Evidence of meeting #23 for Justice and Human Rights in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was prevention.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Daniel Petit Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Thank you very much.
My question is for Mr. Doucette. Earlier on, you talked about countries that you have studied and you said that we should perhaps follow what they did in terms of treatment. You mentioned that although they do have very strict legislation, there had to also be treatment.
Could you tell us exactly what you were talking about at that point? You mentioned Norway or Sweden; I do not remember which.
4:55 p.m.
Vice-President, Drug Prevention Network of Canada
Yes, it was Sweden. It would be very good for someone to do a study and present to your group. Of all countries, they are the only one that I'm aware of that experienced drug abuse increasing because they had very lax, very lenient policy. They became more restrictive in their policy, increased prevention efforts, increased treatment. They saw drug use go down. Then they relaxed, thinking that they had won over the situation, and started to get more lenient again, and they saw the drug use go back up again when they became more lenient. So then they became more restrictive again and saw it go back down again.
It's the only country I'm aware of where you actually saw a direct correlation between how restrictive the policy was and the problems that were a result of it. They twice proved that by being more restrictive they could reduce the problems.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Daniel Petit Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Have you visited the country? Do you have any documentation? How did you discover that when their laws were less restrictive drug use increased, whereas it decreased when they became more restrictive? What did you base those comments on? Were you basing your remarks on your own experience, or did you meet with attorneys or someone from the Department of Justice over there? How did you get this information?
4:55 p.m.
Vice-President, Drug Prevention Network of Canada
I have been there twice, for international conferences on both occasions, and I met with senior police officials there, who discussed the policy with me. They have published an account, a history if you will, that is available over the Internet and other areas. I have written copies at my home, but it is easily obtained through the Internet. The United Nations highlighted them recently in one of their publications. The United Nations also agreed that it was a model example of strategic drug policy.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Daniel Petit Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
How much time do I have left, Mr. Chairman?
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Daniel Petit Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Mr. Doucette, you come from British Columbia; that is how you identified yourself earlier on. We know that there are problems not only in British Columbia, but in my province as well.
Have you looked at studies that show that if the possession of small quantities of cocaine, heroin, marijuana or methamphetamine were legalized—not all together—and if we sold rather small amounts through the government, as we do for alcohol, their use would decrease? How did Sweden manage to solve their problem? Does the state sell drugs or is it still organized crime that maintains control?
4:55 p.m.
Vice-President, Drug Prevention Network of Canada
Drugs are not legally available, like that, in any country that I'm aware of.
I have quite a lot of experience debating this issue. The first thing I ask is why current drug traffickers would stop selling the drug just because it had become legally available through some kind of a store, like a liquor store. They are all profiting right now. They are all selling higher potencies than what the government would probably release through a liquor store, so they would not stop selling just because there was another legal option. Unless there's some unwritten rule that I don't know about that they have all agreed to, it would not happen. You would just have more options—the legal and the illicit.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
Thank you, and my thanks to the witnesses.
With respect to this StatsCan report that has been referred to at this committee meeting, we've heard people say that it won't work to have a tougher approach on criminal justice, on drugs, trafficking, grow ops, and meth labs. Of course, we've also heard the opposite. We've heard from people who think that's exactly the approach we should take. Mr. Doucette made a good point that should not be lost on those who would have us take the easy, lenient approach. He reminded us that even though cigarettes are sold at convenience stores, we still have trafficking in illegal cigarettes and more potent cigarettes. To think that going even softer on drugs would somehow eliminate the illicit drug trade is absolutely ludicrous.
What the Statistics Canada report shows me is that the soft-on-crime, revolving-door justice system, which punishes the proprietors of meth labs and grow ops with a slap on the wrist, clearly does not work. The approach that has been taken in the past is a failure. It doesn't work. We need to have improvements in the system, and that's exactly what this bill is about. Some of the debate has concentrated on possession, someone passing a joint to a friend and that type of thing. But the actual crux of the legislation is to have better sentencing for those who are operating grow ops and meth labs.
