Justice Committee on April 27th, 2009

[Graeme Norton]

If I could speak to that briefly as well, I'll start by saying I'm not a father, but I'm scheduled to become one in August, just to get that off my chest.

With respect to targeting offenders dealing to young people, that may be a legitimate objective. It's already in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act that courts should look at it as an aggravating factor. The language used in this legislation is incredibly broad. It does not target that objective; it targets things so far beyond that objective that the fact that you might be trying to achieve it through the legislation would simply be lost in the flurry of who gets charged under this act, in my view.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Mr. Plecas.

[Dr. Darryl Plecas]

Well, the first matter is that it's been referred to here a number of times that we have a concern about young people. The fact of the matter is, if you look at the individuals generally involved in the drug trade, they're everything but young people. I know this, having looked specifically at over 30,000 grow-op situations in British Columbia. The average person involved in drug production in British Columbia, for example, is 33 years old; they have seven prior convictions and a 13-year criminal history. I'm still waiting to see the stats on this notion that somehow we're arresting people for possession and throwing them in jail for long periods of time. I know what the average person had in their possession on a production case in British Columbia: it was 92 plants—that's for possession.

The other thing is that it was also mentioned that the drug problem has not declined in the United States. That is not true, particularly if we're using, as one beacon, the University of Michigan's Monitoring the Future survey, which over the last decade has shown basically year-over-year declines in virtually every type of drug, including alcohol and tobacco. By the way, we've also had declines here, not across Canada necessarily, but certainly we've had that in British Columbia. So there's no question there have been declines.

There have been dramatic declines on the production side in certain types of drugs in the United States, particularly methamphetamines. In several states, they had one initiative or another, and they basically crushed it. The notion that it's not effective is just completely wrong.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

We'll go to Mr. Murphy. You have five minutes.

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

I just want to get back to this drug treatment court and the efficacy thereof. Unless we've been given bad material--just kidding over there--there are various studies that suggest they are effective. I see the Latimer, Morton-Bourgon, Chrétien study--with a name like Chrétien you have to go with that on this side, right? Cost-effectiveness was not indicated in that study, but they do reduce crime among offenders with substance abuse programs.

Our briefing notes, from what I've read anyway, indicate that these things work. In the United States they've been in existence since 1969. Only a very small percentage of program graduates reoffend.

We need to know here. Are we getting bad information? Maybe you have other information that completely refutes this by the peer review process. How are we wrong in saying or believing as a matter of policy and it's in fact a matter of our laws that the DTCs work? If they didn't work, I don't think I'd be as supportive of this bill or that part of the bill that gives the offender the chance to go to the DTC to avoid the mandatory minimum. As I said, this is a very unusual mandatory minimum. I've been here since they started rolling them out when they first got on the podium.

Go ahead.

[Tara Lyons]

I feel ill-prepared all of a sudden. I want to come back to this idea of what you mean around it working, because we have the Canadian evaluations, and they're still new in Canada and they work differently from the way they do in the States. We have six operating in Canada. The Ottawa Drug Treatment Court, the last I heard, has a 9% success rate, and they often aren't full either, and it goes up to around 17%. The Winnipeg one had two graduates out of twenty in their first year as well.

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

Just to be clear, because you had a somewhat sarcastic answer there, do you think it's successful?

[Tara Lyons]

No, I'm not trying to be--

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

To be clear, I think this is how they measure it in these limited studies, the degree of reoffending. The court program would be considered a success if that person who went to the DTC did not reoffend.

[Tara Lyons]

I apologize if I came off as sarcastic. That wasn't my intention. It's a methodological question in terms of how you actually operationalize a variable to measure what works or what success is. I was referring to success in terms of graduation rates.

In terms of recidivism, on that study you're referring to, is it a U.S. or a Canadian study?

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

There's a study--it's a Department of Justice backgrounder, whatever that is--that says a small percentage of program graduates reoffend. There is a further study. It's a justice department study--it has the three authors whom I mentioned--that says it reduces crime among offenders who've gone through the program.

So I don't know. I didn't read the study; I read the notes from the study.

[Tara Lyons]

It doesn't give me much to work with.

I can't speak right now to the recidivism rates in Canada, but I'm more than happy to give that information to the committee. I will pass on as well the Canadian studies, because I think it's really important to make a distinction of how the courts are operating in Canada and the U.S., because they are different, and I will ensure that recidivism is addressed, the graduation rates. It's also really important to emphasize again that women have a very low success rate, that aboriginal people have a low success rate in the drug treatment courts. That's across the U.S. and across Canada.

There's a national study being conducted right now out of Carleton University trying to get at why women don't stay in the drug court.

So in terms of my measure of success, it can't be disproportionate like that, either. That's just something else I want to leave you with. I will give you that information as well, happily.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

We'll go on to Monsieur Lemay.

You have five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I practised criminal law for the defence for 30 years, and I have great difficulty in accepting that we tell a court of law to hand down minimum prison sentences. I think that goes against everything we have passed in Canada, especially in the context of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I'm thinking of two very important principles, one being the independence of the judiciary and the political authority, and especially—and this is one of the very important principles—the tailoring of sentences.

