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.

Controlled Drugs and Substances Act

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

moved that Bill C-15, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to speak to Bill C-15 today.

Members will recall that, in November 2007, the Minister of Justice introduced Bill C-26, which proposed a number of mandatory minimum penalties to ensure that appropriately high sentences are imposed on those who commit serious drug offences. This bill reintroduces those same provisions.

As we all know, the Prime Minister unveiled Canada's new national anti-drug strategy in October 2007. The national anti-drug strategy provides funding to prevent the consumption of illegal drugs, particularly among young people, to treat addictions and to fight drug-related crime.

This strategy has a two-pronged approach: the first focuses on a tougher response to drug-related crime and the second on victims.

The national anti-drug strategy includes three action plans: preventing the consumption of illegal drugs, treating addictions, and tackling the production and distribution of illegal drugs.

The action plan to fight the production and distribution of illegal drugs contains a number of elements, including sufficiently severe penalties for serious drug-related offences.

That is part of the context in which this bill should be seen. It takes action on one of the government’s major priorities, which is to attack crime, and especially organized crime.

The purpose of this bill is not to provide minimum obligatory penalties for all drug-related offences. The Controlled Drugs and Substances Act is quite complex when it comes to various offences and punishments. The punishment depends on both the kind of crime committed and the substance involved. The most dangerous substances that cause the greatest problems, such as heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine and morphine, are included in schedule I of the act, and crimes related to them attract the most severe penalties, up to life imprisonment.

Cannabis and related substances are included in schedule II. Crimes involving them attract less severe penalties. In the case of trafficking or possession for the purpose of trafficking, sentences of up to life imprisonment are only imposed in regard to quantities of at least three kilograms. Production of cannabis is punishable by up to seven years in prison.

The least severe penalties of a maximum of 12 months in prison upon summary conviction are reserved for crimes involving substances listed in schedules IV and V. It should be noted, however, that most of the activities forbidden by the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act are legal if the person involved has the necessary licence, permit or exemption.

For example, the marijuana medical access regulations, which took effect on July 30, 2001, provide a complete procedure for people who suffer from certain health problems to apply for a permit to possess or cultivate marijuana for medicinal reasons with the approval of their physician or, in some cases, of a specialist. The number of plants that an authorized person is entitled to cultivate is based on a formula related to the amount of dried marijuana the person needs every day.

Some hon. members might think it is unnecessary to provide for minimum penalties like those in the bill in order to punish serious drug-related offences. However, these crimes are a growing problem in Canadian cities and stricter legislation is absolutely necessary.

We should remember as well that the security of Canadians is one of our government’s highest priorities. Their security is threatened by organized crime groups involved in the production and trafficking of drugs. These activities lead to increased crime, violence and danger to law enforcement officers.

Drug trafficking and production are also the largest sources of illicit money for organized crime groups.

Profits from the sale of drugs, estimated to be in the billions of dollars per year in Canada, are used to finance a host of other criminal activities.

According to the Statistics Canada Juristat bulletin entitled “Crime Statistics in Canada, 2004”, offences related to the cultivation of marijuana more than doubled during the last decade, going from approximately 3,400 in 1994 to 8,000 in 2004. According to a study on marijuana grow operations in British Columbia, approximately 39% of all reported marijuana cultivation cases were located in B.C. Between 1997 and 2000, the total number of these cases increased by over 220%. Even though the number of marijuana grow operations in British Columbia stabilized between 2000 and 2003, the estimated quantity of marijuana produced went from 19,720 kilograms in 1997 to 79,817 kilograms in 2003—a seven-year record—because of the size and proficiency of the operations.

Investigations by British Columbia Hydro revealed that at a certain point there may have been up to 17,000 marijuana grow operations. The increase in illegal marijuana production activities did not occur only in British Columbia, but everywhere in Canada. Even though we have no national data on the production of synthetic drugs, RCMP data indicate a constant increase in production operations. The RCMP carried out seizures in 25 synthetic drug production operations in 2002, in 51 operations in 2003, 60 in 2004, and 53 in 2005. Of these 60 seizures in 2004, 17 involved ecstasy production and 40, methamphetamine production. Of the 53 seizures in 2005, 60% involved methamphetamine production operations and 30% involved ecstasy production operations. The seizures of ecstasy and its components went from 1.5 million tablets in 2001 to more than 70 million tablets in 2006.

Illegal drug use can hurt us all. We are seeing that when it comes to methamphetamine producers and users. Unlike better-known drugs—heroin, cocaine, and marijuana—methamphetamine presents unique challenges. Methamphetamine is a synthetic drug. Its production does not involve crop cultivation. In fact, one needs no special knowledge or training to produce it, and the chemical ingredients are relatively cheap and easy to obtain. As a result, the production of this drug is attractive to both pushers and addicts.

Methamphetamine also poses a threat to enforcement authorities, which have to fight both small, secret labs and huge labs controlled by drug-trafficking organizations.

The small labs produce relatively small amounts of methamphetamine and are generally not affiliated with major drug trafficking organizations. A number of factors have served as catalysts for the spread of small labs, including easy access to recipes on the Internet. Indeed, widespread Internet usage has facilitated the dissemination of technology used to manufacture methamphetamine in small labs. This form of information sharing allows wide dissemination of these techniques to anyone with computer access.

Aside from marijuana, methamphetamine is the only widely used illegal drug that users can make themselves. Given the relative ease with which manufacturers or cooks can acquire recipes and ingredients, and the unsophisticated nature of the production process, it is easy to see why this highly addictive drug is spreading.

Methamphetamine production operations also pose serious public safety and health hazards to those in and around them. These operations can result in serious physical injury from explosions, fires, chemical burns and toxic fumes. They produce environmental hazards, pose cleanup problems and endanger the lives and health of community residents.

The collateral damage caused by methamphetamine includes impacts on families, school staff, students, law enforcers, fire fighters, paramedics, health care practitioners, businesses and property owners. These individuals suffer indirectly from meth use.

First responders may be exposed to production byproducts—the danger of fire or explosion—and may be the target of violence and aggression from addicts.

Communities in general may be exposed to violence, property damage, identity theft, decreased public safety, contamination of public areas from the disposal of cooking byproducts, and an unreliable or decreased workforce that impedes the safety of co-workers.

As you can see, Mr. Speaker, the use and production of illicit drugs can have serious adverse consequences for users, producers, families, law enforcement agencies, first responders and the community.

It is our responsibility as parliamentarians to make the laws in Canada, and we must ensure that those laws provide for appropriate measures to address serious problems. And make no mistake, drug use in Canada is a very serious problem. Some aspects of the situation have grown worse in recent years, and it is our duty to act in the face of this growing threat.

In response to the dangers posed by increased production and the worsening drug problem, the government introduced this bill, which proposes mandatory minimum penalties for those who produce and sell this drug.

The proposed amendments to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act do more than just impose minimum penalties. The bill contains a provision that would enable certain offenders who ordinarily would be subject to mandatory minimum penalties to take part in a program given by what is called a drug treatment court.

A drug treatment court is a substance abuse intervention model that operates within the criminal justice system. Drug treatment courts provide judicially supervised treatment in lieu of incarcerating individuals who have a substance use problem that is related to their criminal activities, for example, drug related offences such as drug possession, use or non-commercial trafficking and/or property offences committed to support their drug use, such as theft or shoplifting.

Individuals may need to meet other requirements specific to individual courts or court systems to be deemed eligible for admission. Eligible accused persons must choose between the drug treatment court program and traditional criminal justice process, which can result in various dispositions ranging from fines to incarceration.

Typically, formal admission into a drug treatment court program requires the individual to plead guilty to his or her charges. If an individual fails to comply or participate in all aspects of the drug treatment court program, consequences range from an official reprimand or revocation of bail to termination of the program and the handing down of custodial or community supervision sentences.

Although a drug treatment court program is applicable only when eligible offenders choose it and give their consent, drug treatment courts constitute a form of coercive treatment. A well designed and properly implemented drug treatment court model has a number of key facets. The first is early identification of those who meet the program eligibility criteria and early treatment. Second, it includes access to several types of programs that treat the offender's problems with substance abuse, such as alcohol or drugs, and mental health issues.

Third, there is extensive ongoing judicial contact with each participant. Fourth, there must be intensive supervision and drug testing to monitor and ensure abstinence from all intoxicants, coupled with positive reinforcement for compliance and sanctions for non-compliance. Fifth, a partnership is needed between drug treatment courts and community based organizations in order to improve program effectiveness. Sixth, there must be continuing education for those involved in the field, in order to improve the program's effectiveness. Seventh, a non-adversarial approach must be used in the court system to ensure both public safety and the rights of program participants. Eighth and last, comprehensive evaluation will monitor program objectives and measure effectiveness.

Compared to traditional criminal justice approaches, the intent of a drug treatment court is to permit motivated clients to avoid incarceration and other sanctions and to allow them access to treatment services more quickly due to dedicated resources. It is also to encourage clients to remain in treatment until completed, through intensive and frequent monitoring and supervision by the court.

Participating in a drug treatment court program is intensive and demanding. It includes court attendance up to twice a week, random urine testing, and attendance and treatment from daily to weekly as clients progress through the program. Although some participants start treatment in a facility, they all attend outpatient programs.

At some sites there is a primary treatment provider, whereas at other sites various community agencies deliver treatments. The drug treatment court team follows the client's progress closely. There are preliminary meetings set up to detect problems and find possible solutions to difficulties, to client relapse and to non-compliance. Coming before the court enables the client to inform it of his progress, and for it to reinforce compliance and progress made, and to sanction non-compliance or set new conditions or interventions with a view to helping the client break out of the crime-dependence cycle.

The drug treatment court programs show great promise and their results will be monitored. This important bill has been drafted in such a way as to not have any impact on treatment programs.

Canadians are calling for the criminal law system to set proper penalties for the commission of drug-related crimes. This bill responds to that desire and will provide for severe but fair minimum sentences.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the speech by the hon. member. I also appreciate the fact that he has a great deal of experience as a member of the Bar and that he works very hard on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. I have no doubt that he believes in the Conservatives' program. However, I would like to ask him a few questions.

In his 20-minute speech, the member made no mention of the other cause of drug-related crime and that worries me somewhat. He did talk about the components of Bill C-15. However, I would like to know, as would Canadians, if the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice believes that the government could or should do other things to deal with these threats, apart from Bill C-15. Will the government take other action to deal with this important issue?

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. He has been a member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for two or three years. I am new to the government.

From the outset, our government has continued to look for solutions to fighting crime that will satisfy Canadians.

