In meth labs there is the risk of explosion, fires and contamination from making methamphetamine.

As the hon. member for Vancouver East will recall, when we were in Vancouver, we heard from the fire chiefs of greater Vancouver. They rightfully pointed out that this was a significant risk to the entire public, not just those involved in the purchase and sale of drugs.

MGOs present other equally serious risks. For example, the bypassing of electricity meters illegally to obtain the power necessary for the MGO constitutes a further fire hazard. Setting traps to protect the grow operation from other criminals put at risk first responders who are called in to extinguish the fires. Use of volatile pesticides and fungicides pose a threat to persons living in or close to such illegal operations. Purely innocent individuals, as innocent third parties, are often caught up in these marijuana grow operations and the organized crime that live off their profits.

Another major concern is the presence of families with young children in the clandestine labs or MGOs. Many clandestine labs and marijuana grow operations install families in their homes where these activities take place so as to give them the aura of normalcy and legitimacy. We can certainly appreciate the clearly apparent risk and harm that is put on children who are put in that very difficult and negative situation.

Finally, innocent homeowners who rent out their houses frequently find that the renters have used their property for grow operations and have caused tens of thousands of dollars in damages to their property. Again, another innocent victim, not a person involved in the drug trade, is victimized by these growing MGOs.

There are very good reasons for wanting to ensure that persons who are involved in the illicit production of such substances are subject to harsher penalties than what is now available in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. Clause 3 addresses the serious problems described—

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue is rising on a point of order.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we can no longer hear the simultaneous interpretation.

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

There is translation now.

The hon. member for Edmonton—St. Albert.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will wrap up by stating that clause 3, which is the subject of this amendment, addresses the very serious issues that these grow operations and other drug operations contribute to society. For that reason, I will be opposing this motion.

I encourage all hon. members of the House to similarly oppose this motion. Bill C-15 is part of the government's agenda to get tough on crime and to put serious drug dealers where they belong, and that is in prison.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is why I wanted to ensure that I could hear the simultaneous interpretation because I was listening carefully to what my colleague was saying.

I have but one question for him. Can he, can he, can he—I am repeating it three times to ensure that it is actually translated—today in the House or in committee, as we have requested several times, present one single study—I want just one—that shows that mandatory minimum prison sentences can solve the problem raised by Bill C-15?

It is a fairly short question and I await the reply.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have learned to respect the opinions of my friend from the Bloc Québécois. We serve together on the public safety committee.

Much has been made, not only by the Bloc but also by the member for Vancouver East, about empirical studies regarding the effectiveness of mandatory minimum sentences. It is a very difficult matter in that we have so few mandatory minimum sentences in the Criminal Code, except for the most serious offences such as murder, which mandates a minimum mandatory sentence of life imprisonment and then mandatory periods one must serve before being eligible for parole. With that and very few exceptions, there are very few minimum mandatory sentences in the Criminal Code.

Therefore, it begs the question as to how an empirical study can show that mandatory minimum sentences are effective when we have so few of them? In fact, one time in committee my friend from Vancouver East referred to, and she will acknowledge this, mandatory minimum sentences as a novel or radical approach. She is right. We do not have them except for homicide and very serious offences to the person.

It is impossible to produce an empirical study to show the effectiveness of mandatory minimum sentences with respect to drugs or with respect to less serious violent crime when those mandatory minimum sentences are absent in the Criminal Code.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, having worked at probation and parole for over 13 years, people who stay in jail for a lengthy period of time, unless there are services and programs available to them within those institutions, will not come out any better.

If the government is planning to use mandatory minimum sentences, is it prepared to commit dollars to ensure programming is in place to assist people in rehabilitating themselves?

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

Mr. Speaker, as the member can appreciate, nothing in either Bill C-15 and certainly nothing in the NDP amendment to Bill C-15 in any way remotely touches the issue of programs in penitentiaries or in the provincial jail system.

However, drug treatment courts are still available and are being promoted by the government as a diversion for those individuals who have addictions to drugs. They can avoid a minimum mandatory sentence upon recommendation if they effectively and successfully complete a program that is prescribed by the drug treatment court.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Official Languages]

Mr. Speaker, I want to address a couple of things before I ask my question. The Bloc Québécois and NDP members were talking about overwhelming evidence, is what the NDP member said, that minimum mandatory sentences backlog the courts, for example. I can assure them that after almost 19 years of policing, we on this side of the House appreciate that there are backlogs. We care more about the safety and security of Canadians. Backlogged courts are a result of, most important, the two-for-one pre-custody credit. We are looking at revoking that. I am hoping that the Bloc and the NDP will support us, given what they have said about this.

I would like to ask a question of my colleague with regard to simple possession of marijuana. There are certain people asking repeatedly if this will apply to simple possession of marijuana. Will they receive a—

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

There are only a few seconds for the hon. member.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to the proposed amendment to Bill C-15.

Bill C-15, like many of the other Conservative bills, purports to be a cure, the be all and end all, a large solution to an even larger problem. It is a very small step in the war on drugs, Canada's new anti-drug strategy. There is Republican-like language to the war on drugs. There is Conservative-type language to the national anti-drug strategy. The real issue is about the amendment to the bill, which is but a tiny step toward the overall goal of dealing with drugs in our communities, the abuse of drugs and the treatment with respect to drugs.

This bill provides minimum penalties for serious drug offences. My hon. colleague from Alberta who is on the justice committee fairly summarized those steps forward. It increases the maximum penalty for cannabis or marijuana production, which in fact is what this amendment is mainly targeted at eradicating from the bill. It also moves certain drugs from one schedule to another, recognizing the more serious nature of their abuse, which again my friend from Alberta on the justice committee made very clear and very convincingly so.

It also requires that there be a review of the act undertaken and reports submitted to Parliament. This was as a result of an amendment at the justice committee. It is a very good step toward dealing with that lacuna, the lack of evidence we hear with respect to the efficacy of mandatory minimum sentences.

I find it ironic and actually funny that people unknowingly say “mandatory minimums” or “minimum mandatories”, but the people who are against mandatory minimum sentences perhaps slip into a Freudian thing where they want a minimum of mandatory sentences. However, it is actually a mandatory minimum regime which has been used in the United States with conflicting evidence, for sure, and it is being imported with increasing regularity by the Conservative government.

Let us keep in mind the historical context. We have had mandatory minimums for a long time in this country, and there ought to be some evidence about how they are working. That is one aspect that is very good about the bill. Finally there is a reporting mechanism back to Parliament, as there was with the Anti-Terrorism Act. That is a good thing about the bill.

Finally, it is the first time in the three and a half years that I have been here that there will be an alternative to the mandatory minimum sentence for the convicted trafficker, let us say, by going to the drug treatment court. This is an option of an accused and convicted drug trafficker. He or she will have the choice to go to a drug treatment court, which is a diversion from the criminal justice system of incarceration, perhaps without treatment, as our colleague from the NDP suggested. It is a very novel approach for Canada, because unlike its introduction in the United States some 20 years ago, and it flourishes in the United States, we have a very sparse distribution of drug treatment courts in Canada.

We can handle this part of the bill. We can say to criminologists that this is a way to avoid the imposition of the mandatory minimum in that an accused can say that he or she will go to the drug treatment court and will try to get better.

Those drug treatment courts should be expanded. They should be resourced. They are not adequately geographically dispersed throughout this great country of ours. They are in major centres, but where they are, they have met with some success.

At committee, we did not get to hear from the Attorney General of Manitoba. He sent us a very complete brief on the subject, about 20 pages of suggestions. He lauds the Winnipeg drug treatment court and hopes that the government takes seriously this anti-drug strategy by resourcing it, by making sure that we get to the cause of drug abuse and that we get to issues of treatment with respect to drug abuse.

