House of Commons Hansard #35 of the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was cbc.
The House resumed from March 26 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.
Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be up first on this Friday morning to speak to Bill C-15, which deals with mandatory minimum sentencing for drug crimes and amends the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.
This is a very important debate on the bill. It is one of the bills that the Conservative government, with the support of the Liberals, had wanted to rush through the House with no debate. We think the bill needs debate because it is really at a juncture where it is telling us what direction Canada will go in terms of its drug policy. From that point of view, it is a very significant bill and it deserves full public debate and input. I hope that will happen at committee as well. We need to hear from witnesses. It is very important that we be on the record in terms of our position around the bill.
I represent the riding of Vancouver East and, as many people know, it is a riding that has been hit very hard with the seriousness of drug issues. For a number of years, when I was first elected, the number of overdoses in the downtown eastside was the leading cause of death. It was horribly alarming. It was the number one public health issue where people were dying needlessly. These were preventable deaths from drug overdoses because of prohibition and because of the illegal drug market, the black market, where people were buying things on the street and they did not know what they were. The level of overdoses was just horrific, causing chaos, pain and suffering in the downtown eastside.
That still goes on today to some extent, but over the last 10 years, because of enormous efforts by the community and indeed right across Canada, particularly by drug users themselves who began to speak out about their own experience, the situation began to change.
It is very easy in our society to vilify and demonize drug users. It is very easy to label people as “criminals” and to label a drug user as a trafficker. In fact, under the law, even passing a joint to someone would be characterized as trafficking.
Not only were we trying to overcome the severe health and safety impacts in terms of drug use in the downtown eastside but also trying to deal with the terrible stigma and stereotyping that surrounds drug users.
The fact is that drug use exists at all levels of society. There are lawyers, professionals, engineers and all kinds of people who use drugs, whether medical or non-medical. If it is a prescription, that might be a substance use problem as well, whether a person gets it from a doctor or gets it on the street. It may be that a person is using drugs for recreational purposes, maybe marijuana.
It exists at all levels of society, but it is very much a class issue, because the enforcement regime that we have in this country, similar to the United States, is very much levelled at visible drug use on the street, basically people who are poor, people who are facing that stigma, and often people facing challenges of mental health.
In Vancouver, for example, with the deinstitutionalization of Riverview, people were literally sent out on the street with no support and ended up in the downtown eastside with very poor housing and no resources. People, in effect, started self-medicating and suddenly found themselves in this terrible environment of being “criminal”, and being harassed and chased by police and maybe arrested.
It is very much an issue that pertains to the poorest in our society who are involved in drug use and the enforcement, primarily in this country, as in the United States, has been levelled at those people.
About 73% of federal dollars on drug policy in Canada go toward enforcement. Only 2.6% goes to prevention, only 2.6% goes to harm reduction and about 14% to treatment. That is a very uneven balance.
For example, when the Auditor General audited drug policy in this country a few years ago, she remarked upon this and posed some questions: What was the impact? What was the value? What were we getting for such a high emphasis on an enforcement and interdiction regime when drug use was actually going up in Canada?
It might interest people to know that in 1994, 28% of Canadians reported having used illicit drugs, but by 2004 that number was at 45%. Certainly, the policies we have had that have been so focused on the criminal regime and the criminalization of drug users have been completely ineffective. We only have to look south of the border, where the so-called war on drugs has unleashed billions and billions of dollars. We see massive numbers of people incarcerated indicating what a failure it is.
I was very interested to read in the paper yesterday Hillary Clinton talking about how the war on drugs in Mexico has been a failure. It is first time the U.S. administration has talked about this. There was a headline saying that it failed. This has been the wrong approach. We are hoping very much that with the new administration in the U.S. things will begin to change. I wanted to give that backdrop.
Bill C-15 was brought in, in an earlier Parliament, as Bill C-26 and died on the order paper. It does raise the question of how urgent this was for the Conservatives when they brought it in so late and just let it go because they wanted to have an election. However, Bill C-15 is completely focused around the premise that mandatory minimum sentencing is going to work for drug crimes. That is what the bill is about. It is not a bill about broader enforcement regimes. It is about mandatory minimum sentencing. It does pose the question and I believe we have a responsibility to answer this question as to whether or not the evidence shows that mandatory minimum sentencing will actually be an effective tool.