There are different ways of approaching the problem. As parliamentarians, we can amend the Criminal Code and its schedules. We can also create drug treatment courts, also a form of rehabilitation, which is part of the fight against crime. Our government is taking a two-pronged approach: first, we want to penalize criminals so they realize, once and for all, that committing drug-related, violent and other such crimes is a serious matter and they will be punished. Second, we want to help the victims, even those who take drugs, who have been drawn in by the thugs of organized crime.

Therefore, we will continue with this two-pronged approach. We are constantly working on it because, at the end of the day, we have the same objective and that is to help Canadians.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech, and I would like to know whether he has shared his disagreement with the Barreau du Québec, which opposes minimum penalties.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for that question. In fact, I am still a member of the Barreau, which is a corporation that represents its members and must allow them to think for themselves. So I cannot answer her question, as I have freedom of thought.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a question similar to the one asked by the member for Laval. In 2002 the Department of Justice issued a report stating that mandatory minimum sentences were least effective when it came to drug offences. I want to quote from that report. It said:

Mandatory minimum sentences do not appear to influence drug consumption or drug-related crime in any measurable way. A variety of research methods concludes that treatment-based approaches are more cost effective than lengthy prison terms. MMS are blunt instruments that fail to distinguish between low and high-level, as well as hardcore versus transient drug dealers.

I wonder if the member could comment on that report from the Department of Justice, which calls into question the approach that the government is taking.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my NDP colleague for those questions. I have a question for him.

There is currently a gang war going on in his province. There have been 38 deaths, 18 caused by firearms. The war is over the drug trade and has been going on for 25 or 30 years.

People from British Columbia, from the chamber of commerce, came to beg us to make strict laws. They are the ones who came, not the police. It was not the member from British Columbia who came, it was representatives of the Vancouver chamber of commerce. They made the trip and came to see us. For an hour, they told us they had had enough, that things were not working anymore and that we had to help them. That is what we are going to do. We are going to help them, and we are going to help the people in Vancouver and all the big cities.

I ask my colleague to support us as this bill goes through the various stages. His constituents' lives depend on it. We are entitled to one thing, and that is to have our lives respected and protected.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the member did not answer the question. I always have trouble in my own mind in deciding whether or not the Conservatives are simply ignorant on this question of drug crimes in their approach or whether or not they actually do understand what is going on and are blindly following their ideological mantra on this question.

My colleague pointed out that the Department of Justice put forward its report in 2002 and the member refused to answer the question. However, even in the United States, which the Conservatives are now proposing to follow, many of the states are repealing the mandatory minimum sentences because they have been such an utter failure. Not only has it cost billions of dollars and incarcerated millions of people in prison to no effect, but drug use has gone up. Even in the United States, which the government is proposing to follow, there is a great move afoot to move away from mandatory minimum sentencing on drug crimes.

I would like to ask the member again. Is it because they are ignorant, or do they just refuse to understand the reality of what is going on in terms of these drug laws?

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, through you, for her question. I want to point out that she said something that is very important, actually, and that is that drug consumption has increased in the United States.

We are the Americans’ largest neighbour and we know that they like to blame us for having a porous border that allows lots of drugs to flow in from the United States for our young people to consume. Street gangs, the mafia—whatever people call it in any of our big cities—control the trade and make billions of dollars. They are expanding their activities and attacking our families and children with all they have.

We are here today because the people of Vancouver came to see us and asked us to act, and that is what we are going to do.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to provide a little history lesson for the previous speaker.

I am old enough that I had never heard of marijuana when I started practising law in 1966. I heard of it when I became a crown prosecutor. At the time, the marijuana grown here was not very strong at all. It did not have any THC, the active ingredient.

I saw the marijuana phenomenon begin around 1966 and continually increase in the 1970s. All the marijuana consumed in Canada came from elsewhere.

And what was the minimum sentence for importing marijuana? Seven years in prison. I saw people sent up for seven years. The time came when that just did not make any sense and they stopped doing it. But I saw people sent up.

Do the members not think that seven years was enough to be dissuasive? And if seven years was not enough, does this not prove that prison is not dissuasive. People do not even know what they are risking.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The hon. parliamentary secretary, a brief reply please.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank my colleague, who was my old justice minister in Quebec. He did a lot to fight organized crime. I want to tell all of Canada: of all our ministers, he was the one who did the most to fight organized crime. He always told us the law must be enforced. He enforced it in the province of Quebec, and he got results too.

That is why I am following in his footsteps and we are actually going to enforce the law. That is what Canadians want of us, including in Quebec.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today on Bill C-15.

It is my great pleasure to rise on this topic and on the topic of justice in general. The preface would be in that old common law saying, “Justice delayed is justice denied”. Usually that goes to the rights of an accused, but what I would say for the Canadian public, on the floor of the House, is justice is being delayed. The government has been in power three years and we still have problems with crime.

I have been in the bowels of the government's justice machine. Two things we do not want to see, but need, are the making of laws and the making of sausages. I was also on the floor of meat packing plants in Moncton in the old days. I do not think members really want to see sausages being made. I am not sure members would want to see the laws being made by the government over the past three years either.

The Conservatives really have not been effective. If we want to get at the root causes of crime and if we want to do what we all want as parliamentarians, which is to have safer communities, we have to look at the beginning and the end. We have to look at the whole situation with respect to crime. We do not go to CTV or CBC, get on the news and say, “We're doing something about crime. Look at the bill we're introducing”. We do not have successive parliaments have their work interrupted by prorogations. That is what the government has done. It has denied justice by delaying justice.

Even when the government gets around to what it sees as its fix, its panacea, which is just legislation, it does not seem to get that its legislation alone will not solve the problems we have with organized crime, drug abuse and the drug culture and drug crime industry in this community.

That is why I will take some time to not only review Bill C-15, but the whole issue of drugs in our country.

A few weeks ago we had a delegation in Ottawa from British Columbia. I know it met with members of the government as well. We would not be honest with ourselves if we did not say to the House that we are, in a bit, reacting to a very serious situation in British Columbia, but there are serious situations in North Preston and Halifax. There are serious situations in Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg, Calgary and all across the country.

However, the people on the front line are the men and women in law enforcement, the men and women in the prosecutorial offices and the men and women who wear uniforms to enforce our laws in the province of British Columbia.

That delegation included the attorney general of British Columbia, who came with some very specific demands. The chief law officer of the province of British Columbia came here with specific demands that had not been addressed by the government. They were not gargantuan tasks. They were tasks we would expect of a reacting, competent government. As I mentioned, not only does it have a very capable Queen's Counsel, a member of Parliament for some 20 years, Attorney General, it also has two very good parliamentary secretaries, representing the best of English speaking Canada from Albert County, New Brunswick and the best of French speaking Canada from Quebec.

Notwithstanding those heavy resources and great minds that are applied to this subject, the government has not been able to respond adequately, swiftly and thoroughly to the needs of the attorney general of British Columbia. They involve relatively simple things, simple things that the laws have evolved to become obstacles to the law enforcement officials in British Columbia. The whole issue around disclosure, as I mentioned in one of my interventions, has become very cumbersome for law enforcement officials.

There is a bit of a paper war between prosecutors and police forces with respect to having to comply to the need for disclosure as bolstered by the law in Stinchcombe. The prosecutors sometimes want paper files. They are not ready to move to electronic files, that is fine. Police officers who compile some of the initial information are tied up quite often making copies thereof. The prosecutors in many provinces have to go over the evidence themselves in order to prefer the charges. In some cases, that means watching hours of video.

One would think that a government responding to need would say that it has the power of legislative reform and the power to introduce amendments that might address Stinchcombe, that might address the exactitude and timeliness with respect to disclosure. However, we might also expect that it would react by giving money and resources to both prosecutorial services and police forces in order to comply with the need for disclosure. However, nothing like that was done. The response was always legislation.

Funnily, on this side we saw today that even when all the opposition parties seem willing to get this to committee quickly, the Minister of Justice seemed to be the only one in the room who did not get the song sheet. He did not seem to understand that everybody wanted it to go to committee and he had a bit of a fit, which did not advance the ball at all.

We are not against these bills going to committee to be studied. They will go through the rigour that the committee has always brought to legislation, when the House has not been prorogued and the work of committees permanently stopped, which has been the case in the three years that the Conservative government has had its hands on the wheel.

I was involved in municipal politics. At that time, we only a three-year term. If I did as little in my entire mandate for the citizens of Moncton as the government has done on the justice dossier, I would not have been acclaimed to my second term. Three years is enough time for the people on the other side to stop saying that people on this side are born again to the justice issue.

I think of the member for Mount Royal and all that he has done to contribute to the laws of our country and Conservatives say that he is born again. If Liberals are born again, that means the Conservatives were never born at all or, if they were, they are like puppies in the first few days. They have wool over their eyes and they do not see the larger issues that, after three years, should be so apparent. There are issues with respect to the root causes of crime and drug issues with respect to how we will implement issues around the four pillars that the people from British Columbia live by in the inner city.

Even proponents of the Conservative justice agenda, and I think primarily of the representatives of the board of trade from British Columbia who were here yesterday, recognize that the legislation alone is not enough. Even they would say that no one is born a criminal. One has to become a criminal and embrace a lifestyle that leads to incarceration. Unfortunately, time and time again the government has brought forward legislation that only talks about one of the pillars or, if we want to get technical, one of the principles of sentencing as found in the Criminal Code, which is the issue of incarceration.

Bill C-15 is a fairly good stab at an acute problem in our country, which is the enforcement of people who break the law with respect to the use, importation and trafficking of drugs. It is particularly important to underline, as my friend the parliamentary secretary did, the action with respect to a certain rise in the use of methamphetamine.

There has been some success, without any of these laws being enacted, that should be heralded in the House today. Not surprisingly, the story comes from New Brunswick. This kind of activity by our police forces takes place every day in Canada, and they are not heralded enough.

We are in an era when good RCMP officers have had their expected wage increases reduced, as if they were other civil servants or like other members of Parliament. In a day and age when the RCMP is having some difficulty in recruitment and some issues with respect to their municipal contracts across our country, we might want to ask ourselves, and Canadians as well, what the Minister of Public Safety is doing with respect to the RCMP. How is the esprit de corps at the RCMP?

Would it not be good to read stories like this all the time? In fact, the story emanates from Moncton, New Brunswick, and it goes as follows:

The number of seizures in New Brunswick of the drug methamphetamine has doubled in the past year, RCMP say....The number of meth seizures jumped to 90 in 2008 from roughly 45 in 2007.