I have heard from various law enforcement officials, the chief of which was the Chief of Police of this fine city of Ottawa, who is responsible for making sure that, unlike D'Arcy McGee, we get home safely every night from this place. He was very compelling in suggesting that drug treatment courts work, but the government has to take seriously the issues of prevention and cause and treatment. Everyone knows that, yet the statistics are quite boggling.

I can support Bill C-15 for the minor steps it takes, but I want to discourage members from supporting the NDP amendment. The amendment attempts to say that if someone is convicted of growing 5 to 200 marijuana plants for the purposes of trafficking, which means trying to sell those drugs to people like my children, the person should not be given a mandatory minimum sentence, when we are at war on the issue of drugs.

To say that we support the bill does not in any way say that we are stepping away from our obligations and the government's obligations to be serious about studying the root causes of crime, and in particular drug crimes and drug abuse. It does not mean that we are stepping away from our obligation and the government's obligation to be more serious about combatting organized crime, which feeds for its lifeblood on the growth of drugs, including cannabis and marijuana.

There seems to be an attitude coming from that side of the House over to my left that it is cannabis, it is a joint, and if it is given from one friend to another, they will be trapped by this legislation. The bill is very clear to me. If someone grows 200 plants and that person is caught for trafficking, that is, selling those plants to people like my children, that person is going to do a minimum sentence in this country. That does not seem all that shocking to me.

What is shocking is that in the three and a half years I have been here the government has stood up time after time saying that the bill would go toward its national anti-drug strategy and achieve success. It is right to ask where the evidence is on mandatory minimums. It is right to ask where the evidence is on the efficacy of drug treatment courts. What is missing is a response on those two questions.

There has been a fairly long history of mandatory minimum sentences. There has been a long history with respect to drug treatment courts, as sparsely dispersed as they are throughout the country. There ought to be some compelling evidence from the government that these are worth resourcing, and yet they are not being resourced to the level that is needed.

There is no drug treatment court in my province of New Brunswick. I laud the bill because it would give someone an opportunity to pick drug treatment court. For the average person who has an addiction and does a property crime and perhaps is perhaps convicted under this offence, that person will not have a chance to take advantage of a drug treatment court, not because of this law, not because of the Criminal Code, but because there has not been the élargissement, the widening of the drug treatment court program.

As much as we support the bill and reject the NDP amendment, the bigger issue is when the federal government spends, and these figures go back some years, $426 million on drug programs, and $164 million goes to the RCMP, $157 million goes to corrections, and only $8 million to $15 million goes to Health Canada for treatment. The 90% that goes into detection and corrections heavily outweighs what is spent on prevention, rehabilitation and finding out how we might stop people from using and abusing drugs. We know from all the evidence we have heard that is the goal here.

We need to know whether the government will stop flouting bills on the 5 o'clock news and saying it is doing something, and stop ignoring the idea that a lot of these programs, such as drug treatment programs, have to be resourced. They have to be expanded. We are a country from sea to sea to sea. There are drug abuse problems in all parts of this country, not just in big cities. Drug abuse is as prevalent in rural and poorer areas of our country as it is in big cities.

Where is the access to the drug treatment courts to make Bill C-15 more effective? Why does the NDP think that being convicted of selling 5 to 200 marijuana plants is some small offence when really that is all the bill is aimed at?

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals used to have a half decent drug policy but they seem to have abandoned it. After listening to the member's comments and questions today about this bill, a member who was the lead member on the justice committee, I really do not get it. This bill goes in exactly the opposite direction of the so-called four pillar approach that I understood the Liberal government had adopted a number of years ago.

The member talked about drug treatment courts. Canada has only six drug treatment courts and they do not work very well. A lot of information shows that they have very mixed reviews. They hang their hat on the fact that this is about drug treatment courts but it is not. This is about mandatory minimums.

The Minister of Justice said that this bill would make it illegal to deal and sell drugs near schools. Could the Liberal member confirm that in the existing Controlled Drugs and Substances Act it is also illegal to sell drugs near schools?

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

Mr. Speaker, I think the member was present in committee when we heard evidence from justice officials that the law exists to penalize that but it also exists so that for serious trafficking offences large sentences will be meted out.

All this bill says is that if people grow 200 plants, they will receive a minimum sentence of six months if it can be proven that those plants were intended to be used for the purposes of trafficking. Selling 200 marijuana plants for commercial purposes to users who are then themselves subject to the minor offences that my friend would lead the House to believe are covered by this act, is scare-mongering of a different kind.

We get scare-mongering from the Conservatives all the time. They prop up a bill and then do nothing about the underlying root causes, rehabilitation and treatment. However, the scare-mongering of the other kind is to say that it is okay to grow 5 to 200 plants for commercial purposes, be proven under the existing code that it is trafficking and not to be penalized when we are at war with drugs.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to what my colleague had to say, and I have a question for him.

He mentioned a large figure, and I will come back to the services provided in penitentiaries. One has to visit a penitentiary to see how things happen there and to have some understanding of the situation. Since the member comes from New Brunswick, I would like him to explain something to me. In the figures the government released about treatment centres and services, did he see any amounts that could, should or will be paid to the provinces?

The problem with this bill is not related to time served in a penitentiary. The bill imposes six-month minimum sentences. These sorts of sentences are served at the provincial level. Among the figures, did he see any amounts of money that would be transferred to the provinces for drug treatment programs in correctional facilities?

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

Mr. Speaker, in two or three past budgets, the Conservative government changed the equalization formula for all the provinces. In New Brunswick, that means far less money for social services, crime fighting and rehabilitation services. That is very clear. But that is not what we are talking about today.

We are talking about the amendments proposed in Bill C-15. It will mark a small step in the war on drugs. I am in favour of that. But I am totally opposed to the steps the Government of Canada has taken with the provinces and against New Brunswick. There is not enough money and there are not enough resources to implement this system. Bill C-15 will place a very heavy burden on the provinces. It is clear—

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from New Brunswick because I will start exactly where he left off.

The fight against drugs, like all battles, must continue on several fronts. That is the problem with the Conservatives and unfortunately it is the trap into which the Liberals have fallen in supporting Bill C-15.

I will say from the outset that we will not support the NDP amendments. We too find that 200, 250 or 300 plants is a fair bit of trafficking. However, we at least were able to ensure that it does not apply to just one plant. They relented somewhat.

That is not the problem. The problem is that we are dealing with minimum prison sentences. The Conservatives have really understood absolutely nothing and will never understand until they are defeated. Perhaps then they will ask us questions in an attempt to understand. They will never understand that minimum sentences do not solve the problem of crime. I hope that I have said it clearly enough and without shouting. I know that they will not get it. I even spoke to the minister about it when he appeared before us. It does not solve the problem. He answered that there would be fewer criminals at large, but that is not true. Minimum prison sentences, and especially Bill C-15, will create many more problems.

This begins with a minimum six months jail sentence. I agree with this, and I will revisit this when we get to the in-depth debate. It is, however, important to stress that minimum prison terms do not solve problems, and never will. The proof of this is that the Conservatives have never been able to table a single study. I can table at least a dozen that demonstrate the opposite, and not from just anywhere either: from the United States, for example. The Conservatives take their cues from the U.S., so let them go and see what is happening there. There are also studies from Australia and New Zealand. They can speak and read English, so they should understand. In the U.S and in Australia, in northern Australia in particular, studies have been carried out since 1992 on legislation that imposes minimum prison terms. That is not just last week. The studies are clear, and I will read slowly to be sure they get it.

Evidence shows that long prison terms increase the probability of recidivism...

I think I will repeat it. These are not my words, they all come from studies.

Evidence shows that long prison terms increase the probability of recidivism... In the end, public safety is more compromised than protected if the courts lock people up and throw away the key.

