Justice Committee on April 30th, 2009

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

In terms of what British Columbia is doing, can you give us some sense of what either the other provinces or the major municipalities in the other parts of the country are doing by comparison?

[Prof. Robert Gordon]

Let's switch to Ontario or Quebec, and there you will see higher levels of integration of services. There's a recognition that the RCMP plays a key role in providing primarily federal levels of policing, and that includes dealing with organized crime on an international basis. Then you have provincial police services operating across the particular province with regional services such as the regional service in Montreal. That is a far more effective way of organizing a response to organized crime.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

I have a technical point, Professor Gordon. I had the sense that you had much more extensive notes. Have you prepared those in the form of a brief that you could pass on to the committee?

[Prof. Robert Gordon]

I'd be happy to do that, yes.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Thank you.

Professor Boyd, on the idea of decriminalizing or even legalizing and regulating marijuana, cannabis, is there any reasonable expectation we can do that in Canada, if the United States—

[Prof. Neil Boyd]

You certainly can't legalize. I think that's why it's fair to say it's a problem that requires a global solution. On the other hand, we can look around the world and see many countries that have decriminalized.

There is a private member's bill. Keith Martin's bill is not very different from Bill C-17 of the previous Liberal government, which would have decriminalized the cultivation and possession of small amounts of marijuana. The idea behind that, particularly the cultivation part of it, is that you basically gave out the message that we don't want an ugly organized criminal activity in marijuana distribution; we are prepared, on the other hand, to make a distinction between marijuana use by consenting adults and the growing of marijuana for personal purposes.

So you could go down that road. I'm sure you know that in the Netherlands you have much lower rates of use among youth, and among all segments of the population, with de facto decriminalization.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Let me interrupt you. The point I'm trying to get at is that the market here in Canada is basically 80% of the cultivation, production, targeted to the United States. So even if we do the Keith Martin bill or the previous Liberal bill, we are still left with that market, and we're still going to be faced with organized crime being involved in that market.

[Prof. Neil Boyd]

I think that's right. I don't think there's any way around that.

I would make two points. One is that the Senate, with Pierre Claude Nolin and the report that came forward, made the point that you could have--and they did urge--very strong penalties around distribution to the United States. The point was to be practical about this. At the same time, you have to recognize that only 3% of the cannabis consumed in the United States comes from British Columbia or comes from Canada more generally. So we're not the major suppliers. The major suppliers in the United States are growers in the United States.

Having said that, yes, the solution is global. President Obama has recently called off the raids on medical marijuana facilities. I understand, in terms of what's going on now in places like San Francisco, that you've got a kind of de facto decriminalization in effect.

I wouldn't recommend to any justice minister that he or she proceed with legalization. I think that would be inappropriate. But I do think that decriminalization of small amounts for cultivation and personal possession gets the point across, whereas Bill C-15 doesn't make that distinction. I think it could. I think it could be amended to make the kinds of distinctions we would like to see, that most Canadians would like to see.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

We'll move on now to Mr. Rathgeber. You've got seven minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses for your attendance here this morning.

Dr. Boyd, I agree with your position that importation and exportation of drugs is a global problem. Maybe you know or maybe you've read—I understand Holland, the Netherlands, is actually going in the reverse direction; they're attempting through legislative means to once again make marijuana and hashish less available. That's my question.

[Prof. Neil Boyd]

They are attempting to limit the amount that people can buy, and they have been doing that for about 10 to 15 years, largely because of concerns expressed by France and other European countries. But as you look around you, you see such a patchwork quilt of different approaches. In certain parts of Germany, for example, there is effectively decriminalization--you're allowed to possess, without penalty, up to a certain number of grams of the product--whereas in Bavaria, in another part of Germany, it's more of a criminal law prohibition approach. Portugal has recently moved to decriminalize. Italy has moved to decriminalize. So we see a patchwork quilt.