That is a good news story. As my friend, the parliamentary secretary, said, this is a particularly pernicious and addictive drug. This is proof that the RCMP, with proper resources, and forget about all the new laws involved, can crack down on what exists now.

My initial plea is for the government to wake up on two fronts. One, it is proposing legislation that is but a small part of a resolution or improvement in the situation, which in one case we have suggested should go right to committee. Members will find with respect to Bill C-15, at least with respect to the Liberal Party's position, that we also support it going to committee for study, but I have not heard from the Conservative side anything that suggests there is anything else in the Conservative agenda with respect to fixing the situation.

There was a little crack in the armour at committee recently, when the other parliamentary secretary said that no one was suggesting that these bills were the be-all and end-all. That is a good start. The road to improvement is looking in the mirror and realizing that we are leading Canadians to believe we are fixing the crime situation with our nightly newscasts. However, it would be refreshing to hear from the Conservative side. It would be refreshing to hear those members say that there is a long road to climb, that funding adequately police forces and prosecutorial services is one of those things and investing morally and mentally in the ideas of harm reduction and prevention and early childhood intervention with respect to the root causes of crime is another. These would be refreshing thoughts for all Canadians to hear.

With respect to the bill itself, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act would be amended to include a one year mandatory prison sentence, which would be imposed for dealing drugs such as marijuana when carried out for an organized crime purpose.

Another thing the government could do is this. I happen to know that the Department of Justice, if asked, would be ready and would embrace the idea of looking at the definition of organized crime.

There were improvements to the Criminal Code, which interspersed organized crime definitions, but when we compare it to the RICO statute in the United States, it is more narrowly defined. It is not as contemporary as we need it to be when we are talking about street gangs, which in some cases might be two people. As members know, the organized crime provisions in the Criminal Code apply to three people.

The criminals have been much more sophisticated and they have grown much readier to adapt to legal situations than our Parliament has in making the laws to react.

This does not have anything to do with mandatory minimums, or conditional sentences or being tough on crime. This has to do with looking at the Criminal Code as an organic document. I do not want to get too farm-like, but if we have an organic document, it is a bit like a garden. We have to tend to that garden and understand that certain crops need to be fertilized. Some need to be covered, protected and watered. That is what the Criminal Code is like.

Certain provisions are so antiquated that the only brilliant Conservative attorney general would turn over in his grave, and that was Sir John Thompson in 1892, who wrote the Criminal Code. I know I am going back over 100 years to give a great compliment to the Conservatives. I guess that is endemic to this place. The fact is he wrote the Criminal Code and he would turn over in his grave to see how antiquated it is in some ways.

After three years, the government ought to say that it has to take ownership of its failure in making the Criminal Code a more modern document.

With respect to organized crime, the Criminal Code has to do be updated. With respect to the Criminal Code and all the issues around warrants, electronic or otherwise, prosecutors have to go to graduate school to figure out how many different types of warrants they might have to apply for in front of judges before they are able to use them.

These things are completely non-contentious. They are things that could have been brought to Parliament in the first year, the second year, now, or hopefully next week, if anybody listens to the sense in my speech. These are things that could improve the enforcement of our laws.

This bill will enact a two year mandatory prison sentence for dealing drugs such as cocaine, heroin and meth to youth, or for dealing those drugs near a school or an area normally frequented by youth. A two year mandatory prison sentence will also be imposed for the offence of running a large marijuana grow operation of at least 500 plants. These are very targeted sentences which, when problems are increasing exponentially particularly in certain areas of the country, we cannot oppose. These are wonderful provisions for a very specific problem.

What is missing in this crime prevention program is a more holistic approach. Why have we not heard the Conservatives talk about bringing forward other legislation that will be more effective?

We have had the argument regarding mandatory minimum sentences in past Parliaments. The opinion is divided. I am not an expert on this, but I know that other members of the committee have sat through hours of testimony from a multitude of experts who are very divided, but by and large the experts are saying that tougher penalties for people who produce and traffic drugs will only scare the ma and pa producers. That is good. Anybody who is doing any of these crimes should be scared. I am talking about the second pillar in the Criminal Code with respect to sentencing, and that is deterrence. Let us hope it deters some of the young and inexperienced and ma and pa producers. That is a good thing. However, it will not deter organized crime.

Bill C-14 and Bill C-15 are somewhat related, and although they deal with organized crime, they do so in a fashion which, without changing the definition in the code, might not have the effect that we are all hoping for.

The Canadian public has to be aware that just because two bills came forward and just because they seem to be targeted at very specific, acute and well-known problems today, that does not mean those problems are going to be fixed tomorrow. It would be leading the Canadian public down a road of false hope if the Canadian government, represented by its Attorney General, got in front of a camera again and suggested that this is all going to be fixed. He has been saying that since I first got here, and it has not been fixed.

Another important element is that these mandatory sentences have been tried in other jurisdictions. Mandatory drug penalties have helped turn the United States into the world's leading jailer with more than 2.3 million people in prison, according to the International Centre for Prison Studies in London. The U.S. also has the highest per capita rate of incarceration, with 751 people in jail for every 100,000 in population. That is more than Russia, more than China, more than Canada.

No one on this side is against incarceration for people who do wrong. No one is against that, but to think it is a cure for the problems that ail us, to think that is the only solution is wrong. That the government, in doing this, has not committed adequate resources for the facilities that will incarcerate them is also the double end of the false hope that Canadians might have in this situation.

With that, and in conclusion, as a member of the committee I continue to hope that we will work in a very non-partisan fashion as we have in this Parliament. I compliment the two parliamentary secretaries. I look forward to reviewing the bill.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague. I always find it fascinating. The hon. member represents the riding of Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe. We share the town of Riverview. I represent a portion of the town of Riverview. It is a great town with great people. Yet in representing the same town, the member is in a party that I feel is in an alternate universe to where Canadians are when it comes to the justice system. It seemed incredulous to him that after three years of our being in government there is still crime in Canada.

I have to reject the premise of part of his speech where he said that we had indicated that this would be the be all and the end all. Our Minister of Justice and Attorney General has said that when it comes to criminal justice, we are just getting started. We have passed the Tackling Violent Crime Act, which raises the age of consent, toughens up on gun crime, and deals with dangerous offenders.

When the hon. member looks around at his colleagues in the Liberal Party, does he ever ask, to quote his leader, “After 13 years on justice, why did we not get it done?”

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

Mr. Speaker, frankly, I would stack the record of the member for Mount Royal and past justice ministers like Allan Rock, who was a bencher of the Law Society of Upper Canada, against the record of the current government any day.

We are faced with societal changes that are happening very quickly. The reaction time of the government is similar to that of a junior B goalie who is about to be sent down. Frankly, that is what is going to happen in the next election. The people of Canada are not going to be fooled by a five o'clock news conference that says, “Here is a solution. The troops are on their way. We have the solution”. They will realize after a while it is very empty and shallow. It does not address the root causes of crime. It does not talk about whether methadone clinics are good or bad. The Conservatives' philosophy is to get on the news and to talk tough. We have to remember that John Wayne was just an actor in the movies. He was not a real person and he was not a real conservative. They seem to be acting like John Wayne.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, if the record of the hon. gentlemen and his party was so good, why, after his party's 13 years in government, do we still have crime in Canada? For crying out loud, if the Liberals did such a great job, why do we still have crime? I guess they fixed it all and then, on January 23, 2006, it sprang out of nowhere and here we are.

I seriously believe that the hon. member wants to be tough on all aspects of crime. I think one of the problems is that there are a lot of people in his party who are quite a bit to the political left of where he is. I think a lot of them have relied on their twin pillars of touchy and feely a bit too much.

I would ask my hon. colleague, did this all just start again on January 23, 2006? Get real.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to talk about the two pillars of touchy and feely. There is nothing but propriety over here. I might talk about the two chains of throw them away and forget about them, which is kind of what the Conservative philosophy is.

I appreciate the member's comments about us. I think I have spoken in this House enough and all of us are united in wanting safe communities. We all want safe communities. We are trying to have a legitimate debate about how to do that. I am just encouraging the Conservative government to open its eyes like that puppy and see that there are other things out there that might help to eliminate and curb criminal activity. It starts very small and it continues on after people get out of prison.

When the Vancouver Board of Trade agrees there is more to crime than just throwing legislation at it, I really do think there is a moment for non-partisan co-operation to try to fix this. Here we are agreeing with some of the Conservatives' legislation, but urging them and encouraging them to do more, to open their eyes and to just stop trying to be John Wayne.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's understanding of this complex issue and his reluctance to take on the simplistic answers that I am hearing from the other side.

Of course we on this side of the House are supporting issues that would make our communities safer. However, he is stressing the fact that these are real people who are concerned and that these are complex issues that start with families, communities, health care, education, social services and the kinds of things the Conservative government has failed to see.

I wonder whether or not the particular costs of the corrections system are something that are of concern to the member, looking at the inadequate services for mental health for inmates, for corrections and for helping people who one day will get out of jail.

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

Mr. Speaker, I know the member comes from a background in the ministry. He cares about people and he knows that even if we are all created equal, which I think is in the Bible, we do not all have the same opportunities growing up.

It is so evident when we look at the statistics with respect to people who commit crimes and people who are recidivists. That is again something the Conservative government has ignored. The high incidence of aboriginal inmates has not been looked at thoroughly. We deal at the justice committee only with the bill du jour.

I must say this is not within the domain of the justice committee, but on the issue of public safety, there is no better case to illustrates the lack of attention to corrections issues than the case of Moncton native Ashley Smith who died cold and alone in a cell where she was with other inmates who did not have mental health issues, other inmates who were not children, teens or youth, other inmates who were not women.

For women, youth and the mentally ill, our system is inadequate, and it should be addressed by the public safety minister. It has been a couple of weeks now. There has been no response, but we will be on it. We will continue. It is our job for Canadians and we will do that.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like clarification on what the Liberal position is on the mandatory minimums. I heard the member speak extensively about a broader strategy, but this bill actually focuses on mandatory minimums for drug crimes.

As we have already pointed out in the House today, there is a wealth of evidence to show there is no deterrent in bringing in mandatory minimums particularly for drug crimes.

I wonder if the Liberals are actually supportive of mandatory minimums in terms of drug crimes. Are they opposed to them in principle? Are they willing to look at the bill and move it around a bit? Really, what is their position? I have not heard that very clearly today.

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

Mr. Speaker, our position is that the bill will go to committee and be studied.

To say that there is a unanimous opinion that mandatory minimums do not work in some cases on drug offences or otherwise is just not true.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

I said overwhelming.

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

If I could finish, Mr. Speaker, that is why we have a committee.