I would like to raise two points. First I hope you'll speak to your young students. In fact, if you haven't already, I'm telling you that under this bill, section 3 amends paragraphs 7(2)(a) and (b) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the one under our consideration. Under this bill there would be a minimum sentence of six months of imprisonment for a young adult of 18 years or more who has three cannabis plants in his home, because that would fall under the 201 plants or less. I put this question to the minister last week and that is exactly what he answered. Can someone here explain to me what the difference is between a 17-year-old and an 18-year-old youth. I still don't understand. We would tell a 17-year-old to not do it again whereas we would hand down a minimum six-month sentence to an 18-year-old, even if that 18-year-old has no past record. If that adult does have a past record, then the sentence will be one year.

Mr. Plecas, here is the problem I submit to you. Should we repeal section 718 of the Criminal Code while we're at it? That's what the people opposite think we should do. What do you think? Section 718 deals with sentences and what should guide the courts. You have given us statistics that I have never seen. What about the 2008 Supreme Court ruling in R. v. L.M., according to which sentences should be tailored? In your opinion, should the priority be tailoring sentences or handing down minimum sentences, even if that means disregarding what the Supreme Court ruled and disregarding one of those important principles, which is the tailoring of sentences?

[Dr. Darryl Plecas]

From my perspective, tailoring is still allowed because there's a maximum that goes with it. There's a minimum, but you can still have it up through the range of that maximum. Beyond that, I would argue there is an ability to tailor sentences through correctional practices because people are eligible for release after serving one-sixth of their sentences.

I wish I didn't have to say this and argue for mandatory penalties, but I find over and over again that judges simply don't do what they say they're doing. I would stake my life on that. There is no chance they're doing that, despite their claims.

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

Mr. Elliott.

[Richard Elliott]

Thank you.

We've heard a number of times that the concern that should be driving mandatory minimum sentences is that judges aren't sentencing harshly enough. Whether or not that is true is quite debatable, and we've heard some debate about it. Even if it were true, it doesn't logically follow that the answer is to impose harsher sentences, including minimum prison sentences, when all the evidence suggests they don't have an impact.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Monsieur Lemay.

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

There is a problem, and it is the Conservatives, the government in power. They want to impose minimum prison terms. However the problem isn't getting them into prison, it's letting them out of prison. These individuals come out too soon; they do not serve their full sentence.

I'd like to hear Mr. Jones, then Mr. Plecas

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Mr. Jones.

[Craig Jones]

Thank you for that question. I actually have the opportunity to talk to judges quite often, and this topic comes up a lot. One of the things they tell me is that the reason they don't give out harsh sentences is because every time they see these people in front of their bench, they are worse and worse and worse, and they get worse in prison.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

We'll move on to Mr. Rathgeber. You have five minutes.

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

I thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

First, I thank all the witnesses for their attendance and presentations here today. However, I'm a little disturbed by what I've heard here in the last 90 minutes. I'm disturbed that apparently the Bloc Québécois is withdrawing its support for Bill C-15, and I'm confused and concerned that Ms. Davies believes that throwing drug dealers in jail for specified periods of time is a “radical approach”.

Let me tell you a true story that happened this weekend. I live in Edmonton and I represent northwest Edmonton. It's a city, by all accounts, that has both an organized crime problem and a drug problem that is the fuel of that organized crime. Thankfully, our problem is not as acute as Vancouver's, but it's certainly a problem in Edmonton. This weekend--and many of you may have heard about this in the national media--a 14-year-old girl went with another young lady to West Edmonton Mall, a public place that is frequented by young persons, not exclusively by young persons but certainly young persons attend the mall frequently. This 14-year-old girl purchased a single dose of ecstasy. I'm sure some of you have heard about it.

Although the facts are only slowly beginning to trickle in, apparently the individual who sold it to her misrepresented the dose. In any event, both girls took it, and one became very, very sick but thankfully survived. The 14-year-old girl was not so lucky and she accidentally overdosed and died yesterday.

Now, if I were inclined to withdraw my support for Bill C-15, and I want to state emphatically for the record that I am not, I think I would have a difficult time explaining that position to the parents of this 14-year-old girl, who are currently planning her funeral in Edmonton, Alberta.

I suppose I will accept the representation made from the John Howard Society and the Civil Liberties Association that this bill is targeted to the so-called low-level distributor or low-level dealer. You may be correct that it may not be as effective as we would like in going after the kingpins. I may accept that. But even if that is true, how can you tell me and tell the grieving parents of the 14-year-old girl that the low-level dealers are not a problem and that the elimination of the criminal enterprise--which is what the kingpins you refer to feed on--by taking those guys out, is not a solution to this epidemic problem in cities such as Edmonton and Vancouver?

I will start with Mr. Jones.

[Craig Jones]

It is because the historical experience shows that the kingpin you take out today will be replaced tomorrow, until you repeal the laws of supply and demand. Mandatory minimum sentences do not repeal the laws of supply and demand. You have a drug crime problem in Edmonton, sir, because you have drug prohibition.

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

Are you suggesting that we legalize drugs such as ecstasy and methamphetamines? Is that your solution, sir?