I have done a fair amount of research on this as the drug policy critic for our party. Because of my involvement in Vancouver East and the downtown eastside, I have to say I have become very involved in this issue. I have worked very closely with drug users and I have learned a lot from what this experience is about, what happens to people under the current regime, and what it is that we need to change.
I am deeply concerned that the government is embarking on a very significant departure. Canada did have what was called the four-pillar approach, which was enforcement, harm reduction, prevention and treatment. That was adopted under a previous government. There was always an imbalance and an overemphasis on enforcement, but at least that four-pillar approach was there. I have to say that it actually began in Vancouver as a grassroots, bottom-up approach and then spread across the country.
This bill would take a radical departure from that four-pillar approach by emphasizing the enforcement regime even more, taking it to some greater lengths by bringing in a regime of mandatory minimum sentencing. I think this is a huge mistake. There is no question that it is the core of the Conservative government's agenda around crime. It is about the political optics. I have called it the politics of fear. People are concerned about drug use and crime in their communities. They are particularly concerned about young people being involved in using drugs. However, this bill will not deal with that. This bill will not change that situation. In fact, the evidence from both Canada and the United States shows us that the opposite will happen. It will only make the situation worse.
I want to note for the record that a Department of Justice study in 2002 concluded that mandatory minimum sentences were the least effective in relation to drug offences. The report 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.
When one looks at what is going on in the United States, where mandatory minimum sentencing began, there is now a whole movement away from mandatory minimum sentencing. We know that California, in 2000, repealed some of its mandatory minimum sentencing requirements for drug offences. In fact, California is now considering regulating marijuana. In 2004 Michigan repealed some of its MMSs. Delaware and Massachusetts are undergoing similar legislative reviews.
There is a whole history of reports in the U.S. in the American Bar Association and the U.S. sentencing committee. I will not go at length into those reports, but suffice it to say that there has been a huge amount of research done on this. I find it most ironic that the Conservative government, for the last couple of years, when it announced its so-called drug strategy in 2007, was launching on this course of following the United States, when what is actually happening in reality is that the war on drugs in the United States has now been shown to be a colossal failure.
I found it interesting that at the new President's town hall meeting online yesterday, and I am sure people have read today, most of the questions had to do with marijuana, saying to the President that it would be a good idea to regulate, legalize and actually provide a proper source of revenue, instead of allowing this to be so controlled by the black market. This is what happened during prohibition in the 1930s.
Obviously, even in the United States there has been a massive shift in public opinion, and what I find is that it is elected representatives who are the ones who are the most far behind on this. We are actually afraid to take this issue on. In many regards the public is way ahead of us. The public understands that the war on drugs has been a failure. It has been a colossal failure in terms of the human costs, in terms of economic costs, and in terms of public policy. We are the ones who are afraid to admit the reality of what the war on drugs and prohibition has done.
I find it just totally unacceptable that in that context we are now moving in this country to a regime that will bring in mandatory minimum sentences for drug crimes, when everybody else is saying this does not work, that it is a failure, and we have to take an approach that is focused on public health, that is focused on regulation, that is focused on real and honest education, especially for young people, and is focused on providing treatment. None of those things are happening at an adequate level in this country.
I know what the line will be of the Conservatives who are debating the bill. They are going to get up and say, “This is about getting those terrible gangs, the big crime dealers, the big drug lords and all of that”. Again, the research shows us that is not what happens.
In fact, because in this bill they have included provisions around drug treatment courts, I think it is further evidence that what they will really be doing is focusing on what is called the low-level offenders. This is where mandatory minimums do not work. It is not a deterrence.
What it will do is completely create chaos in our judicial and court system. We know that for any mandatory minimums that are two years or less when people end up in the provincial court system, we are now going to be facing a huge overload in the provincial court system. Do the provinces know that? I kind of wonder if they realize what is coming down the pipe here.
We will also see situations where people are more likely to plead not guilty because they know that they will be facing a mandatory minimum.