If the member sits there and says that she wants to be the committee, Parliament and the Governor General, that is fine with me, but that is not the way our system works. The hon. member just spoke eloquently on how we all have a right to speak and think. The committee will examine this.

A well-known criminal lawyer who teaches drug policy at the University of Ottawa has said that these tougher penalties, the mandatory minimums, might work for the ma and pa producer and the youth. It might be a deterrent and it might work, but it might not work for organized crime. That is the kind of nitty-gritty issue the committee will delve into.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in the House on Bill C-15. Once again, as I said last week about the bill of my colleague from Jeanne-Le Ber, it feels like everyone in the House is stuck inside the movie Groundhog Day, because we keep going over the same bills. This bill was introduced by the last Minister of Justice in the last Parliament. It has been amended a bit to give more mention to rehabilitation, but not enough to really change anything.

As my colleague has said, this government seems to want to bring in bills that are wholly punitive, rather than to think about the underlying reasons why youth and others end up involved with crime and criminals.

First and foremost, we absolutely must address the causes and effects of crime. We are well aware that our young people between the ages of 15 and 24, who account for 2.5% of drug users, find themselves very much at loose ends in the economic crisis we are experiencing at present. Often their families are unemployed but do not have access to EI benefits. Often family members have been without work for more than a year and so are no longer receiving benefits. They are living in obvious poverty and the government is doing nothing for them.

When young people find themselves in situations like this, it is certainly harder for them to have to deal with reality and easier to take the easy way out. I do not mean to imply that I am in favour of that. Believe me, it is awful to see young people addicted to meth or crack, and not anything we want to see happen to our children.

When the matter of imposing minimum sentences comes up, however, it is very important to keep in mind that in the American states that have minimum sentences, such as California, Florida and Montana, they have opted for leaving the possibility for prosecutors and courts to set lesser sentences than the minimum imposed for certain offences.

In Canada, on the other hand, judges have no choice but to impose the minimum sentence set out for a given offence. This means that young people, who have undeniably made serious mistakes, will end up with minimum sentences from which they will learn nothing. Nothing whatsoever is learned in prison.

It is also disappointing that the bill does not contain measures to help youth and adults get off drugs. As mentioned earlier by my colleague for Vancouver East, some projects are working very well. For example, InSite, in Vancouver, was very effective and significantly reduced risks associated with injection drugs.

However, the government does not believe that these are good programs. Even though the World Health Organization, the mayor and police of Vancouver and doctors say that InSite is a good program, the Minister of Health says that the government does not want it, that it is not a good program, that we absolutely must rid ourselves of anyone who takes illicit drugs and that we should get rid of InSite. That is not how we will fix the problem.

Jailing those addicted to injection drugs, often means condemning them to becoming infected with HIV.

Quite often, those incarcerated who used cannabis or other so-called soft drugs, but not injection drugs, end up with very different drug habits and often end up taking injection drugs. When that happens, they may not necessarily have the tools to take the drugs safely. Thus, 30 or 40 inmates share a needle and we end up with a multitude of AIDS and HIV cases that makes the prison population increasingly dangerous. Our children leave these prisons after using drugs in those conditions without knowing that they are HIV positive. Quite often, it is possible for individuals to live with HIV for many years before testing positive for AIDS. In the meantime, they can unwittingly pass it on to many others.

I realize that the government probably had good intentions when drafting this bill. However, it has to be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in order for it to be amended and better reflect the society in which we live.

Even though the bill did not pass last year, we know that offences committed by drug users decreased by 3% last year. Since the crime rate went down without any incentives—like prison sentences that would prevent people from wanting to commit offences—why are some people in such a hurry to impose minimum sentences to ensure that young people do not use drugs? That is not how it works. Telling someone that if they are caught with 3 kg of marijuana they will go to prison for two years will not necessarily stop that person from walking around with 3 kg of marijuana in their possession, when that is their bread and butter. If that is their livelihood, that person is probably not going to stop selling marijuana.

There are other ways to teach our young people and the general public that drugs are not necessarily the solution to problems. As a woman, I know many women struggle with this phenomenon. They are forced to deal with spouses who use drugs or who unfortunately sell drugs. That is another problem. Indeed, as is usually the case, women cannot count on this government's support for things like violence against women and matters of employment insurance. If their spouse can no longer sell drugs, they will only end up on the street that much faster. I see my colleague from the Standing Committee on the Status of Women smiling. She understands very well why I say this. I will not say her name, but she knows who she is.

This bill goes much too far in the use of minimum sentences. It goes much too far in terms of Conservative ideological thinking. It does nothing to ensure that our youth and other people do not use or sell drugs. The only thing this bill does is give the Conservatives some good publicity, while they do nothing about the root causes of drug use.

That is really too bad, because for years now, we have been saying, over and over, that we need programs to make sure that our young people, victims and drug addicts—those addicted to either soft or hard drugs—can get into detox and overcome their problems without having to go to jail.

It is really sad to see that the government wants to send 14-, 15-, and 16-year-old kids to jail for reasons like that. Of course, nobody wants to see anyone die because of a drug addiction. That is what happens when people are addicted to heroin, morphine, cocaine and crack. We have all seen documentaries that are truly horrifying, the stuff of nightmares for mothers, but at the same time, as a mother, I absolutely do not want my child to be sent to jail for this kind of offence. I would rather my child receive the help he needs to get clean. We have seen terrifying documentaries.

When the Conservatives talk about their programs and bills, everything they say is about penalties and criminalization. They never talk about rehabilitation and ways to help people. That is a shame because it creates a really bad image.

Quebeckers heard enough about penalties for juvenile delinquents during last year's election campaign, and they let the Conservatives know what they thought. They have not changed their minds. No matter what our Conservative colleagues tell us, Quebeckers know that rehabilitation—helping young people overcome their addictions—is always better than sentencing them to even short periods of jail time.

A couple of years ago, we sought assurance that the Minister of Health would extend the mandate of Vancouver's InSite for at least a year. When he did so, he and I spoke at length, because I really believed in his ability to recognize the importance of such programs.

In Quebec there are a number of programs that meet the needs of drug users who want to get off drugs. There are a number of places that look after young people who want to quit, and a number of free programs for them, such as Maison Jean-Lapointe, as well as many other detox centres where our youth can go. Very often these enable our young people to leave much for the better, stronger and better equipped for life, and without any criminal conviction that would very likely end up making them criminals for life.

My colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin has a long history with the justice sector in Quebec and has experience with such subjects and cases. He has even defended drug addicts and seen some of them do well when he has sent them to detox and helped them to understand the importance of getting clean and rehabilitated. It does work.

Contrary to what our Conservative colleagues tell us, minimum sentences do not work. They do not work in the U.S. where crime is on the increase. This has been observed for years, ever since minimum sentences were introduced, and the system does not work any better. Judges have to work out ways within their various jurisdictions to get prosecutors and the American justice system to deviate from the law and allow them to set the sentences themselves. They are very much aware that minimum sentences do not work and that, very often, they are far too heavy for the crime committed.

I hope that we in this House will not again make the mistake of not listening to the Department of Justice. They produced a very good document explaining all this and saying that there should not be any minimum sentences here, because judges do not have the right to set lesser sentences.

I hope our colleagues will think very hard before passing this bill without amendments or changes.

For our part, we certainly want to study it in the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, where my colleague from Hochelagawill take pleasure in examining it in depth and making the necessary changes. He too is very familiar with the minds of Quebeckers and with the spirit of the law. Most of all, he knows that if we want justice to be equitable, we must have the means first to make it so.

To do that, we must start by putting money where it counts. We must start by putting money into social housing and into programs to support families and fight poverty. We have to make sure that all men, women and children have enough to eat, pay the rent and find happiness.

One of the chief reasons why people take drugs, whether hard or soft, is they think drugs will make them happy, when in actual fact, they do not do anything for them, except make them dead in all too many cases.

Once again, I hope my colleagues will think twice before passing this bill too quickly. That is what the Minister of Justice apparently wanted this morning. I hope he will reconsider and be a little less strident in his demands for us to pass it quickly

We should ensure that the bill accurately reflects the needs of Canadians and not just the ideology of the governing Conservative Party.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague across the way and I want to correct a false impression that has been fostered by people across the way about the allegation that this government is not doing anything on the prevention side. Three or four things pop quickly to hand.

On April 28, 2008, the Minister of Justice and the minister of health and public safety at the time announced a drug treatment fund of $111 million to boost drug treatments that are available to young people at risk. On August 12, 2008, the Minister of Justice also announced a program in Prince Edward Island with $300,000 to improve addiction support programs and services for youth in conflict with the law.

In the province of British Columbia, there are five programs in a number of areas. These include: the Surrey Board of Education's Wraparound Surrey: A Youth Driven Comprehensive Plan for Gang Violence Prevention; in Vancouver, Creating Health Aboriginal Role Models, otherwise called CHARM; the McCreary Centre Society's Aboriginal Next Steps II: Aboriginal Youth Getting’ Busy in the Community; Urban Native Youth Association's Aboriginal Youth First: Sports and Recreation Program for Vancouver Downtown Eastside; the College of New Caledonia, Lakes District Campus' Youth Outreach Program.

There are millions of dollars in those programs and those are but a few examples. To say that we are concentrating only on the punitive end is simply untrue and that impression should not be left with the Canadian public.

This bill will go to committee where I am sure it will be studied carefully. It was mentioned that mandatory minimums can deter mom and pop. It was agreed on the other side that that was a good idea and I support that. I also accept that mandatory minimums may not deter organized crime but maybe criminals of organized crime ought to be spending their time in jail in any event.

I am not sure if my colleague really meant this but it is what she said and I want a clarification. She implied that keeping drug dealers in business so that wives of drug dealers may not be financially disadvantaged would be a good idea or somehow fair. I would like her to clarify that.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly did not want to imply that it was good to keep drug dealers in business. What I wanted to say is that before imposing legislation like this, we should be absolutely certain that everything has been done to make sure that people are not forced to make a living this way.

That is something the government has not done. The government is not doing it and has no intention of doing it. We saw it with employment insurance, we saw it with pay equity, and we saw it with social housing. We have seen it everywhere.

Before passing legislation like this, we should ensure that people can live their lives fully, because that is something to which they are entitled.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member from the Bloc for what I would call her common sense approach to this question. I am glad she focused on young people and drug use and what happens to young people when they become incarcerated as opposed to focusing on education, prevention and treatment.

Treatment is a huge issue. I must take issue with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence who just put out a bunch of information to imply that somehow the government was doing all this stuff around treatment and prevention by announcing a few projects here and there. The fact is, however, that, in terms of the drug strategy, over 70% of the federal resources are going to enforcement. Even the Auditor General, in her report a few years ago, raised the question as to why so much money was being spent on enforcement and what kind of value it had.