That is exactly what they are doing. Getting rid of them, locking them up for as long as possible, thanking heavens that they are not getting back out too frequently. Unfortunately, that is not the way things work. I have a little news bulletin for them. They have not been inside a penitentiary for a long time. I do not want to hear that this one was a police officer for 15 years, others Crown prosecutors. They need to have been inside a prison. I can organize a guided tour if they like. We will show them how things work. Not the way they would like them to.

Unfortunately for them, inmates eventually come out. That is where the problem lies. Mandatory minimum sentencing solves nothing. The problem is not when they go to jail—I repeat, not when they are going in—but when they come out.

In other words, they get out too fast. The men—since 90% of the time it is men who serve prison sentences, and the majority of my clients were men—get out too fast. When a judge carefully studies a case, pronounces a sentence and tells the individual before him that he deserves three years in prison, and then eight months later meets that man on the street, we have a problem.

The problem that the Conservatives have yet to understand is that, even if they impose a minimum prison sentence, these men and women will be entitled to parole. Even if an individual is given a three-year sentence, it is not certain that he will serve a minimum of three years. No. The suggestion is for a three-year sentence. What will happen in prison if this is the individual’s first conviction? Suppose he is a good sort who causes no problems? Right: he will be released after serving one third of his sentence.

Those in this chamber who know how to count know that 36 months divided by three gives 12 months. There is no program. Those who know and are following this, apart from the Conservatives who know nothing, should realize that less than 12 months in a penitentiary is not enough time to work with the individual. Why? Because the individual is sentenced to 36 months, but he does not go straight to prison. He goes to a federal reception centre, where he spends three to four months having his case analyzed to see what can be done with him.

The Conservatives do not understand that the problem is not with the highly criminalized individuals. That is not just my opinion. Studies say that the problem is that this does not target the most notorious and most dangerous offenders, who are already subject to very strict sentences, precisely because of the nature of their crimes.

This means that someone who goes around with a gun selling drugs has to serve, from the outset, a sentence of three years. He is sentenced to three years. On top of that is the sentence for trafficking narcotics. Those who tell me they want to get traffickers off the street are correct on this point, perfectly correct. Everyone wants to get traffickers away from schools. However, we can look at the definition in the bill with respect to an individual trafficking near schools. I can guarantee—and I say this honestly—that bad laws make good lawyers rich. Some will become rich thanks to the laws that the Conservative Party wants passed, particularly this Bill C-15. I will give another example. This bill will have a disproportionate impact on minority groups in Canada that are already suffering poverty and privation.

The aboriginal peoples are a good example. Look at the west. There must be a few Conservatives who come from the west. They should go see what is happening in the western prisons, how many aboriginal people are there compared with the rest of the population. They might realize that there may be a problem somewhere. This is what they do not understand.

I have only a minute left, so I will speak quickly. Being tough on crime has never solved anything. Yes, sentences are necessary and criminals have to be taken off the street. However, I repeat: the problem is not when they go into prison, it is when they get out. Let them serve their sentences. The Minister of Public Safety should explain why he is not proposing a bill to amend the Conditional Release Act. That is where the problem is. The judges who pass sentences have taken the trouble to analyze their cases. I tell you that criminal activity is not going to be resolved with this bill. In fact this bill is going to increase it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I stated earlier, when the member asked me a question, that I served with him on the public safety committee. It was actually the justice committee, so I wanted to correct that.

I have heard him speaking many times in the justice committee against minimum mandatory sentences, citing his belief that they have no deterrent value.

I have a couple of questions for the member. He comes from the province of Quebec where we have been studying the fairly intense organized crime issue that is currently going on in that province with bikers and other gangs that are making a lot of money off of cannabis and other illegal substances.

What is the solution for the recidivism among people in organized crime who traffic in drugs if the member does not believe in minimum mandatory sentences?

I appreciate that he is against minimum mandatory sentences and he quoted several times that long detention increases the probability that the individual will commit further crimes. However, will the member at least acknowledge that during the duration of a prison sentence that individual has no ability to commit further crime?

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is no. That individual will commit other crimes, because those who serve prison sentences, those who are members of the Hells Angels—who are well known in Quebec—direct their trafficking activities from prison. And that is a fact.

Crime is a very serious problem. However, imposing minimum prison sentences will not solve it. The problem is that criminals are not serving their time. They behave themselves in prison. They are decked out in white collars and are cleaner than clean. They never committed any crimes, but when they are in prison, they are released too early and they never serve their time.

When it comes to crime and the Hells Angels in particular, the Bloc has worked very hard in this House to change the legislation and seize goods obtained from the proceeds of crime. We are beginning to have an impact there, and that is why the Conservatives have a problem. The key element here is to prevent people from receiving the money they earn from criminal activity.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Official Languages]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. Bloc Québécois colleague for his speech. I also wanted to quote some other people. My colleague quoted some excerpts from studies, and I would also like to quote some before I ask my question.

I am going to quote in English:

We have to send a strong message, especially to high-repeat offenders, which the bulk of them are, that this will not be tolerated, and that if you get caught you're going to get a certain sentence--count on it.

Who said that? Dr. Daryl Plecas from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police research chair and director for the Centre for Criminal Justice Research, School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University College of the Fraser Valley.

Therefore, there are researchers who are in support and who believe in what we are doing. When my colleague opposite said that if we have minimum sentences, we are going to see a higher rate of recidivism. Most of these drug offenders, according to some of our experts, are already repeat offenders.

We need to protect Canadians from these repeat offenders. We need to do everything in our power to make sure they do not drag our children into a drug world and that they do not drag our children into drug addiction.

That is why I believe strongly in the measures our government is taking. However, I want to ask the member a question.

He said that minimum sentences will not solve the problem of crime. However, doing nothing will not help the situation either.

If my colleague has a magic bullet to solve all the problems of crime, can he share it with us?

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member has 30 seconds to conclude.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. Hon. colleague, the magic bullet is no mystery. Offenders have to be made to serve their time. They should not be released after serving eight months of a 48-month sentence.

The Bloc has always said that, and it is part of our platform, which I invite my colleague to reread. Naturally, your colleague over there has not read it, but that is part of our platform. Inmates must serve their sentences. The problem is not when offenders go into prison, but when they come out. The problem is that they come out too soon. It is too bad, but until the Conservatives understand that, they can pass legislation and do what they like, but it will not solve the problem. The Parole Act must be amended.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support Bill C-15, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. With respect, I do not support the NDP amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I wonder what your earliest memory is. I asked my colleagues and their memories were of eating ice cream for the first time, playing in a sandbox and reaching for the sky while swinging. Mine is of a dark, wet night, hitting my head on the back of a red Valiant seat, a police officer rolling down the window and then touching my forehead, an x-ray machine, a bandage, and my mother crying. I was four and we had been in a drunk-driving accident.

Today, most Canadians understand that impaired driving threatens the lives of innocent road users and that it is a criminal offence that carries significant penalties. However, what about drivers who are under the influence of cannabis or other drugs? Stoned drivers are not safe drivers as drug use affects both perception and responses. Therefore, before I tackle the main thrust of this bill, namely, stronger drug laws to reduce gang violence, I want to address drug-impaired driving and why penalties for drug dealing with violence, running a large grow-op or trafficking are important.

A British medical journal study of over 10,000 fatal car crashes showed that drivers who tested positive for marijuana were more than three times as likely to be responsible for a deadly accident. A New Zealand study showed that habitual marijuana users were nine and a half times more likely to be involved in car accidents, showing that both acute and chronic drug use can alter perception in crashes. The World Health Organization reports that cannabis impairs cognitive development and psychomotor performance in a wide variety of tasks, including divided attention, motor coordination and operative tasks of many types.