This idea that we are going after the kingpins just does not play out because those are the individuals who are in the best position to negotiate with prosecution officials and so on. Again, history has shown us that with enforcement, the easy pickings are basically people who are low-level dealers. They are often users themselves. This bill will be so punitive in terms of individual people, but the worst thing is it will not change the outcome.
If the Conservatives are trying to peddle a line here that this bill is going to solve the problem, it will not. It is actually going to make it worse. I feel I have a responsibility, representing a riding like East Vancouver where I have worked very closely on this issue, to actually speak the truth about this issue.
I know others as well as my colleagues will rise and speak out loud and clear, and will do so today. I know that we put ourselves out there as targets for the propaganda and the machine that comes from the other side that we are soft on crime, that we are advocating for drug use, and that we are advocating for whatever. That is simply not true. I have never supported drug use. I am personally very anti-drug use. I have seen the harm it does. However, I understand that prohibition has driven people to becoming criminals.
We dealt with the marijuana decriminalization bill. There are members in the House who were on the committee. We heard there were 600,000 Canadians who had a record for possession of marijuana. Why are we not at least beginning there with decriminalizing and legalizing marijuana? We would begin at a place where there is strong public support. We should change the regime.
The public attitude is shifting also within the media. Since the crime bills have come in, following the debate in the media has been fascinating. There are lots of media commentators, people writing columns, experts being quoted.
Retired Justice John Gomery in speaking about former Bill C-26, but Bill C-15 is the same bill, said, “This legislation basically shows a mistrust of the judiciary to impose proper sentences when people come before them”.
Thomas Kerr from the B.C. Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, said:
If Canada wants to fulfill its mission of reducing the most severe harms associated with illicit drug use, steps must now be taken to implement a truly evidence-based national drug strategy rather than shovelling millions of dollars towards these failed programs.
Jerry Paradis, a retired judge from B.C., is a spokesperson for an incredible organization, LEAP, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition. I went to a conference in New Orleans last year. Members of LEAP include current police officers as well as retired police chiefs and officers, and members of the judiciary. They are working to alert us to how dangerous prohibition is and what its consequences have been. Retired judge Jerry Paradis said, “MMSs are a great motivator for trials, jamming up the courts. Unless a deal is struck, a charge carrying a minimum sentence will be fought tooth and nail”.
Barbara Yaffe from the Vancouver Sun is not seen as a left-wing commentator. She is very much her own person and often comes out with terrific stuff. What does she have to say about it? In February, in writing about gangs, she said:
Because at the root of the mayhem is the drug trade. And while the state can outlaw a substance, it cannot eliminate its use. Prohibition proved that nearly a century ago. As long as drugs are illegal, there will be underground activity of the sort that spawns drug gangsters.
There are many media stories along the same lines. There has been a significant shift.
In speaking to this bill, this is a critical point. Are we going to go down this path where we say that tougher laws and enforcement are going to solve drug issues in local communities? The Conservatives have clearly said that. I am very interested to see what the Liberal caucus does with this bill. I hope that we can defeat it. I hope we can say this is not the right way to go. The NDP does not think the bill should go through. It is not based on good public policy. It is going to be harmful and expensive.
It is time to embark on a common sense approach and accept the overwhelming evidence that the war on drugs has caused more death, pain, harm and crime than we can bear. It is time to stop it. I do not think that is going to happen overnight, but at least let us have the courage to see what has failed and see the alternatives. We could begin with marijuana and real education. We could look to decriminalization, or even legalization, or we could continue on the tragic course of playing on people's fears and trying to convince people that tougher laws will make it all go away. It will not.
Let us say no to this bill. Let us adopt a public health approach and do the right thing.
Dick Harris Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
Mr. Speaker, let us be clear on what has failed. The member for Vancouver East talked about the Liberals' advocacy of the so-called four pillar approach of enforcement, harm reduction, prevention, treatment. That has failed. That is why the Conservative government is taking a much harder stance fighting the smuggling of drugs, the trafficking of drugs, because what the member for Vancouver East and what the previous Liberal government supported has failed miserably.