I am not sure if the hon. member is familiar with a group called Canadian Students for Sensible Drug Policy. It is a new organization that actually started in Montreal. They are saying that they do not want this bill to go ahead in their name because young people are being almost exploited by the Conservatives who are saying that this is being done to protect young people. Young people understand that this kind of bill is one where young people will end up in jail and will not get the treatment they need.

I wonder if the member would comment on the fact that the Conservative government has dropped things like harm reduction, prevention and treatment and has focused on enforcement. Does she think that anything has improved as a result of that?

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague. This is indeed a major problem with the Conservative government. It does nothing to ensure that children and even adults have what they need to avoid turning to drugs or some similar path. I am not familiar with the organization to which my colleague referred, but the members can rest assured that I will meet with them to make sure that people are familiarized with their position. It is true that this is not what our young people want. I do not think that any young person in Canada or Quebec wants to go to prison just to please a few Conservative ideologues.

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

Mr. Speaker, through you, I would like to ask the hon. member a question. I understand that she has great compassion and sympathy for young people, and that is also the case for us, whatever they may think. I would like to ask the following question.

There is now a court that deals with drug addiction. The court is established in the antidrug legislation and is involved with treatment for drug addiction. There are drug courts in Ottawa, Toronto, Winnipeg, Regina, Edmonton and Vancouver. Since Bloc members always say that they represent the interests of Quebec, I would like to know why there are no such courts in Montreal or Quebec City. Can she explain that to me? From the outset, these courts have been there to protect young people, to help them get off drugs and to provide them with assistance because it is clearly not in their interests to send them to prison. Since they often say that they represent the Quebec National Assembly, why do these courts not exist in Quebec?

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, much as I would like to represent the National Assembly, I do not. We often stand up for the decisions of the National Assembly in this House because no one else does. We do not represent the National Assembly, but rather the citizens of our ridings who have given us their trust and elected us.

I would like the hon. member to tell me if he is aware of a report released in Belgium on March 10. The report looks at the drug situation around the world. It noted that, until 2006, there was a levelling-off in the growth of opium and the various drugs that can be made from opium, but that, since 2006, shockingly since the time that so much money has been poured into Afghanistan, there has been exponential growth in drugs like opium in that country. Nothing like it has ever been seen before. Can he explain how he thinks that his army is going to be able to put a stop to that growth over there rather than trying to put a stop to our children's lives here?

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the participation of the hon. member in the important debate this afternoon.

I want to ask the hon. member about the observation of a retired judge from British Columbia, Jerry Paradis, a spokesperson now for Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, when he reflected on mandatory minimum sentences, said that they were “a great motivator for trials” and “jamming up the courts. Unless a deal is struck...a charge carrying a...minimum sentence will be fought tooth and nail”.

Could the hon. member reflect on the way that mandatory minimum sentences clog the courts and if there has been any experience of that in Quebec?

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member very much for his question about minimum sentences.

The Quebec Bar has always taken a position against minimum sentences. Of course, there are penalties for criminal acts, but it is important that it be left up to judges to decide on sentences for criminals. With their great wisdom and experience, they best know the nature of the criminal behaviour, the background of the person before them, how the person became a criminal, and how they can best help that person.

Up until now, we can say that Quebec is a success story right across the board, because our rehabilitation rate is the best in the country.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-15, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Halifax has approximately 11 minutes left.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, before oral questions I was presenting proof to this House that drug use continues to rise in Canada. In 1994, 28% of Canadians reported to have used illicit drugs, but by 2004, the number was 45%, almost double. This is what happens when a government is not smart on crime.

I had the pleasure of visiting the Salvation Army's Booth Centre in Halifax last week. The Booth Centre offers addiction and rehabilitation services in both Halifax, Nova Scotia and Saint John, New Brunswick. The centre's services include group therapy, individual counselling and classes in life skills and relapse prevention. The centre includes a homeless shelter for men that offers hot meals and personal supports to the men.

Robert Lundrigan, the assistant executive director, gave me a tour of the centre. During our tour, I saw quite a few familiar faces. One familiar face was a man with whom I had worked to help find housing back at Dalhousie Legal Aid when I was working there. He had been referred to me by the Booth Centre. Since he was in the drug counselling program, he was looking to move out of the shelter and into affordable safe housing of his own. I was so pleased to see him. He was at the Booth Centre, not because he had not gotten through the program, not because he had relapsed, not because he had fallen off the wagon, but in fact he was there as a volunteer. He was clean and he was giving back to his community.

I joined Mr. Lundrigan for lunch with some of his colleagues at the centre. Over lunch, I had the distinct pleasure of meeting Rick MacDonald. Rick had come through the rehabilitation program. He had been homeless and addicted. He was now clean and he was employed as an addictions counsellor himself, offering supports and strength to men who are currently in the situation that Rick had managed to get out of.

We talked about the work of the centre. I raised the fact that Bill C-15 would be debated in this hon. House. He was quite interested to hear about it. I started telling him about the changes to the minimum sentences and he cut me off and asked whether there was any money for treatment in this bill. I said no. He asked me whether there was money for supportive housing. I had to say no. He told me that it is not going to work, that they need treatment and housing, that they need supportive housing.

He told me about how he hits the streets as part of his job. He looks for men who are addicted and who are homeless hiding in the nooks and crannies of Halifax that we have forgotten about. He finds men living under bridges and in the bushes. He checks on them to see if they are okay and to see if they are ready to take the first step toward dealing with their addictions, which is getting housed and getting into treatment.

If the government were serious about its war on drugs, it would support us in our call for a national housing strategy.

My colleague from Vancouver East has introduced private member's Bill C-304, An Act to ensure secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing for Canadians. It is due for second reading on April 2. This bill would legislate the government to develop a national housing strategy, one that would consider investments in not-for-profit housing, housing for the homeless, housing that is sustainable and environmental, and access to housing for those with different needs, including seniors and persons with disabilities. That includes supportive housing, supportive housing that Rick knows is vital to getting the men he works with off drugs and out of the cycle of crime and violence, and the jail they find themselves in.

If passed, Bill C-304 would tie together Canada's current patchwork of homelessness and housing initiatives and it would mandate the government to create a plan that is effective and comprehensive.

I talked about this housing bill at the Booth Centre. People there asked for a copy. They asked me if there was a petition about the bill. These people are staff at an addictions and rehabilitation centre and they are getting excited about a bill about housing because they understand what a positive impact a national housing strategy would have on the work that they do fighting against the stranglehold that drugs have on their friends.

Since my election to this hon. House last October, less than six months ago, I have seen time and time again examples like this, where the community gets the problem, the community gets the solutions, but the government gets neither.

The government thinks that throwing people in jail is the solution, that prison is going to fix everything, that this is great federal leadership, that it is tough on crime. However, it will be the provincial police forces, courts and legal aid and treatment centres that will bear the greatest burden of the cost for the initiatives under this bill. Craig Jones from the John Howard Society has said, “The feds will crack down on crime, but the provinces will be punished”.

With 12 of the 24 proposed mandatory sentences under a two year duration, it will be the provincial prison populations that continue to grow. HIV and AIDS advocates worry about the growing rate of infection in overcrowded prisons already. The B.C. Government and Service Employees' Union has spoken out publicly about this issue, saying that Canada's prisons are overcrowded and “boiling over with violence”.

The costs of this approach are remarkable. The annual average cost of incarcerating an individual male in Canada is about $74,000 at the minimum security level and over $110,000 at the maximum security level. That is $110,000 a year for each person who is scooped up by these mandatory minimums, yet we do not see any money in this bill that would go toward ensuring that people do not end up in jail in the first place.

This is not being smart on crime. It is smoke and mirrors. I feel it necessary to point out that in 2005 the Conservatives promised 1,000 additional RCMP and 2,500 additional municipal police officers, which they have failed to deliver.

If this bill is not smart on crime, what would that bill look like? How about this: an overall coordinated strategy focused on gangs and organized crime; an improved witness protection program; more resources for prosecution and enforcement; toughened proceeds of crime legislation; more officers on the street, as promised by the Conservatives but not yet delivered; and better and more prevention programs to divert youth at risk.

This approach is smart on crime and this is the approach the NDP is calling for. In 2002 the House Special Committee on the Non-Medical Use of Drugs, the Officer of the Auditor General and the Senate committee made a call for how to deal with the drug situation in Canada. Their recommendations were strengthened leadership, coordination and accountability with dedicated resources, enhanced data collection to set measurable objectives, and increased emphasis on prevention, treatment and rehabilitation. They all seem to get it. All of us seem to get it, except for the government.

In conclusion, Bill C-15 increases the already imbalanced and over-funded enforcement approach to drug use in Canada without reducing crime rates or drug use. It is an oversimplification of drug use in Canada and targets street-level users and small-time traffickers. It does not address the problems of violent or organized crime.

The Conservatives are taking Canada in the wrong direction. It is a direction that is expensive, has no effect on drug use and will only increase the prison population, creating a whole new set of problems with overpopulation, and health, safety and crime problems within the prison system.

Canada must have a balanced approach to drug use. The four pillar approach of prevention, treatment, harm reduction and enforcement has been successful in Europe and it is being adopted by big city mayors right here in Canada. That is what we call being smart on crime.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Madam Speaker, I listened to my colleague's comments and thought they were very good. We may have some issues with the differences in how our parties are dealing with this bill, but I suspect that we share the same belief that we should be doing more to look at the causes of crime, addiction and what one might call the social ills of society.

She comes from an area that is very close to mine. Last week I had a meeting with poverty advocates in my constituency. I know that she has done some work in this area. I would think that if one really wanted to make a difference in the streets of Halifax, rather than invest in more prisons, one would invest in Phoenix Youth Programs, Lang House, the North End Community Health Centre, Boys and Girls Clubs Canada, and things that would help to provide a solid foundation.

This may not seem directly related to this bill, but I think it is. I would like to ask her specifically about the impact that early learning and child care could have in making sure that kids get off to a better start so that they do not find themselves in trouble with the law. There are people in Halifax, such as Sue Wolstenholme, who have been champions of early learning and child care for many years in our community.

I wonder if the member would comment on what kind of impact it would have if Canada had a real early learning and child care program that was based on quality, that was universally available, accessible to all and developmentally based. Canada is at the very bottom of the OECD nations in terms of how much we invest in early learning and child care. I wonder if she could comment on how much of a difference that might make as opposed to coming at the back end of the problem.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour for his questions. He made me a little bit homesick with all those references to some great organizations both in his riding and in my riding. We do work with a lot of the same people. Dartmouth and Halifax are right across the harbour from each other. We work with a lot of the same social problems as well.