Human performance on complex machinery can be impaired for as long as 24 hours after smoking as little as 20 milligrams of THC in cannabis. Drug-impaired driving, like drunk driving, shows a woeful disregard for human life. Data provided by Mothers Against Drunk Driving showed that in 2006 impaired driving in Canada by drugs other than alcohol resulted in over 1,200 fatalities.

In 2000 Canadian police departments reported a total of almost 88,000 drug offences. Drug use is widespread in our society and so is the practice of hotboxing or smoking marijuana in an enclosed space such as a car or small room in order to maximize the effect. Youths to professionals hotbox on the way to school and to the office. What would happen if cannabis penalties were reduced? One research study showed that 2.5% of fatal crashes were attributable to marijuana compared to nearly 29% attributable to the legal drug of alcohol.

There is also a relationship among alcohol, drugs and violence. A joint Canada-U.S. study, DAVI or drugs, alcohol and violence international, provides important evidence about the relationship in Montreal and Toronto. Over 900 male students from grades 9 to 12, who were school dropouts and young offenders, were interviewed. Almost 19% of boys in Montreal and 15% in Toronto had brought a gun to school.

This relationship between drugs and violence continues beyond school days. Gangs employ violence to control and expand drug distribution activities and use violence to ensure that members adhere to the gangs' codes of conduct. In November 2004 a 19-year-old gang member from Fort Worth, Texas, was sentenced to 30 years in prison for fatally shooting a childhood friend who wanted to leave the gang.

Increased gang violence in Vancouver and other Canadians cities has direct ties to the drug cartel wars of Mexico where more than 7,000 have died in the last two years. Almost all cocaine comes via Mexico, the centre for South American producers. Canadian-based organized crime groups buy the drug either directly from the cartels in Mexico or from middlemen in American cities. When the supply of cocaine is affected by crackdowns in Mexico or the United States, the price goes up. There is competition for the remaining drugs in Canada.

A 2009 Angus Reid Strategies poll shows that Canadians are supportive of introducing tougher laws to deal with an apparent surge in gang activity. The survey showed that 45% of Canadian adults say that their country has a national gang problem. At least 76% support tougher legislation to deal with gang-related crime and 76% support a proposal to send marijuana growers and dealers to jail.

This is the important part. However, almost 90% endorse a national drug prevention campaign. Only 50% support legalizing marijuana and 51% want to keep harm reduction programs such as supervised injection sights.

Even tolerant Holland is considering stiffer drug penalties to reduce gang violence. The nation's 700-plus coffee shops where customers can buy cannabis or hashish without fear of arrest attract tourists who pay more than $300 million Euros in tax annually. Police believe some coffee shops are fronts for organized crime. The worst of the violence, however, takes place in the cannabis growing industry where gangs prey on novices who think they can make easy money by growing marijuana. Since there is so much money and violence involved, Holland's police commissioner responsible for cannabis calls it a danger to Dutch society.

I believe that strong drug laws are part of what is needed to fight gang violence, but crime prevention initiatives and the proper funding of law enforcement agencies are equally important and this is where the government is failing Canadians. I believe that we need to carefully look at the evidence of what has and has not worked in the United States as well as other jurisdictions. We must ask ourselves whether we want to turn Canadian correctional institutions and penitentiaries into U.S.-style inmate warehouses and whether longer sentences will have the desired deterrent effect, or whether those given longer sentences will be more likely to go back to crime.

A strength of the bill is the initiative with regard to drug treatment courts. They are part of the solution. Evaluations consistently show that drug treatment courts effectively reduce recidivism and underlying addiction problems of offenders. The courts provide closer comprehensive supervision and more frequent drug testing and monitoring during the program than other forms of community supervision. It costs about $8,000 per year to provide substance abuse treatment to a Toronto drug treatment court participant and $45,000 to incarcerate the same individual for one year.

Canada has always implemented and must continue to implement a national strategy that aims to strike a balance between reducing the black market supply of illegal drugs and reducing demand. The first component emphasizes the fight against drug crimes by the criminal justice system while the second focuses on prevention and public awareness of the negative effects of drug use.

In closing, I want to draw attention to the fact that youth at risk of joining gangs tend to be from groups, that suffer from the greatest inequality, who are using drugs and who are already involved in serious crime. Bill C-15 addresses deterrence and punishment. When might we see legislation targeted at prevention? Public Safety Canada itself recommends targeted, integrated and evidence-based community solutions to reduce and prevent the proliferation of gangs, drugs and gun violence.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her intervention and observations about other jurisdictions.

I do want to point out that this bill seems to take a certain approach that has been taken in other jurisdictions, which, quite frankly, failed, and that is the notion that this is, arguably, in many respects, a health issue. When we look at the increase in addictions, be they with alcohol or illicit drugs, we have learned a lot in terms of what should be done and the mandatory minimum sentences that are prescribed in this bill do not do anything to deal with that.

When we are talking about selling illicit drugs, there is a supply and there is a demand. The demand is actually an issue that has its inception in terms of the whole area of consumption of illicit drugs and addictions.

If we are looking at these mandatory minimums in other jurisdictions, they seem to have failed, because as soon as someone is put in jail, someone else fills that spot. The demand is what is driving it. Should we not be looking at a more comprehensive approach when it comes to not only the sale of illicit drugs but the consumption and the whole area of fueling the economy of the drug sales that have--

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Etobicoke North.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely agree that looking at the drug issue requires a comprehensive approach. We do need a national prevention campaign. Addiction is an illness and we need to provide treatment for those who are suffering with this addiction.

Part of this needs to involve the legal system as well. We do require penalties for trafficking and for grow ops. I am really pleased to see in the bill that we do have drug treatment courts. In the United States, only 16% of 17,000 drug court graduates nationwide have been rearrested and charged with a felony offence.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her fine speech to the House. I would like to make a brief comment and then ask her a question.

For 20 years, we have waged war on smoking because it is bad for people's health. A great deal of legislation has been passed in various provinces. People can be fined for smoking in public places. In New Brunswick, it is illegal to smoke in a car in which there are young children.

Even though a law may be coercive, the amendments proposed in Bill C-15 will not just put traffickers in prison. They will also send a signal to young people in particular that smoking marijuana is harmful. It creates dependence and can be hazardous to health.

I ask my colleague whether it would not be useful to conduct exactly the same advertising campaign to prevent young people from smoking marijuana sold by traffickers?

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely agree. In a study recently published where Canada was one of four countries examined, the study showed that many Canadians did not know the health effects of using tobacco. Tobacco contains over 4,000 chemicals and 60 of these are known carcinogens. Canadians did not know that tobacco can affect their heart, cause cancer, breast cancer or cervical cancer.

The member raises an important point. In looking at drugs, we do need a national campaign that focuses on the health impacts of using cannabis or other drugs and how we can best prevent their use.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to take the floor on Bill C-15, which we have studied in committee. Even though my natural inclination might be to comment on the political news of the day, I shall refrain from doing so.

I sat on the committee formed early in the year 2000, when Conservative member Randy White was in this House and tabled a motion to allow us as parliamentarians to study the whole issue of the use of drugs for non-medical purposes. Naturally, in the course of this study, we spent many months hearing witnesses. This was going on at about the same time as the study being conducted in the other chamber, led by Senator Nolin, on the whole issue of the legalization of cannabis. Something became obvious to us, and this in a way is the problem with the Conservative government. Of course we do not advocate the use of drugs. I myself have totally abstained from them. I am perfectly aware that drugs can be extremely harmful in people’s lives. Certain drugs can even lead to an escalation phenomenon, that is, to dependence on and increased need for them. However, in this Bill C-15 which is before us, as in many of the Conservative government’s bills, we find this worrying inability to qualitatively distinguish between different phenomena.