As a matter of fact, the former chief coroner and mayor of Vancouver back in the early 1990s publicly said that we should give up on the war on drugs, that we cannot win it, so let us walk away and let the drug peddlers and the gangsters have it because we cannot win it. The Conservative government will never give up on the war against drugs. The member for Vancouver East has seen all of that misery in the downtown area of her riding, those unfortunate souls who have been sucked into the day-to-day use of drugs by the drug lords and the gangsters who are bringing drugs in such huge amounts into this country and selling them through all of their agencies down to the street level.
I am surprised that the member for Vancouver East is telling us not to worry and not get tough on crime, let us not try to nail the big kingpin drug pushers and let us not try to stop the violence. There have been over 30 drug related and gang related murders in Vancouver, a new number that is threatening to escalate to unheard of proportions in violence and murder. The member and her colleagues are still standing every day and saying that the Conservative government is being much too hard on these criminals. Nonsense.
By the way, President Obama, last night in answer to callers, said that he did not think it was a good idea to legalize marijuana. The hon. member did not mention that.
Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC
Mr. Speaker, as I said, I was waiting for the pointing fingers. I would like to invite the member to my riding.
Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC
I bet you did not sit down with a group like VANDU, Vancouver Area Network of Drug Users. You probably talked to the police, which is fine, but I bet you did not sit down and talk to drug users and find out why an organization like Insite is so--
Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC
Mr. Speaker, speaking to you, I will bet the member met with police, but I bet he did not sit down with a group like VANDU to find out what that experience is.
The member spoke of what is going on in Vancouver. I agree it is horrific. I have had lots of emails and phone calls from people. I spoke about this yesterday when I was debating Bill C-14. To me this is further evidence that the regime we have had, the so-called war on drugs the Conservatives are committed to so obsessively, with blinkers, despite the evidence, is failing.
In terms of the four pillar approach, in every society and every country around the world that has made progress dealing with drug use, it is because they have adopted policies under the four pillar approach. To say that it is a failure, I guess the member has not properly researched this or looked at what is going on. The four pillar approach based on treatment, harm reduction, prevention and enforcement, and enforcement is a part of it, is absolutely what is going on internationally. Even the UN is recognizing that harm reduction is a very important component of its drug policies. There was recently a conference at the UN.
I heard what President Obama said. He is obviously not ready to do that, but my point was that the American public overwhelmingly is saying to stop this madness. I think President Obama will eventually get that message and I am pretty sure he will begin to make changes.
Alan Tonks Liberal York South—Weston, ON
Mr. Speaker, I do not doubt for a moment the sincerity of the member for Vancouver East in the overview she has given with respect to coming to grips with the issues and whether it is a more liberal approach to the issue of illicit drugs, a higher regime in terms of what this bill suggests, or whether it is to be more lenient.
I was not going to ask a question but her statement that prohibition has driven people to become criminals has touched a sensitive nerve with respect to an issue that is evolving in Ontario and Quebec. Over 50% of cigarette sales are illicit in Quebec and Ontario and it is getting worse. Biker bangs are taking over the delivery system. They are going to a dial a smoke system, which is an open and flagrant violation of the existing legal regime. Children are being exposed to the health implications and cost implications. Even though we have a legal system for smokes in Ontario and Quebec, that is what is happening.
I would like the member to compare that to what she is putting forward as a resolution. I would like her to tell me if she thinks the premise she is operating from, given the experience with respect to what is happening in Ontario and Quebec, is the right approach to the availability and use of drugs.
Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC
Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of research done on organized crime and gangs. I have done some of that research and looked at material. I do not think there is any question that organized crime will always find some element, whether it is dealing with legal substances, tobacco, cigarettes or alcohol. That always exists. However, whenever something is completely prohibited, as we saw with alcohol in the 1930s, it creates a regime where organized crime is allowed to flourish because of the profits involved. That is what has happened here.
It is not that regulation or legalization of certain substances would close down all of organized crime overnight; that would always still be an issue. However, it would dramatically change the equilibrium in terms of where the resources are used. Maybe we would be able to focus more on organized crime instead of using the massive resources which right now are more focused on the low-level users and dealers.