I agree with the member absolutely about early learning and child care.

If we go back to the four pillars of prevention, treatment, harm reduction and enforcement, that is clearly prevention.

I would want to separate the two because I strongly believe that early learning is quite different than child care. There are such amazing things we can do with our kids from zero to five. Right now our school system starts at about age five and that is where they actually are taught and interact with other kids, but zero to five is a really critical time.

I have seen firsthand the impact of a parent's involvement with drugs or even a parent living in poverty, and the way that life in poverty affects children who are zero to five. They are not able to participate, they are not able to engage, they are socially excluded, and I agree with the member that this is where it starts.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Madam Speaker, I heard the hon. member for Halifax say before the break that whether or not we move certain drugs from schedule III to schedule I is not something most Canadians concern themselves with.

I disagree. One of the things that the bill will do is move GHB and other so-called date rape drugs from schedule III to schedule I, which would mean that those who traffic these kinds of drugs would be subject to higher maximum sentences.

In fact, I think this is one of the most important things about the bill. As the member should know, date rape is something that primarily affects women. I believe it is absolutely essential that we pass the bill so that those who deal in these kinds of drugs, and we are talking about sexual predators who victimize women, are given the appropriate sentences.

Does the member for Halifax honestly not agree with the importance of this step?

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, I want to clarify what I said. I did not say that most people were not concerned about whether drugs were being moved from schedule III to I or vice versa. I said that people who are addicted to drugs do not really care about that. They are addicted.

However, concerning date rape drugs, this is a huge issue. It is very much a women's issue. Who knows? Perhaps we should look at taking date rape drugs out because that is not what the bill is about. The bill is not about date rape drugs. If that were the big pressing issue, then we would have a bill about date rape drugs. What we are doing is creating these mandatory minimums.

I would like to share with the member a conversation, an email exchange, that I have been having with a professor at Dalhousie Law School about these kinds of changes and mandatory minimums. That is what the bill is really about.

He pointed out that a huge problem with the Criminal Code is the practice of making ad hoc changes on a regular basis that are entirely inconsistent with each other. The last comprehensive review of the sentencing provisions by Parliament specifically aimed at reducing the use of jail. Section 718.2(e) states: “All available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances should be considered for all offenders“.

This proposal flies in the face of that, preventing the use of anything but imprisonment.

Further, I would point out why a minimum sentence for having one marijuana plant when say manslaughter does not even have a minimum sentence. Aggravated sexual assault, section 273, has no minimum sentence. Abduction of a child under 14 has no minimum sentence. Abandoning a child under 10, so its life is likely to be endangered, section 218, has no minimum sentence.

However, if someone has a marijuana plant we are going to send them away to jail for six months. This is ad-hockery at its worse.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, right now the major drug problem in my region is OxyContin. OxyContin abuse has caused deaths across Ontario. Some 460 deaths have been directly ascribed, not counting many more that were probably indirectly related to OxyContin.

I am involved in the OxyContin task force in Timmins and Kirkland Lake. If one talks to police and community organizations, police are having to take on roles as social workers because there are no treatment programs in place. An enormous amount of police energy is spent dealing with many people who became addicted. Many people went in to get a doctor's prescription and were not told they were being given a form of morphine. A large number of addictions have occurred as a result of people who legitimately went to their doctor with a problem and ended up with a serious addiction.

I have spoken with those families. I know many Conservatives in the backbenches snicker, but I have talked to these people whose lives have been ruined. When they are stuck and end up on the street, they end up becoming a police problem. The police say to us that this is a medical problem and they need resources in dealing with drugs to help people. For them it is not an issue of crime, but of protecting these people.

It is not just in my region, but right across Ontario. Drugs like OxyContin are the main problem.

The government's response is that someone with a pot plant is going to get a minimum sentence. It seems to me that the government is completely missing the boat in terms of public safety and health, and providing resources to health workers and police who need them. I would like the hon. member to comment.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for the wonderful advocacy he does in his riding. My home town is Kirkland Lake, Ontario, which is in the hon. member's riding. I hear so many great stories from my family about the wonderful advocacy he does there.

The hon. member's story certainly rings true in Halifax, as well. OxyContin is not as big an issue in Halifax, but we certainly have an issue with it in Cape Breton, and there are a lot of other drugs in Halifax.

When the hon. member said in particular that police officers are forced to be social workers, that resonated so much with me as a legal aid worker.

I would have people come to me and say they needed to stay housed. They were having problems with their landlord and they asked me to help them. I would try. I would tell them they were late on rent and I would call their landlord to negotiate a settlement. We would go to residential tenancies and make up a payment plan.

Often, clients would not be able to keep that payment plan. They would come back and say, “I screwed up. I did not pay this. I do not know what to do. I am going to be evicted”. So we would redraft the plan: what are we going to do? There was a constant redrafting of the plan. Obviously, something was up.

When I would talk to the client, it would come out that they had addictions and were on a waiting list for treatment. While I was doing my best to work within the legal system to try to help them stay housed, the biggest enemy was not the landlord, and not even the client, it was the drugs, the addiction.

We are in a situation where a legal aid worker is forced to become a social worker. What do I know about helping people kick their habits? Not much. However, we need to do this. We need to look at prevention and treatment.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in this debate this afternoon on Bill C-15, which is an act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

This is similar legislation to legislation that was introduced in the last Parliament, Bill C-26, and as we know, the early call of the election ended the life of that bill. It died on the order paper. If it were as crucial as Conservatives would have us believe, I wonder why we went to that early election. They had a mandate for four years, given their own legislation, but they chose to prorogue that Parliament and go to an election. We could have dealt with this already in Parliament.

This bill, and we have heard a lot about it today, really is about establishing mandatory minimum sentences for a whole range of drug crimes. That is one of the controversial aspects of this legislation. We have heard from many folks in the debate already about the problems associated with establishing mandatory minimum sentences.

We have heard the member for Halifax explain that having one marijuana plant could lead to a mandatory minimum sentence of six months in prison under this legislation. These are the kinds of things that this bill is establishing.

There has been some conversation this afternoon about the aspect of the bill that deals with date rape drugs, and I know that currently, under the Criminal Code, date rape drugs are already treated very seriously. Inducing or administering a stupefying substance to someone is a very serious criminal offence already under the Criminal Code of Canada.

That issue kind of misses the point about this legislation. This is really about establishing mandatory minimum sentences on a whole range of drug crimes.

We know very clearly, from the experiences primarily in the United States but even some of our own, that mandatory minimum sentences do not work. They do not work to reduce drug addiction. They do not work to make our communities safer.

We can look directly to Canadian government reports, to reports from our own justice department, that talk about the efficacy of mandatory minimum sentences. In 2002 the justice department concluded that mandatory minimum sentences were least effective when it comes to drug crimes. Despite that conclusion of the justice department, we have a bill here that is entirely concerned with mandatory minimum sentences for drug crimes.

The report specifically said:

Mandatory minimum sentences do not appear to influence drug consumption or drug-related crime in any measurable way. A variety of research methods concludes that treatment-based approaches are more cost effective than lengthy prison terms. MMS are blunt instruments that fail to distinguish between low and high-level, as well as hardcore versus transient drug dealers.

That is from the 2002 report “Mandatory Minimum Penalties: Their Effects on Crime, Sentencing Disparities, and Justice System Expenditures”. That is advice from our own Department of Justice on the issue of mandatory minimum sentences, specifically when it comes to drug crimes. We need to pay attention to that advice.

We have seen what has been done in other jurisdictions, jurisdictions in the United States, some of which got very heavily into mandatory minimum sentences such as Michigan and California, and now they have backed away.

Michigan in particular had harsh anti-drug laws, most of them the harshest in the United States. They included quite a number of mandatory minimum sentences for almost all drug offences. In 2004 Michigan started to back away from that and repeal those provisions because it found it was not working. It was not solving the problems and it was creating other problems for that state. California has repealed mandatory minimum sentences for minor drug offences. In fact, it is also now considering regulating marijuana, moving in a completely different direction from mandatory minimum sentencing.

Delaware and Massachusetts are also reviewing legislation around mandatory minimum sentences because they too have noticed that these kinds of mandatory minimum sentence regimes have not helped those states deal with the social impacts of drug use and addictions. They have not helped with the criminal aspects of the problem either.

One thing contemplated in the legislation is drug courts, and we have concerns about them. One of the problems with drug courts is that coercive treatment or mandatory treatment is often ineffective. We cannot force somebody into treatment unless they have made that personal commitment to go through that process.

Sometimes in drug courts people will agree to a treatment program as a way of avoiding jail time. That is not exactly the most effective way of going into a treatment program. People have to be there because they want to get better. They want to deal with the health implications of their addiction. It is a very difficult issue with which to deal.

We want to be careful about drug courts. There is some value in courts that have particular expertise in dealing with drug and addiction issues and those kinds of things. We want to ensure that our courts have those specialized skills. However, we have to be careful when it comes to coercing or requiring treatment. We know that is not effective.

There is also concern for our court system, for the progress of issues through our court system, clogging our court system as we deal with more mandatory minimum sentences. I want to read a quote from retired British Columbia judge, Jerry Paradis, who is a spokesperson for Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, which is a group of law enforcement officers, some current, some retired, and some judicial and court officials who oppose drug prohibition regimes. Former Judge Paradis said:

Mandatory minimums are also a great motivator for trials, jamming up the courts. Unless a deal is struck, it is a sure bet that a charge carrying...minimum sentence will be fought tooth and nail.

We know that when people who are charged with a crime face a minimum sentence, they often want to go to trial. It reduces the number of options available to the legal system because people are facing a mandatory minimum sentence if they are convicted of that crime.

Most of our courts are in crisis. The delays are long and there is a growing concern about the course of justice in that system. We need to consider very carefully anything that further jams up our courts. There are concerns the legislation will do that as well.

We also have to be concerned about the population of our prison system. If we are talking mandatory minimum sentences, we will be putting more people in jail for longer periods of time. We have heard how half of the new mandatory minimum sentences in the legislation are two years or less, which means those who are convicted will serve time in provincial prisons. We have to wonder if the provinces are prepared for the increase in prison population, which the legislation may mean for their jurisdictions.

Getting people into prison has not always been shown as the best way of dealing with reducing crime in our society. Sometimes we have said that prisons are a great place to develop one's criminal network. It is not a great place for rehabilitation. We have to examine very carefully any legislation that will increase the population of our prisons.