We in the Bloc Québécois have no problem, for example, going after the traffickers who organize and maintain large-scale networks, who are involved in the exporting of opium or other types of drugs. If there is one party that has long been working against organized crime, it is indeed the Bloc. I myself was the first member to table an anti-gang bill, in 1997. My former colleague from Charlesbourg, Richard Marceau, an excellent parliamentarian, succeeded in convincing the government to remove the $1,000 note from circulation, it being agreed that this note made things easier for organized crime. This same colleague from Charlesbourg also succeeded, in the last days of the Martin government, in persuading the House of Commons to pass a bill to reverse the burden of proof for property obtained by crime.

The problem with Bill C-15 is not that it targets traffickers, or that it provides for longer maximum sentences for people who engage in the trafficking and exporting of drugs that do such great harm in communities. It is that it is incapable of distinguishing between different things.

Certain provisions of the bill are extremely disturbing. First, something we have said over and over again. It was mentioned by my colleague from Abitibi, an eminent member of the bar and a criminal lawyer for 30 years. In committee we asked for studies or scientific material showing that incorporating minimum sentences in the Criminal Code will be a deterrent. This is a philosophy of this government. In all the bills, the clauses proposed are accompanied by minimum sentences, ignoring the fact that this does not act as a deterrent. On the contrary, when there is plea bargaining, this encourages people to plead not guilty. As a result prosecutors will prefer to avoid charges that carry minimum sentences.

More troubling still, it is certainly not with a prohibitionist drug strategy that we are going to succeed against organized crime and manage to deter people.

We had people appearing before us in committee from Washington and New York who had been tempted by mandatory minimum sentences but had unfortunately discovered that the states which adopted them were not the most successful at reducing drug use.

The bill itself does not distinguish between big traffickers from the underworld and occasional users. We know, of course, that it is best for people not to use drugs.

That being said, though, young people will not refrain from doing so just because the Criminal Code says that they should not. Would we not be better equipped as a society if we had prevention campaigns, if we encouraged addiction courts, and if we worked together with community groups involved in harm reduction?

What is worrisome about the bill is, first of all, the definition of trafficking. Take an arbitrary example. I am at a party with friends and someone hands me a joint of marijuana. In the eyes of the law, just passing it along is considered trafficking. A young person at an end of term party for students in political science could be charged. I said political science but it could be students at the École des hautes études commerciales, I do not mean to discriminate. We are incapable, therefore, of distinguishing small users from big traffickers.

We need to take a close look at the bill. A person can engage in trafficking, but that does not necessarily mean loading three containers in the port of Montreal. A recreational situation where people hand joints around could also result in a trafficking charge.

We need to look at the gradations in the penalties prescribed. The person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 14 years. It is at the discretion of the judge. This is not a minimum sentence, and the maximum sentences are never a problem for us. It is up to the judge to assess the evidence, the circumstances and the context in which the offence was committed.

We are told as well that the prison term may be no less than—so it is a minimum penalty—six months when the offence is committed for the purpose of trafficking and there are fewer than 201 plants involved. A young person from the University of Ottawa sitting outside and offering a joint to one of his friends is liable to a sentence of six months.

I repeat that the Bloc does not encourage the use of any drug whatsoever. It is not part of the Canada food guide and we do not think it essential for self discovery or that it is a good habit. However, socially, will the problem of drug use be resolved with minimum sentences of six months to two years? This is what we tried to explain to the minister.

Individuals with considerable authority, such as criminologist Line Beauchesne of the University of Ottawa, and others, have studied the issue of drug use. We have difficulty with the fact that there are minimum penalties for trafficking and with the increments of these minimum penalties given the scope of the problem. We do not believe that, socially, this is the best way to discourage young people from using drugs.

This is one of the reasons we will vote against the bill.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the member for his address. It seems to me that the government should be taking steps to break the mafia and the gangs that control the drug trade in the country. It is the money that drives this whole process.

The government is very quick to be bring in feel good bills to try to advertise to the public that it is doing something when it really is not. It should be dealing with the actual gangs and the criminal element behind the problem.

The previous Bloc member indicated that the Bloc was in favour of people, when they were sentenced to prison for say 36 months, staying in prison the full 36 months. It is only through this process that people can take advantage of the rehabilitation programs in the prison. If we keep letting people out halfway through their sentences, they are never going to finish their rehabilitation programs. I gathered he was speaking to that.

Does the hon. member have any further comments about that?

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. The member speaking before me was, I believe, the deputy justice and native affairs critic, the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

Unfortunately, I did not listen to his speech, but I believe he pointed out that the abolition of the one sixth of the sentence rule is part of the Bloc's platform, as adopted by the caucus in 2007. Thus, when there is a trial and the rules of justice are applied fairly and the sentence is known and underway, we do not believe that there should be the possibility of release when a sixth of the sentence has been served.

We believe in rehabilitation, we believe in two-thirds of the sentence and we believe that mechanisms must be in place for parole with follow-up in the community. However, we think it somewhat early to permit release when a sixth of the sentence has been served—especially since, when we examined this matter in the Bloc, we understood that this sixth of the sentence is administered sort of automatically. This adds to our concern, and it is certainly what the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue wanted to share with the House in his speech.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak in the report stage debate on an act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, which pertains mainly to the establishment of mandatory minimum sentences related to drug trafficking and the drug trade.

We are debating a specific motion that was moved by my colleague from Vancouver East, which would delete clause 3 from the bill. This section deals with nine mandatory minimums, eight of which deal specifically with marijuana.

It is pretty important that we talk about this because many Canadians have great difficulty with our existing marijuana laws. It has been an area where there have been many suggestions over many years about necessary changes to our laws, especially with regard to marijuana. Going into the area of mandatory minimum sentences around marijuana is something with which many people will have difficulty.

One aspect that I am particularly concerned about is the effect this law, should it pass and should this amendment fail, will have on compassion clubs that provide medical marijuana to thousands of Canadians. When other drugs, and more dangerous drugs, have been ineffective in treating their medical condition, the use of marijuana in various forms has been successful and extremely helpful to them.

I have visited the Green Cross Society in Vancouver and I have had friends who have dealt with the Compassion Club in Vancouver. I know of many instances where the use of marijuana has been extremely important to the successful treatment of a range of diseases. It has allowed people to get on with their lives in ways that other therapies and other drug therapies have been unsuccessful or more dangerous for them. It is very concerning to me how this law will complicate the services provided by compassion clubs.

What I find most disconcerting in this debate, however, is the inability of the government to provide any evidence whatsoever that mandatory minimum sentences will have the kinds of effects that it says they will in controlling the drug trade, for instance. The Conservatives have been asked numerous times to provide one study, any evidence of that.

When the minister appeared before the standing committee reviewing the legislation, the member for Vancouver East asked the minister this question and she received no response whatsoever. In fact, the member for Vancouver East asked the Minister of Justice no less than six times to provide evidence that mandatory minimum sentences were effective in dealing with drug crimes, that they actually worked, that they would have any of the benefits that he proposed. Six times he did not answer the question.

He did say that Canadians supported this approach, but he offered not one shred of evidence that mandatory minimums would have any effect on the drug crime situation in Canada. Probably he was unable to do that because such evidence just does not exist.

Why is the government hell bent on following this course of action when there is no evidence that what it has proposed will actually address the concerns of Canadians in this regard? It is unfortunate that we are going down this road when we cannot prove there is any efficacy whatsoever that the measures will have any effect on the situation at all.

On the other side of the argument about the ineffectiveness of this kind of regime, there is scads of evidence. In fact, at committee, Craig Jones of the John Howard Society talked about 35 peer reviewed published studies that showed mandatory minimum sentences had no effect and were completely ineffective in dealing with drug crime. He tabled 17 of those studies.