What I think we really need, ultimately, is to get organized crime out of the business, and I don't think we in Canada can go it alone. It's a global problem with a global solution. But certainly, the move away had more to do with resistance from some neighbours, and also with concerns that you want to have some control so that the coffee shops don't just become fronts for more and more distribution networks.

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

I listened to your opening remarks quite carefully and your answers to the questions from my friends on the other side. I'm curious as to your opposition to Bill C-15, and I understand a big part of it has to do with the imposition of mandatory minimum sentences. Is that correct?

[Prof. Neil Boyd]

That's correct.

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

So with recidivism being what it is--we see people coming before the drug court in Edmonton with 15, 20, sometimes 30 previous convictions--how do you deal with recidivism in the absence of mandatory minimum sentences?

[Prof. Neil Boyd]

I think what's fundamental here is deciding whether drug use represents a criminal law problem of morality or a public health issue. If we think it's a public health issue...and here's where I come back to saying let's put all the legal and illegal drugs on the same page. We have 35,000 deaths a year from tobacco. It's the most addictive drug known. There are two drugs that I would suggest people never put in their systems--heroin and tobacco. We have to start comparing legal to illegal drugs. We have to put them on the same page. It makes no sense to do otherwise.

So I just don't believe in a criminal law enforcement model as the most productive way to go. Having said that, there are exceptions to it. I'm a bit of a cautious person. I look at examples from around the world, and I see that decriminalization of cannabis can work and not give us any increase in difficulty. I see that with heroin you can use prescriptions and other mechanisms to deal with that form of addiction. I have yet to see any effective way of dealing with crack and crystal meth outside of prohibition, so I remain committed to prohibition on those substances.

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

Okay, so let's deal with those. You and I might argue whether or not this is a health issue or a morality issue, so let's deal with the drugs that we can agree ought to be subject to prohibition. With respect to those substances, the heroin, the crystal meth, which you just identified, do you not support mandatory minimum sentences for those who traffic--

[Prof. Neil Boyd]

Well, again, I'm not opposed to tough penalties on crystal meth distribution, in terms of the toxic residue left behind. In fact, if you look at the courts, the courts have been making very clear distinctions between the people who are involved in the production of crystal meth and the people who are involved in the production of cannabis.

With heroin, again, I think there are better ways to resolve or to solve the problem than to use a criminal law model. These are people who are injecting the most potent painkiller on earth. For any of us who have ever had something like heroin or morphine.... I broke my leg about 10 years ago and had morphine, and I couldn't wait to get off it. Anybody who would want to repeat that experience on a regular basis has my sympathy, not my contempt, and I would want to urge some form of assistance to that person rather than to label that person as a criminal.

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

Thank you.

I have only about one minute left and I want to ask a question of Ms. Miller.

I was a member of the Alberta legislature when we started seizing the vehicles of johns who were soliciting prostitutes. I'm sure you're familiar with that Alberta initiative. Has B.C. or any other jurisdiction considered going down that route?

[Michelle Miller]

Not that I know of. The way they handle it right now is that we have a pre-court diversion program for men who are caught buying sex--it's largely men--where they can go through a john school. They pay $500. They're not charged. They don't go before a judge. There's no judging by their peers. However, in Alberta, I know that it's a post-court diversion program. So until we start thinking that way and get tougher on the johns, I wouldn't even consider that.

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

Are you in favour of seizing property, specifically motor vehicles?

[Michelle Miller]

Oh sure, yes.

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

It's working well in Alberta.

[Michelle Miller]

I don't know if they are doing that in Alberta, but they're doing a post-court diversion program. They charge them, so there's some sort of social consequence--they're not locking them up and throwing away the key--whereas here it's a pre-court diversion program. That's the penalty that's in place right now.

Do you understand?

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

I do.

I was a member of the Alberta legislature, and I understand that the only way you can avoid having your vehicle seized is if you go through that diversion program. Is that correct?

[Michelle Miller]

I'm just not familiar with that.