A lot of the provisions, mandatory minimum sentences being on of them, are provisions that came out of the U.S.-led war on drugs. The criminal approach to dealing with addiction and drug crime has been shown to be a huge failure. As I have noted already, many jurisdictions in the United States continue to re-examine that.

We need, instead, an approach that deals with drug and addiction issues as a health issue. We need to ensure that people have available to them the medical attention and the treatment they need to deal with their addictions. If we put as many resources into that as we do into enforcement, we would see some very positive results for our society and for people who are our neighbours, friends and family members. We need to pay more attention to that.

We have heard how 73% of federal funding and funding related to the drug issue goes into enforcement work and much lower levels go into treatment, prevention and harm reduction. There is a very clear indication of the bias of the government when it comes to how to deal with issues related to drug use. I agree with others who have said that we need to turn those statistics around and ensure that we value each of those four pillars related to how to more appropriately deal with drugs and drug addiction in our society.

We need to fund the other pillars equally, as we do enforcement. The federal government has chosen to put all of its eggs in the enforcement basket and we have not seen effective returns on that expenditure.

Many people are questioning the drug prohibition regime that we are under. I want to quote from a letter that I found as I was researching this. It was written by the directing attorney of Prisoner Legal Services in the City and County of San Francisco's sheriff's office, a woman named Carol Ruth Silver. It is taken from her letter of resignation, which she tendered back on January 30 of this year. She stated:

—I have found myself having to bite my tongue in talking to some prisoners about their charges -- at least half of them with nonviolent drug charges. I find it difficult to discuss the financial or child custody problems of a prisoner, when I cannot look them in the eye and justify their being in jail. His or her incarceration is as a result of their own actions, but much more so as a result of a mistaken, unfair, and unjust set of laws which criminalize drugs in our society, based on the failed model of Prohibition of alcohol which we enacted and then repealed.

Each of such prisoners is in our jail only because of our bad politics of drug regulation. It is this set of policies which is the most direct cause of the continued excessive incarceration rates in the US.

This is an attorney working in the sheriff's office in a major United States city who could not continue in that position because of the problems that she had recognized stemmed from the regime of drug prohibition. She had to leave that position because she could no longer deal with the contradictions and the difficulties that placed her in as she tried to work in that office.

It is important to remember the history of alcohol prohibition. The United States went very seriously into alcohol prohibition back in the 1920s and 1930s and made it illegal, prohibited it, in exactly the same way that drugs are prohibited today in Canada. If we look at the history of what happened with alcohol prohibition, we will see not a close parallel but an exact parallel to what is happening in our society today with regard to drugs.

I want to give some examples that are in a report called “We Can Do It Again: Repealing Today's Failed Prohibition”, which is presented by Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, an organization of law enforcement and court officials who are working on ending drug prohibition, and the Criminal Justice Policy Foundation of the United States. They reviewed some of what happened under alcohol prohibition. If we go over these points, we will see the exact parallel to what is happening in our society today.

They note that sociologists who looked it in the United States noticed that alcohol became associated during the period of prohibition with a rebellious, adventurous lifestyle, which increased its desirability, especially among the young. A detrimental effect of prohibition was to increase alcohol's popularity.

They also note that alcohol, even though prohibition had been enacted, remained fully present in daily urban life and that in New York City before prohibition there were 15,000 saloons. Five years into prohibition, those saloons were replaced by as many as 32,000 underground speakeasies. There was a huge trend toward more alcohol consumption and a greater presence of alcohol in urban life after prohibition.

They further noted that when alcohol was prohibited, the alcohol that was available was in its most concentrated and potent form, a natural result of the costs involved in smuggling and concealing it.

They note that beer and wine were largely replaced by liquor in illegal speakeasies because of this trend. We have seen exactly that same trend with regard to drugs in our society. More potent drugs are more available now, directly as a result of these policies.

They note that under prohibition, providing liquor to meet the public demand required industrial scale production and distribution, and it was enormously profitable. The inevitable result was the creation of modern organized crime syndicates.

They also note that the Great Depression made things even worse as people looked for ways to replace lost income and lost jobs. They actually found employment with alcohol smugglers.

They note that under alcohol prohibition, the homicide rate reached unprecedented levels, as gangsters struggled for control of the very lucrative alcohol market by killing each other, police officers and any innocent citizen who stood in the way of their immense untaxed profits.

There could be no greater example or parallel than exactly what is happening in Vancouver today. I think 38 people have been shot as a result of the gang drug wars and approximately 17 people have been killed as a result of that.

The period of alcohol prohibition actually led to increased violence, increased organized crime activity and gang activity. We see exactly that same trend today.

They also note that public health suffered during the period of alcohol prohibition. In New York City, alone, there was a 525% increase in deaths related to alcoholism and alcohol poisonings during the first six years of prohibition because there was no oversight of the manufacture of alcohol. Bathtub gin, for instance, was often very dangerous and often blinded or killed people who imbibed. We have seen exactly the same thing with the bad drugs that are on our streets today during this period of drug prohibition.

They make the point that courts were clogged with alcohol prohibition related offences back during the period of alcohol prohibition in the United States. They also note that public respect for the rule of the law suffered greatly because the court process was slowed down and because there was such widespread disrespect for the law on alcohol prohibition. It had further ramifications about people's respect for the whole legal system. We have seen that in Canada as a result of our drug prohibition policies.

Finally, the report concludes that during the period of alcohol prohibition in the United States, vital services and programs had to be cut because, in addition to the expensive costs of prohibition enforcement, government budgets were deprived of tax revenue from alcohol sales, from alcohol industry workers' salaries, and the properties where alcohol was produced, stored and consumed.

Because the alcohol industry was underground, it was not taxed and it affected government revenues in a serious way, a way that would have assisted in dealing with some of the social problems that can normally be associated with alcohol. We see that today in our society with regard to drug prohibition issues.

Concerns about drug prohibition and ending drug prohibition are not way out there. The Fraser Institute, a fairly conservative think tank in Vancouver, back in 2001 called for an end to drug prohibition. It was said in very strong terms. It did not mince words about how inappropriate and costly this continued approach was to our society.

Also, the Health Officers' Council of British Columbia has called for a major social initiative around coming up with better drug regulation policies. We are not talking about removing all drug regulations. We know there still needs to be a regulatory regime in place, but an appropriate one. The health officers of British Columbia have also raised concerns about drug prohibition as a strict policy and have said that we need to face the health implications and get on with coming with a better regulatory regime in Canada. I do not believe the bill is a step in that direction, which is the way we should go.

I look forward to seeing our society fully engage in that kind of process in the very near future. The time when we should be working on these issues in a very serious way has passed.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague is a long-time resident of British Columbia where there are a lot of concerns about this, and not just there but right across the country.

Could he elaborate more on a personal level? Could he tell us of any particular individuals or experiences he has faced, not just as an MP but also as a constituency representative for the previous member of Parliament, Svend Robinson, in some of his dealings with people who are going through the very issue that this bill is trying to address?

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

Madam Speaker, I think we have all had to deal with issues of addiction. I suspect that not many people in Canada have not had a family member, a friend or a colleague who has dealt with addiction. Most people struggling with addiction are not the people we see living on the streets in our cities' urban cores or getting into trouble with the police. Most addicts are people who look exactly like those of us who sit here in the House of Commons. Most of us know there are drug addicts who go to work every day, support their families and live with those addictions and those circumstances. When we talk about addiction as if it is a problem of a particular neighbourhood in our cities, we are missing the point about dealing with addictions.

I want to come back to a point the member for Halifax raised and it is one that has been drawn to my attention by a number of the people I know who struggle with addiction and who struggle with treatment for addiction. It is the whole issue of people trying to get treatment immediately when they are ready to go to it. The moment people who are struggling with addiction want to deal it by getting treatment, there should be a place for them. The moment we put that off for someone, we know we have lost. When people are put on a waiting list and then called in a couple of weeks, the moment has usually passed and getting them into a successful treatment program has gone. They will wait months, perhaps years or maybe never for that moment to return. Treatment is a very crucial issue and we need more of treatment places.

The member for Halifax alluded to the need for supportive housing for people who go through an addiction treatment process. When someone emerges from treatment, they need to be removed from where they were before, which was often with friends where addiction was the focal point of their life. These people need a home where they can find support to remain clean and sober and one that does not get them back into the circle of friends and acquaintances who were part of the problem they were experiencing before. We do not have that kind of supportive housing available in most of our communities. We need a much more extensive and broader national housing program that not only deals with the need for affordable housing, but with the need for supportive housing for people coming out of treatment programs for alcohol and drug addiction. That is a huge problem that is not being addressed in Canada now.

This is not a program that will be addressed by a one-time only injection of money into housing programs. We need a consistent, ongoing, regular national housing program with significant ongoing and multi-year participation by the federal government.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, my colleague's intervention was very passionate and I know it comes from his many years of experience on this issue, especially working with constituents on this issue.

My question for the member concerns the effectiveness of this legislation. It seems to me that quite a few provisions in the bill are redundant. For example, Canada does have extensive organized crime legislation that says that participation in a criminal organization is an offence. In the provisions of Bill C-24, they can target anyone who knowingly becomes involved in activities that further an organization's criminal objectives.

We also have existing maximum penalties for serious drug offences that already include life sentences. We had a question earlier about the date rape drug. Section 245(a) of the Criminal Code states that administering a stupefying substance with the intent to cause harm is already a very serious offence under the Criminal Code and it carries a maximum sentence of 14 years.

Would the member agree that this bill is just a PR exercise and has nothing to do with actually finding a solution for drug crime in Canada?

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

Madam Speaker, I agree with that. Given the evidence that we have, mainly from the experience of the United States but also from our own evidence, we know that the primary focus of this legislation on mandatory minimum sentences does not work. It does not address the issues that surround drug use, drug abuse and drug crime in Canada or in any of the places where this kind of approach was attempted.

In my speech, I mentioned the Fraser Institute based in Vancouver with its usually fairly Conservative approach to social issues in our country. It has spoken very clearly on the issue of drug prohibition and the kinds of approaches that have been taken similar to mandatory minimum sentences. When it released its report on this in 2001, the first line of the press release stated, “The war on drugs is lost and prohibition has been a complete failure”.

This was the conclusion the Fraser Institute came to as a result of its study. The press release goes on to state:

Canadian governments—federal and provincial—have seldom given serious thought to drug policy, preferring instead to follow whatever variation on failure is being proposed during the latest 'crisis.'

This thinking has only served to enrich organized crime, corrupt governments and law enforcement officials, spread diseases such as HIV, hinder health care, and feed into an ever-growing law enforcement and penal industry.