There is a whole body of evidence that shows this is the wrong approach in dealing with drug crimes. It is completely ineffective to deal with drug crime.

We have had many examples. We have seen the example of the United States, which got heavily into mandatory minimum sentences around drug crimes. The Rockefeller laws, as they are called, were introduced in New York state in the seventies. They have had exactly the opposite effect and have been completely ineffective in dealing with drug crime.

Other states moved away from mandatory minimum sentences because all they did was fill their prisons and they had no effect on the social conditions and on crime statistics. It has been tried in many jurisdictions and it has been a failure.

It is inconceivable that the Conservatives would go down this road at this point when there is such a body of evidence to the contrary of the effectiveness of this kind of legislation. As I said, the government and the minister have not provided any evidence whatsoever that this is an appropriate approach to deal with drug crime in Canada.

There are other options. Other countries have taken different approaches. One clear example is Portugal. In 2001 Portugal, in a nationwide law, decriminalized all drugs, including cocaine and heroin. It was a decriminalization, not a legalization regime. Portugal remains the only European Union state with a law that explicitly declares drugs to be decriminalized.

Recently a study was done by Glenn Greenwald, for the Cato Institute, on Portugal's drug laws. I would recommend it to all members and to anyone else listening in on this debate to see exactly what has happened in Portugal.

One of the things that Mr. Greenwald does in his recent study is analyze the empirical data around this change. This is what he had to say about Portugal:

—the...empirical data...indicate that decriminalization has had no adverse effect on drug usage rates in Portugal, which, in numerous categories, are now among the lowest in the EU, particularly when compared with states with stringent criminalization regimes. Although postdecriminalization usage rates have remained roughly the same or even decreased slightly when compared with other EU states, drug-related pathologies—such as sexually transmitted diseases and deaths due to drug usage—have decreased dramatically. Drug policy experts attribute those positive trends to the enhanced ability of the Portuguese government to offer treatment programs to its citizens—enhancements made possible, for numerous reasons, by decriminalization.

Here is a different approach of decriminalization to drug laws, a far different approach than the Conservative government is taking in Canada, which has had success. The empirical data has shown this to be a successful approach to all the goals we seek for Canada such as decreasing drug use, crime, deaths from drug use and sexually-transmitted diseases, all kinds of positive value out of taking this kind of approach.

Others have done the analysis. They have compared alcohol prohibition to our drug prohibition policies. They have shown that the alcohol prohibition, which we know to have been a huge failure in North America, had all the same problems that drug prohibition has today. The measure that we are debating today falls clearly into a prohibition category of legal approaches.

We need to take that history seriously. We need a government that is willing to look at that history, to analyze it and act in light of what we already know in terms of how these kinds of policies affect drug policy and drug crime.

We know we will not change drug crime and gang crime in Canada unless we go to the profitability of the drug trade in Canada. There is nothing in the legislation that addresses why people make so much money selling drugs in Canada. There is nothing in it that says that somebody we put away for a minimum mandatory sentence will not return to the drug trade after that. In fact, a lot of them do return to the drug trade afterward, with a better network and with more skills from having been in prison.

However, the other reality is the person we send to prison on a drug trafficking charge is replaced almost immediately by another person who is willing to be involved because the profitability is so high. Until we grapple with how we address that issue, we are not going to make progress on dealing with drug crime in our society and dealing with the other issues that stem from it.

The government can show not one scrap of evidence that the approach to using mandatory minimum sentences is going to improve our society and is going to meet any of its goals, let alone the goals of Canadians, with regard to drug crime. That is the key reason I will not be supporting the legislation.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member for Burnaby—Douglas is very familiar with the circumstances of the bill.

Many of the young people in some of the aboriginal communities who leave their reserves to go to the big cities like Vancouver often drift into an unhealthy and unsafe lifestyle due to the lack of support when they are in those cities. Since we do not have programs in place to support these young people, some of them end up contracting HIV/AIDS as a result of drug use or other lifestyle issues and then go back to their home communities.

I wonder if the member could comment on what he sees as being important in terms of treatment for young people who get involved in the drug trade and then end up having to go back to their communities.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we need a multi-pronged approach to dealing with drug issues in our society. In Vancouver we often talk about the four pillar approach to drug issues: prevention, treatment, enforcement and harm reduction. Sadly, however, all we have seen from the government is emphasis on the enforcement pillar.

Any stool that has four legs and one is bigger than the other will only fall over and be unsuccessful as a stool. Therefore, this four pillar approach requires equal treatment of all of the pillars.

We know that prevention and treatment are absolutely crucial to having an effective drug policy. Unfortunately, when an addict in Canada seeks treatment, more often than not they are told that they need to go on a waiting list before treatment is available so they put off that treatment. We know that is a loss right at that very moment. We know that every time we put someone on delay after they have made a decision to go into treatment we have lost the opportunity to deal with that addiction.

We also know that when they get out of treatment they need specialized support and specialized housing. However, if we send them back into the same circumstances they left when they were addicted, then they will have lost all the benefits of their treatment. We need to ensure we have a broadly based treatment program and one that extends beyond the actual drug treatment process itself to ensure success.

We also need to ensure we stress harm reduction. Unfortunately, despite the many studies that have shown harm reduction to be an effective tool in dealing with drug issues, the government has often failed to appreciate that evidence and has not given great support to harm reduction measures.

However, in Vancouver and in Burnaby we know the importance of harm reduction. Places like the safe injection site in Vancouver are very effective.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have just a brief question. I was interested in the member's comments this afternoon.

The member certainly recognized the fact that this bill does not contain all the measures that need to take place to improve the quality of life for people who find themselves in this position.

Would the approach of decriminalization not create a situation where we are softening rules around what is a threshold drug and, by so doing, would it not expand the use of drugs and require more than treatment and intervention to improve?

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

No, Mr. Speaker. If the hon. member chose to look at some of the evidence and to look at the study from Portugal, he would see evidence that that is just not the case. In the analysis of Portugal's experience, which has gone on for eight years, we see that is not the case. Having decriminalized all drugs, not just marijuana and so-called softer drugs, but all drugs, including cocaine and heroin, Portugal has seen very positive outcomes from that step.

The government should be looking at and examining that kind of evidence. Rather than introducing measures that have no evidentiary support, it should be looking at measures that can be proven to be successful in reaching the kinds of goals that all Canadians want to reach around drug use, drug policy and drug crime. We do not have that approach with this legislation, which makes it very flawed legislation and legislation that will not improve the situation here in Canada, and that is why New Democrats are not supporting this legislation.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-15, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of Motion No. 1.

Controlled Drugs and Substances Act

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-15, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts.

This bill would amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to provide for minimum penalties for serious drug offences, to increase the maximum penalty for cannabis or marijuana production, to reschedule certain substances from schedule 3 of that act to schedule 1, and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

I spoke to this bill at second reading and I spoke against it. I spoke against it because generally I do not believe that mandatory minimums are an effective legislative policy and I certainly cannot support mandatory minimums in the context of drug laws.

Why is that? We have had many studies and reports that show that mandatory minimums have a negligible impact on crime control. For example, I will quote from one of the reports from our own Department of Justice in 2002. It states:

Harsh mandatory minimum sentences do not appear to influence drug consumption or drug-related crime in any measurable way.

Another report in 2005 from our own Department of Justice stated:

There is some indication that minimum sentences are not an effective sentencing tool....

When this bill was at committee, the John Howard Society provided summaries from 17 studies from the U.S. and the U.K. on mandatory minimums, lengthy sentence terms and recidivism. They found that the longer prison terms do not reduce recidivism. The detailed analysis of the United States Sentencing Commission found that mandatory minimums went after the low-level criminals and that they were ineffective at deterring crime.