Mr. Yost, can you talk about the aspects of the bill that address meth labs and grow ops? How will the legislation help to crack down on those who are producing these illegal substances, and how will this help us to achieve our overall goal of disrupting the criminal enterprise? That is what this bill is about—disrupting the criminal enterprise and making sure that people who are preying on innocent Canadians are taken off the streets.
5 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
The first thing, obviously, with respect to methamphetamine is the rescheduling to schedule I from schedule III, which greatly increases the penalties. That's in clause 6. The aggravating factors do aim at the commerce--I guess that's the best way to put it. I use that term because it's what they are currently, in many ways, but now it kicks into minimum terms of imprisonment. We're talking about the benefit of a criminal organization using a weapon, threatening to use violence.
Then we have others that affect more the social problem and trying to keep youth away from this thing. There are the ones about being near a school, as well, and of course using a person under 18 years of age to do that. Those are triggering factors, and they address what we understand from the people in the field to be serious issues with respect to the way drug dealers are carrying out their business, if I can put it that way.
I would point out again that there have been some references to eliminating judicial discretion. That is not done, of course. What we're doing is establishing a minimum. The judge still has discretion and presumably will within the somewhat narrower range. You know, the two years to life, for example, will decide just how serious this person's past record is, how violent the activity was, and if there's more than one aggravating factor. Presumably that person will get more than the strict minimum. So that's basically how this bill approaches it.
5 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
Thank you on that, Mr. Yost.
I have to agree. Obviously, broad discretion is still there on behalf of judges. The Criminal Code has always had guidance from Parliament, from the federal level, where it's our job to maintain the Criminal Code. We certainly have in place maximum sentences that provide guidance for judges. I don't hear people advocating that we take those away. I think it's important that we also provide guidance when it comes to minimum sentences on these serious offences.
I do have a quick question for Mr. Yost.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
The next person would actually be Mr. Storseth. If he wants to cede his time to you, that would be acceptable.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
One thing that hasn't been discussed as much as I think it should have been in our deliberations on Bill C-15 is the so-called date rape drugs and the impact they've had in different centres from coast to coast to coast. I'm wondering if you could comment a bit on that. Obviously we recognize that this is something that has to be taken with the utmost seriousness. We recognize that it's a problem. Can you explain the changes regarding date rape drugs and the act of moving them to a different schedule?
5:05 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Again, it's an issue of moving them from schedule III, where the maximums are much lower, to schedule I, where the maximums are higher. It will be like dealing in cocaine, etc. Again, I don't have the experience in the field and I don't know why there wasn't much discussion of that in front of your committee, but my understanding and the reason it has been put in here is that it's considered a serious problem. I understand western ministers of justice and, I believe, all ministers of justice asked for the rescheduling of those to address the current problem. They are in use.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
Mr. Moore, you didn't want to continue? You still have some time. You have two and a half minutes.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
Two and a half minutes, okay.
Mr. Doucette, if you could, please comment a bit on that as well, the inclusion of the date rape drugs in a higher schedule for purposes of sentencing. We've heard testimony that there's certainly no legitimate purpose for some of the precursors that go into these drugs. If you could, comment a bit on that.
5:05 p.m.
Vice-President, Drug Prevention Network of Canada
I am not an expert in that area, so I can only tell from the community perspective that I'm very much in contact with. Certainly the idea of using anything, including alcohol, which is the most common date rape drug, for that purpose should carry a very severe sentence, in my opinion, and certainly the drugs that they manufacture are for that purpose. Yes, there is absolutely no legitimate need for the precursors. There are obviously legitimate uses for some of the drugs that can be used--because they can use prescription drugs. So if they're buying prescription drugs, that's a different matter. But if they're manufacturing them themselves, having those chemicals and doing that, then yes, that's a very clear case of where sentences should be tougher.
In your discussion, you talk about the judges. The difference is that the judges aren't accountable to the people in their community. You members of Parliament are. The only way the public has access, to let people know that we would like stronger sentences, is through committees like this, where we get to talk to our members of Parliament who we elected for that purpose. That then has to be transferred down to the judges, because they don't ask us, and they're not accountable to us.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
Yes, we've certainly been hearing that loud and clear, and that's one of the reasons we've introduced this legislation.
Now you're cutting me off again.