This was said by Fred McMahon, director of the Fraser Institute's social affairs centre. This is an organization that the Conservatives often look to for ideas and support for some of their plans. However, it has been very critical of drug prohibition and governments that pursue old ideas that have proven to be ineffective. The Fraser Institute went on to say:

Drug prohibition reflects our failure to learn from history; drug prohibition causes crime; drug prohibition corrupts police officers; drug prohibition violates civil liberties and individual rights; drug prohibition throws good money after bad; and drug prohibition weakens at times, even destroys families, neighbourhoods, and communities

Those are incredibly strong words coming from the Fraser Institute about the kinds of solutions that are being proposed in Bill C-15 that is before us today. We really need to come together as a society and learn from our history, from our own experiences and from the experiences of the people we know, care about and love. We need to learn from the experiences of other jurisdictions that this is the wrong way to continue.

We need to ensure we are brave as a nation. Sometimes people say that we cannot do that because the Americans are so invested in this war on drugs. There are opportunities to take a different path from the United States. I think our American friends have often shown that they respect us for our ideas and the solutions that we try to put forward as a society. They do not try to make us back away from ideas that we have and they often admire us for those attempts and the policies we put in place that are different from their own approaches.

The reality is that many jurisdictions in the United States and many Americans know that the war on drugs and drug prohibition has been a failure. We also cannot ignore that our continued support for drug prohibition causes problems in other countries. Many people have talked about the links to the kinds of drug wars that go on in countries like Mexico and South America. They do have links to our own domestic policies here in Canada where this whole drug prohibition regime makes it more difficult for those countries to find solutions that restore peace and harmony in their communities and in their country. We need to examine our complicity in those drug wars that are happening in other countries as well.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During question period, I believe I used the words “deliberately misleading” when I asked the parliamentary secretary a question. I wish to retract the word “deliberately” and apologize to the Chair for using that word.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Thank you. That has been noted.

The hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River.

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

Madam Speaker, we are debating Bill C-15 and I want to assure colleagues that it is my intention to wrap up my remarks before the end of the period for debate today.

As one member of the House, I am personally very disappointed in the recent evolution of the criminal sentencing policy as put forward by the government. Some of the policy changes have been harmless. I do not think they will be effective. Much of it has to do with posturing, pretense and political stage play that I do not think will bring about many results at all.

However, in terms of dealing with crime across the country, I am absolutely and totally a firm believer in strong and improved enforcement. Regrettably, for most of us in the House, the costs of enforcement measures are usually borne by the provinces and the municipalities It is really easy for us in the House to talk about getting tough on crime and better enforcement but we do not have to authorize the tax dollars to do it. We should always keep that in mind.

I know how much good work is done at the provincial and municipal levels not only in crime enforcement but also in prosecution, almost all of which is done at the provincial level by provincial prosecutors not by federal prosecutors. Therefore, it is easy for us to talk the talk here and there has been a lot of talking the talk.

In my home constituency, it is mostly represented by a police division called 42 Division. A few years ago, I know for some reason that I never really understood, although I think I understood it at the time, the area I represent had a bit of a reputation for having some kind of crime problem. There were some high profile incidents but, as a result of looking at the thing in the cool light of day and of excellent police enforcement, which focused on a gang problem, this particular 42 Division in Toronto now has the lowest crime rates in the city .

In terms of the list of Canadian cities and their crime rates, Toronto is number 19. Therefore, while crime is ever present, and it has been since the beginning of time, not just in this country, I think a lot of communities are making progress. Some have challenges but there is no point in mentioning particular communities and maligning them because every one of those communities has or should have the tools available to deal with those challenges of crime.

I have become quite dismayed here at the shameless posturing and pretense of members who shout and talk about being tough on crime and point their fingers. I saw a member today on the Conservative side stand in the House and point his finger aggressively at a member of the New Democratic Party as if she had done anything wrong.

Not one member in the House does not have constituents who have been victimized by crime. All of us have been victimized by crime and that will go on. Our challenge is to minimize it.

I want to give the House a test in relation to Bill C-15. How many members of the House actually know the current sentencing for the offences listed in Bill C-15? How many members know how many years one can get for these particular crimes? I have a loonie or a toonie if anyone does know. The fact is that almost none of us even know what the current sentencing is.

I am going to give the answer. Even before I get to the question of what the new proposed sentencing is, I am going to say what the current sentencing is.

That said, nobody in the House knows now what the sentence would be for a crime outlined in this bill. These are already crimes, but this bill just changes the sentencing. Knowing that nobody knows, how does the government think the average criminal out there would know what the sentence would be when the legislators do not even know?

The point is that ratcheting sentencing up and down does not make a difference on the street. The perception of the would-be criminal out there is binary in logic, binary in the sense that he or she is either going to get caught or not. The would-be criminal does not take a lot of time to do the sentencing mathematics. Why would he or she take the time when members in the House who are passing a bill dealing with sentencing do not even know what the current sentence is?

Now I am going to give the answer. Clause 1 of the bill deals with crimes in relation to trafficking and distribution of illegal drugs. Do we know what the sentence is now for conviction in regard to those? Already in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act the sentence is life in prison. The current sentence envelope is life in prison.

Do we know what big, tough move the government proposes in this bill? The big, tough-on-crime move is to say there will be a minimum sentence of one year. That is the big, tough move.

We have taken a sentence of life in prison, available to a judge in sentencing, and added in a one-year minimum. This is really going to have an impact on the street. All those would-be drug pushers out there are going to be shaking in their boots. The fact is they do not care about these laws. They would not be breaking laws in the first place if they did.

What does clause 2 of the bill do? What is the existing sentence for a crime under the section that is being amended by clause 2? There it is, life in prison. We already have a life in prison sentence. What has the government added in? It wants to add a minimum of one year.

I think I have made my point on that. I could go further.

However, I want to direct members' attention to proposed section 8 of the bill. It is a new section. Here is what it says. If a person is charged and convicted of any of these crimes for which life in prison is a potential sentence—we cannot go beyond that because we do not hang people anymore—essentially proposed section 8 requires the Attorney General to ask permission.

This provision is being proposed by a government that is pretending to be really tough, in a vacuum. The proposed section reads:

The court is not required to impose a minimum punishment unless it is satisfied that the offender, before entering a plea, was notified of the possible imposition of a minimum punishment for the offence in question and of the Attorney General’s intention to prove any factors in relation to the offence that would lead to the imposition of a minimum punishment.

The minimum sentence is one year.

When there is a life sentence available, the whole spectrum of imprisonment available for a conviction, how many of them will take the time to give the required notice and generate all the evidence necessary to address the factors in sentencing that would be necessary to impose the minimum sentence? Very few.

I would agree that there might be a case in the context of enforcement and prosecution where there was a particular offender with a long record, an offender clearly operating within the infrastructure of organized crime, that such a notice could, would or should be given.

The reason this provision is there is that, for better or for worse, there are Charter of Rights and Freedoms constraints on how we apply the criminal law and how we follow through on our due process. I am happy the provision is there. I am really not mocking it, but what I am suggesting is that in the face of this staged drama by the government that somehow there is a great war against crime and it is leading it with stupid sentencing, that somehow no one else in the House cares about it and no one else has a plan, I would love to hear a government member talk about the importance of proposed section 8 of the bill. It is an important section dealing with the application of the sentencing provisions.

Again, I do not think there is a criminal in this country or in the universe who will take one second of his or her busy criminal life to read and study proposed section 8, or clauses 1 or 2 of the bill, or any part of the Criminal Code. Criminals do not get around to reading anything until the day they call their lawyer after they have been busted. That is when they begin to do the sentence math or allow the lawyer to do it for them.

I want my remarks to be clear. I stand with everyone else on both sides of the House who wants to be effective and smart in dealing with and helping our communities to deal with the crime challenges. We realize that they do the enforcement, they do the prosecution and we do not. The big, bold government here knows full well that it does not spend a nickel on enforcement, on policing; it is the provinces and municipalities. They know it is a great drama, a staged political drama.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Madam Speaker, in the nine years I have been here, each time my hon. colleague has an opportunity to speak on crime bills or proposed crime legislation, it is like a university lecture. He is so well read in this area and certainly holds the respect of all members. I know the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities is a big fan of his and has gestured that in the last presentation.

One of the major concerns that many communities are facing, and certainly my own community, is the problem with prescription drugs. There is nothing in the legislation about prescription drugs.

We talk about organized crime. We see that this is very much an organized effort on the part of very unscrupulous people within communities. It is the dealing of Oxycodone, Percodan, and these prescription drugs that is ruining lives, that is tearing families apart.

There is nothing on that in the legislation. The trafficking of prescription drugs is causing horrific outcomes in many communities. I would very much appreciate and respect a comment on this issue by my colleague.

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

Madam Speaker, the illegal drug threats to our communities are a real scourge; everyone in the House accepts that. We see it in tragic ways right across the country. I have actually been to Halifax and other parts of Nova Scotia where the drug problem existed. We have seen the problems with heroin abuse, methadone abuse. Even methadone which is supposed to be used for treatment is abused. We have seen the OxyContin abuse. We have seen the problems with double doctoring. The pharmacists in Nova Scotia told us they would be coming up with a system to avoid double doctoring for prescriptions.

The solutions lie in treatment. The bill has provisions called drug treatment courts, which are a major step forward, but they have to be properly funded. Federally we can help with this. Provincially they have to help fund the drug treatment courts. Municipally it has to be coordinated with policing. Progress can be made. We all have to take responsibility for the leakage of addictive drugs into our societies to those who are addicted.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Madam Speaker, I also listened carefully to what my colleague had to say. I appreciated his comments and his speech.

In light of what he said, does he believe that all the programs the Conservative government is proposing are just facsimiles of solutions and not measures that will really address the problems?

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

Madam Speaker, as I mentioned in my remarks, I think that by now most of us have recognized among the Conservative government's policies a relentless pursuit of hot-button issues. If crime is a problem in a particular community, the Conservatives will focus on that and hold out that they have a solution. It probably goes beyond the field of crime. They are all politicians and we are, too. The point is that since they are politicians, we can see it. We understand it. I hope Canadians understand it. A simplistic response to a social problem just does not work.

It is not all bad things that are being proposed, but the bulk of it is focused on a hot-button response, which may end up costing the taxpayer more in the long run and does not really address the problem.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

On division.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I declare the motion carried.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am quite sure if you were to seek it, you would find unanimous consent in the House to see the clock at 1:30 p.m.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Is there agreement to see the clock at 1:30 p.m.?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.