In 1987, the Canadian Sentencing Commission noted that since 1952, all Canadian commissions that addressed the role of mandatory minimum penalties have recommended that they be abolished. Here we are in 2009 and we are advocating for mandatory minimums.

The Canadian Sentencing Commission also found that existing mandatory minimum penalties, with the exception of those for murder and high treason, serve no purpose that can compensate for the disadvantages resulting from their continued existence but we still have politicians promoting mandatory minimums as an effective means of fighting crime.

Let us unpack what politicians are doing. We are saying that we will punish people for committing a crime and punish them harshly, but punishment comes after the fact. I will quote the author, Michael Tonry, in an article he wrote entitled “Mandatory Penalties”, where he gives the reason that legislatures and politicians continue to enact mandatory minimums. He says that “most elected officials who support such laws are only secondarily interested in their effects. Officials' primary interests are rhetorical and symbolic. Calling and voting for mandatory penalties is demonstrating that officials are tough on crime. If the laws works, all the better, but that's hardly crucial. In a time of heightened public anxiety about crime and social unrest, being on the right side of the crime issue is much more important politically than making sound and sensible public policy choices”.

There we have it. It seems that the emperor has no clothes. I want to repeat: “Public anxiety about crime and social unrest...is much more important politically than making sound and sensible public policy choices”. That is what we have here today.

I stood up against this bill at second reading but it did pass and it went to committee. At committee, we heard from many knowledgeable expert witnesses. We heard from front line workers, legal scholars and policy experts. Sixteen witnesses appeared and, of the 16, 13 provided evidence and studies showing that mandatory minimums are costly failures that target low-level dealers. This is the issue, because the government is trying to tell us that this bill will stop drug trafficking. We are trying to get the kingpins but the evidence shows that it targets low-level dealers, users and a disproportionate number of visible minorities and poor people. As I stated earlier, our own justice department has two reports clearly stating that mandatory minimums are not effective for drug crimes.

When the minister was asked if he could produce a report showing that mandatory minimums work, he could not, but he did insist that this was what Canadians wanted.

Three of the 16 witnesses did support mandatory minimums. What did they say? Not one of the three could produce evidence showing that mandatory minimums actually work to reduce drug use, drug crimes, organized crime or gang violence. We have nothing except three witnesses who say that they support this. We have no evidence.

My colleagues have spoken to the known results of mandatory minimum sentences: increased pressure on the criminal justice system; and substantial increased costs to the provincial prison and court systems. The bill would capture the low-level dealers, not the kingpins, as it is intended. It also would not address the real issue of addiction that we know is best combated by a four pillar approach: enforcement, treatment, harm reduction and prevention, with each one being equal.

I would like to touch on an issue that is not raised in this hon. House often enough, and that is the issue of race and class. Representatives from the Vancouver Area Network of Drug Users, also known as VANDU, testified that drug prohibition serves to further marginalize people because in Canada police profiling centres on poor visible street users and sellers. Canadian jails and prisons house the poor, and our most visible drug users and sellers are aboriginal people and people of colour. They are vastly overrepresented.

VANDU looked to the U.S. where it did implement mandatory minimums in the 1970s and 1980s. In states that legislated these mandatory minimums, by the 1980s it became apparent that poor people and people of colour were most vulnerable to police profiling and imprisonment for drug offences even though drug use rates were no higher than in other sub-groups.

Deborah Small, the executive director of Break the Chains, an organization based out of the U.S., also testified at committee. She said:

I think it's important to note that while all studies show that drug use is pretty much endemic across every population and socio-economic group, the history in the U.S. has been that drug law enforcement has disproportionately impacted poor people.

She went on to say something that is quite damning. She said:

I think it's important to note that one of the effects in New York of enacting the Rockefeller laws is that it forced the state to reallocate money in ways that were really very detrimental. We saw a dollar-for-dollar trade-off in increased expenditures for prisons versus higher education. That sent a message to young people, particularly young people of colour, that the state would actually prefer to invest in their incarceration rather than their education.

How can we stand here and support a bill that we know will not work? We cannot. Therefore, how could we possibly propose an amendment to a bill? We could just throw up our hands and refuse to participate but I do not believe Canadians want that from any of us here. I believe they want us to engage on issues, despite our party lines and our personal ideologies. They send us here to work and sometimes we are working on issues on which we cannot agree.

As parliamentarians, I believe we have an obligation to try to make bills better, even if we strongly disagree with the fundamental premise of the bill.

I would like to point out that we asked many of the witnesses if they would amend the bill if they could and an overwhelmingly majority said that we should scrap it and start over. They actually said “scrap it”.

However, despite that clear message, the NDP has proposed an amendment to strike clause 3 of the bill because it is our duty to try to make this bill better. Perhaps we do give up some of our principles by engaging on the amendments but it is the responsible thing to do.

Clause 3 would create quite a few of the mandatory minimums for various schedule one and schedule two drugs, and striking out the clause would result in striking some of the mandatory minimums that we feel would capture the wrong people: people who are poor, aboriginal Canadians, people from racialized communities and compassion clubs.

I would like to thank my colleague from Vancouver East for moving this amendment and doing her best to try to make a bad bill better.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Halifax for her eloquent and very well researched speech in opposition to Bill C-15 and in support of the amendment, which would essentially gut Bill C-15.

I noted with interest that the member quoted the VANDU, a group of drug users from Vancouver in support of her position that minimum mandatory sentences do not work. I am curious to know whether the member supports VANDU's well pronounced policy statement against prohibition of all narcotics, including what most people consider serious narcotics like cocaine and methamphetamine.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I support the work that VANDU does generally. It is a group of experts that is made up mostly of people who have addictions, who have overcome their addictions and who know first-hand what addictions can do to their lives and the lives of their friends. We need to look to them as experts on this issue and we need to take them and their recommendations very seriously. They did not appear at this committee to talk specifically about holus-bolus decriminalization. They came for a very specific reason, and that is the testimony I heard and that I had in front of me. I think they are right. I think they hit the nail on the head when it came to Bill C-15.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for enlightening the House on a few important details.

My understanding is that where there is an indictable offence, as prescribed under Bill C-15, there is a proviso where the person is liable to imprisonment up to life. Then it goes on to say, “or subject to a mandatory minimum of one year”.

I do not know whether the committee, and maybe the member could help, heard from legal officials as to the process that has to be gone through to seek the mandatory minimums to be imposed. My understanding is that the crown attorney would need to make application and that it is usually the practice for them not to make application for mandatory minimums simply because these are the small potatoes and they are really after the serious criminals who are behind the drug offences.

Is the member aware of that and does she know that even existing mandatory minimums often are not even exercised by the crown attorney?

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I must admit that I am not sure what the member for Mississauga South is referring to. It is a mandatory minimum. It is mandatory that this must be the minimum sentence.

We did have testimony before us that a lot of plea bargaining might happen if there were a mandatory minimum for one offence. Some of the legal experts testified that crown and defence attorneys would try to negotiate a different crime that did not have a mandatory minimum. We would have some very strange plea bargaining where folks would not necessarily be ultimately charged with the crime they committed.

We would also have some judges who would find that in some situations, because the mandatory minimum in that circumstance was unfair to the accused person because of certain circumstances, they may be unwilling to convict because they would not want to give an unjust sentence based on the circumstances they were presented with.

However, I would need to look that up because I do not know the answer to that question. I do not think so.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in the bill proposed section 8 states quite clearly that the mandatory minimums provided for are not obtainable and do not apply unless the crown attorney gives notice before the accused enters a plea that the Attorney General will prove the factors related to a mandatory minimum sentence.

