Justice Committee on May 13th, 2009

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses for your attendance here today and for your expertise on this very important bill.

I am troubled by the Canadian Bar Association's opposition to mandatory minimum sentences. I think we resolved the issue when Mr. Ménard was asking questions regarding its applicability. Specifically, in the situation Ms. Inness cited with respect to a grower who had a single plant and was sharing it with his friends, that person would be subject to the mandatory minimum sentences.

Are you or is your association, which you represent, opposed to mandatory minimum sentences generally or just for what you regard as small amounts of a specific controlled substance, cannabis, marijuana?

[Sarah Inness]

Thank you.

Our association is opposed and has taken a position in opposition to mandatory minimum sentences consistently. With respect to our submission on the other aspects of the bill that set out mandatory minimum sentences for more serious offences—for instance, cocaine offences—our argument is that judges take into account the nature of the substance, the seriousness of the offence itself, and are already, in the exercise of their judicial discretion, imposing stiff and harsh penalties where appropriate.

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

Okay, but you don't oppose mandatory minimum sentences outside the sphere of controlled drugs and substances, for very serious, violent crimes, I'm assuming.

[Sarah Inness]

Our organization has consistently opposed the use of mandatory minimum sentences because of the elimination of judicial discretion. For serious, violent offences, the judges would be guided by the purposes and principles of sentencing set out in section 718 and the aggravating factors there, and for some offences perhaps by already the triggering of mandatory consecutive terms—for instance, criminal organization offences—that would guide judges in the sentencing of those offences.

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

Right, but for example, first degree murder carries a mandatory life sentence with no eligibility for parole for 25 years; second degree carries a mandatory life sentence with no eligibility for parole for 10 years. Is it the position of the Canadian Bar Association that those mandatory minimum sentences are inappropriate?

[Sarah Inness]

I'm not here today on behalf of the Canadian Bar Association to advocate for the elimination of those sentences that are set out in respect to murder. I'm simply here addressing Bill C-15 and some of the issues that arise with respect to the mandatory minimum sentences that are triggered by the CDSA amendments.

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

Okay, but you stand by your statement that the Bar Association opposes mandatory minimum sentences generally.

[Sarah Inness]

Yes.

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

You stated to Mr. Murphy that you're opposed to mandatory minimum sentences because they interfere with judicial discretion. Then you said judicial discretion, in your position, was working well with respect to controlled drugs and substances. I don't know if you've had the opportunity to peruse the Statistics Canada report that came out today, Trends in police-reported drug offences in Canada. Probably you haven't; it just came out today. I will quote from it for your benefit, and I encourage you to study it in some detail, because it might fly somewhat in the face of your position that judicial discretion is working well with respect to controlled drugs and substances.

It tracks all the drugs--cannabis, cocaine, heroin, and others--and then the totals on an annual basis from 1997 to 2007. It shows some alarming trends. In 2007, the last year that stats are available for, drug offences were at their highest point in 30 years. They've been increasing steadily since 1993. Cannabis is up. Thankfully heroin is down. Cocaine is up exponentially. There were 897 police incidents in 1997, and 22,819 incidents in 2007, a growth rate of several hundred times. Many of these police-reported offences have been or are allegedly being committed by youth.

I'm curious as to the statistical study.... Is it just anecdotal, or is it merely an opinion that the system is working well?

[Sarah Inness]

With respect, I can't comment on the particular statistics that you've provided.

We are represented in our organization by prosecutors and defence counsel and people across the country who work within the criminal courts on a daily basis. Jurisprudence from the highest courts in the country has identified deterrence and denunciation as significantly important sentencing principles for serious drug trafficking offences--those individuals who are trafficking for profit, those individuals who are trafficking in serious substances and at significant levels, particularly for profit. Typically, courts have indicated that incarceration ought to be imposed in those types of offences, but bear in mind that in every individual situation there is the availability of the prosecutors to bring to the court's attention the aggravating factors, and sentencing is very much a tailored, individualized process.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

You have another minute.

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

Thank you. I just wanted to ask a simple question to the representatives from Health Canada.

Thank you very much for your presentation. It has been different from many of our other presentations.

You talk about your strategy and the amount of financial investment over the years, but I don't see a position with respect to Bill C-15. I'm going to put you on the spot and ask if you think Bill C-15 helps in promoting prevention, treatment--given the emphasis on the drug treatment courts--and of course, enforcement with respect to the minimum mandatory sentences that some of your fellow witnesses are advocating.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Mr. Rathgeber, I think it would be unfair to ask them that question. They're here representing Health Canada.

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

Okay. I'll withdraw the question, and that's my time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

We'll move on now to Mr. Dosanjh, for five minutes.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Thank you.

I want to ask Mr. Doucette a question. If I remember correctly, Mr. Doucette, you support the drug courts and you support the mandatory minimums in this bill. If this is an unfair question, tell me and I won't push.

Is this the ideal bill that you would have brought forth from your perspective? If not, then what are the things that you would like to have seen in the bill?

[Chuck Doucette]

That is a good question. My only concern would be to make sure that we are getting enough people into treatment through the drug court system.

I certainly am not qualified to examine the way the law is written and that sort of thing to know what's going to happen once it finally gets into action, so I can't give a qualified answer in that respect. All I can say is that it's important that it be massaged, if necessary, to make sure that we aren't leaving people out of treatment whom we could be getting into treatment. That doesn't mean they shouldn't also pay a price for any offences they've committed. Those mitigating factors always have to be examined as well. But certainly when somebody is committing a crime only because of their addiction, then treatment should be a primary factor.

That is an area that I would look at. That's all.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Thank you.

To Health Canada, based on what you just heard, one of the concerns I share with Mr. Doucette is that there may not be, one, enough money and, two, enough drug courts around to deal with the consequences of this legislation. Has there been any analysis done by Health Canada?Treatment is your dominion. Has any analysis been done as to what the expansion and the need for treatment would be as a result of this legislation? What moneys have been set aside or projected as needing to be set aside in the next couple of years to come to deal with that expansion of need for treatment?

[Cathy Sabiston]

Thank you for the question.

As I mentioned, for our prevention activities under the national anti-drug strategy, we've targeted that $30 million for a campaign. We also have moneys within the department for the drug strategy community initiative fund, which does look at innovative prevention and treatment activities for youth and others. We do target vulnerable populations, particularly first nations.

In respect of this bill, no, we haven't done additional analysis. We would be waiting for the outcome of this.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Has there been any analysis done in terms of what kind of impact it's going to have in terms of costs or the need in the various provinces? Remember, they bear the brunt of the need for treatment.

[Cathy Sabiston]

I'm going to ask my colleague Colleen Ryan to respond.

[Colleen Ryan, Director, Office of Demand Reduction, Department of Health]

I think it is fair to say that, in collaboration with the provinces and territories at this stage, we haven't done a detailed analysis to come to terms with the real or potential implications of the proposed act. What we have done, though, is establish a process where we're readily engaged with the provinces and territories around the design and delivery of treatment programs and services. Part of that engagement obviously will include...as the bill itself, depending on its outcome, unrolls, we will be in constant consultation with them about what it means, what the implications are as it starts to roll itself out, if put forward. So I think that's an important point.

I think it's also important for us to recognize, again, that federally we're only mandated, obviously, to provide treatment to first nations on-reserve and then certainly to offenders within federal correctional institutions.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Let me address the next question before I run out of time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

You have 15 seconds.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

I understand there's a review of the drug courts that are currently in existence under way within Health Canada. How far has it gone? When is it going to be completed and released?