This whole thing is a charade, a pretense that there is a mandatory minimum sentence when there is not a crown attorney out there, ever, who is going to waste time giving notice and proving the factors related to this type of offence. If it is a big fish, will the member not agree that the existing sentence for this crime is already a life sentence?

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly would agree that the maximum is already a life sentence. There are situations where a judge may find that a life sentence is what is needed, but there are also situations where that is not needed.

If we look at that section, we are taking away judicial discretion. The key here is judicial discretion. It is not up to crown attorneys to be the judge and to decide what the sentence is going to be. It is about judicial discretion. It is about the judge taking into consideration all the facts, having heard all the evidence, and making a decision that best fits that situation.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to debate this bill.

By and large, the direction the government has chosen to take with the bill is completely at odds with our party's policies. We do not support mandatory minimum sentences for drug offences. The amendment we are talking about today would eliminate those from the bill.

The bill in front of us, which is taking up the time of Parliament in the discussion of drug policy, is really indicative of the government. We see the government put forward legislation, not to deal with the problem of a drug policy but simply to put a sugar coating on its anti-crime agenda, to mollify its constituents who somehow might believe the Conservatives are doing something useful for Canadian society with this bill.

That is the problem we face today. We, in this Parliament, are not dealing with the real issues that are in front of us in this country. When we put forward legislation like this, we are simply putting forward a public relations effort to convince Canadians prior to the next time we go to the polls that the government is actually engaged in serious work for Canadians on the justice side.

Drug use in Canada remains at a level that it has been for many years. In many cases, it represents the appetite of Canadians, the direction that Canadians take with their lives.

I live in a northern region, where the problems we have with substance abuse primarily come from alcohol. We have worked with those issues for centuries. Sometimes we seem to get closer to the solutions. The solutions do not come with enforcement. The solutions to the alcohol issues in the Northwest Territories, in northern Canada and across the country do not come from putting people in jail.

The misuse of a substance, which most Canadians enjoy, they do not mind taking a drink occasionally, they find it useful, perhaps even a little helpful to them in many cases, is the prime cause of misery, broken families, property damage and so on.

We do not try to deal with the problems of alcohol abuse by simply putting people in jail. We know that is not a solution. We know we need to come up with better solutions. We know the solutions that are going to work are based on understanding, education, working with people to ensure they have a decent income and the opportunities that come with life.

This is a bill that speaks to trafficking, I agree. This is a bill about those who traffic in the drugs, the drugs that Canadians buy and Canadians use.

Therefore, if the bill were passed in the state it is in now, it would likely increase the value of drugs on the street, make it more profitable for some to purvey the drugs, but would it actually come to grips with drug issues in our communities? No, I think it would actually go the other way. It would increase the problems we have because we have not taken positive steps toward solving these problems.

We have chosen to go in the wrong direction, and that is really unfortunate. That takes up our time. That sets this country on a course that in a number of years will have to change; we will have to go back in the other direction. We put forward an amendment to try to change the bill even somewhat, to try to make Parliament understand that this is the wrong direction.

We are interested in working in the right direction on drug policy in this country. What is the right direction? For 80% of the value of illegal drugs sold in this country, being cannabis, we will likely want to move to a decriminalization mode. That is our party's position, and it has been for many years. Why have we taken that position? Our position has been backed up by every study and every independent commission dealing with the subject in Canada. We came to realize that some drugs might actually be used by people for their own personal health reasons.

Years ago the government put forward a medical marijuana ordinance, which is not working very well. The statistics are quite interesting. Of the 400,000 people in this country who likely use marijuana for health reasons, about 3,000 are licensed under the government program. There is less than 1% under the program. It has been a complete failure.

The other 99% of those people who might use marijuana for medical purposes are on the streets buying it from dealers who are going to be impacted by this legislation. They will raise the price and make it more criminal. Those people will be in an even worse situation than they are today.

Interestingly, when we look at the drug strategy and controlled substance program and the medical marijuana cost breakdown, for those 3,000 licensed users, $5.2 million was spent in 2006-07 supplying them with medical marijuana. That is outrageous. It shows the incredible ineptitude of this Parliament and this government, and the previous government, in actually coming to grips with the issue of drug policy and drug use in this country.

We are today battling over whether we should put the traffickers in jail for longer periods of time, yet we cannot face the reality of what Canadians do for medical reasons, for recreational reasons or for addictive reasons. We cannot come to grips with that. That is an incredible failure on the part of the government and on the part of our society in this day and age.

I do not know how much longer I have to speak on this subject. I do not know how much longer I want to lecture the government on its failures and the failures of the House of Commons.

Could we please move forward in a sensible and rational fashion on drug policy? Could the government please put the ideology aside, recognize what is important for Canadians, read the statistics, listen to what the experts are saying and then come back with something that resembles a useful tool for Canadians for the future?

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member touched on this, and I would like him to expand on it. There are remote communities in the member's area, and I suspect they are like Vancouver Island and my own riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan, where it is often very difficult to have a balanced approach.

In talking about drugs, the Conservative government looks at one aspect and fails to look at things like prevention. That entails education awareness and certainly treatment.

Many young people in my own riding have a lot of difficulty in accessing treatment when they are ready to take treatment. I wonder if the member could comment on what he sees as being important in terms of a more balanced approach when we are talking about drugs in this country.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, because of the sense of illegality around drug use, because of the kinds of relationships that people get into when they are drug users, because these are illegal substances they are forced into the criminal market, because of all those things, young people take on the air of those around them.

In one respect the government is right. There is a gateway into drugs. That gateway is the criminalization of drugs. That is what in so many cases is driving the development of many of the drugs that are used in this country. The statistics prove it.

We need to come back to basics. We need to understand what has to happen in this country. Without that understanding, with this continued ideological presentation of issues on this subject, Canadians are going to suffer, young people are going to suffer, the young people the member is talking about in the future. We are simply doing them an incredible disservice.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification)]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member and he thinks that marijuana is not a drug that should be criminalized, that it should be decriminalized. I wonder what he thinks of the RCMP operational intelligence, in that the superintendent from the Surrey detachment said, “What can't be debated is that cannabis is a currency for organized crime”. When I did a tour of my riding when we were talking about the dangers of marijuana, there was a concern in the school districts that the drug dealers would definitely lace marijuana with drugs that would be dangerous to young people. I wonder if the member has thought past the serious drug crimes that this legislation is trying to address. He seems to not realize that we are talking about serious crimes, not about anything less than production, trafficking, possession for the purpose of trafficking, importing, exporting, possession for the purpose of exporting. Would he not think that it is important to protect his constituents from those serious offences?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, the minister actually makes the point that I was trying to make. Criminalization of drugs that are used by such a large percentage of the population, some for medical purposes, some for recreational purposes, is driving the criminal industry in this country. Eighty per cent of the revenues of organized crime for drugs comes from marijuana. That is a terrible statistic. That is the oxygen that drives the criminal industry in her province, in my territory. We need to take that away. Decriminalization is the first step in doing that.

I personally believe that we will not get a reduction in crime until we legalize marijuana. We can look at the other drugs. I am not sure about those. I am willing to call it on that.

However, when the minister speaks as she does, she is making my case.

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

The vote stands deferred until tomorrow at the end of government orders.

The House resumed from June 2 consideration of Bill C-15, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of Motion No. 1.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

Pursuant to order made on Tuesday, June 2, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at report stage of Bill C-15. The question is on Motion No. 1.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it you would find unanimous support to apply the vote from the previous motion to this motion, with the votes being reversed.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this way?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #75

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

I declare Motion No. 1 defeated.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

The hon. chief government whip is rising on a point of order.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it you would find unanimous consent to apply the vote from the previous motion to this motion in reverse.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this fashion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #76

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

I declare the motion carried.