I think it is a matter of a balance of public policy. Again, I come back to the point that after 100 years of prohibition, look at what we have. We have to accept the reality that drug use exists in our society. Let us educate people. Let us provide treatment where it is needed. Let us have effective enforcement. The idea of mandatory minimums is not going to improve it. It will only make it worse.
Nicole Demers Bloc Laval, QC
Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my hon. colleague from Vancouver East and I would like to congratulate her on her very eloquent, thorough speech outlining all the problems associated with drugs. She is quite right.
I wonder if my colleague can explain the inconsistency in the government's position. The government claims that it wants to protect Canadians, not only from people who sell drugs, but also from people who use drugs.
The government is cutting funding to places like Vancouver's InSite, creating committees to determine where people who are ill can smoke their medical marijuana and doing nothing for our young people, while at the same time, it wants to grant people the right to use unregistered long guns.
I think—
The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken
Order, please. I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. member for Laval, but her time has run out.
The hon. member for Vancouver East has time for a short reply.
Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC
Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke very eloquently yesterday on the gang bill.
The government does not have a coherent policy. Even though programs and facilities have been incredibly effective, the government has done everything it can to try to shut them down. The member mentioned Insite, the safe injection facility in the downtown eastside. The amount of political capital the government has tried to put into closing down Insite is unbelievable when nationally and internationally it has been seen as a success.
The government has given lip service to the idea of treatment and prevention. We heard one of the ministers yesterday rattle on about a little project here or there. If we look at the numbers and the evidence, there is no question the government has put all of its resources into enforcement. It is now going to accelerate that through the mandatory minimums. The government has really done nothing to support treatment, prevention, education and harm reduction.
Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
Mr. Speaker, today I will be speaking to an issue that is relevant to my riding of Etobicoke North and, indeed, to all Canadians, namely, substance abuse and crime.
I will be supporting this act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, part of a package of measures aimed at addressing gang violence as Canada has over 400 gangs with roughly 7,000 members and firearm related injuries annually costing $5.6 billion.
Moreover, gang violence threatens our Etobicoke North community. In 2005, Amon Beckles was shot while attending the Etobicoke funeral for his best friend, Jamal Hemmings. Shots were fired during the memorial service and some 300 mourners ran for cover. Nadia Beckles fled the church only to see the unthinkable; her son lying on the ground. Beckles cried, “I raised him for 18 years and someone just took him away”.
Beckles hopes and prays that the violence will stop and strong drug laws are part of what is needed to fight gang violence. However, so too are crime prevention initiatives which show for every dollar invested there is a four dollar return in reduced counselling and treatment costs, and proper funding of law enforcement agencies, areas where we are currently failing Canadians.
Strong drug laws are needed to fight elicit drugs which remain a significant problem in Toronto and, indeed, across Canada. Marijuana remains the most popular recreational drug among Toronto's students with some 23% of respondents indicating use in the past year. In contrast, only 15% of adults reported use.
At the national level, marijuana is also the most commonly used illegal drug with more than 10 million Canadians aged 15 or older having tried marijuana or hashish at least once.
In Ontario, 3% of grade 7 students try marijuana and, by the time they reach grade 12, nearly half have used the drug. In fact, about one in eight or 33,000 students use marijuana every day.
The consequences of illegal drugs are serious with health effects depending on the drug, the amount and method and frequency of use. Negative health effects range from digestive problems to potentially fatal diseases, such as HIV-AIDS and hepatitis C, and physiological dependence to brain damage.
Apart from the health impacts, illegal drugs generate direct costs to the health and criminal justice systems, as well as indirect costs through absenteeism, lost work productivity and lost human potential. These combined costs total about $1.4 billion annually.
Drug abuse also impacts users, their children, family members and sometimes entire neighbourhoods. Moreover, drug use is associated with crime, from simple possession to organized crime, to fighting for control of the drug trade, to serious addiction problems that may lead users to commit crimes for cash.
In 2000, Canadian police departments reported a total of almost 88,000 drug offences. Three-quarters of the offences involved marijuana, 68% of them possession. The number of police related incidents involving marijuana increased from roughly 47,000 in 1996 to 66,000 incidents in 2000.
Most governments make strong statements about the need to maintain and often increase police activity and penal sanctions for drug users. It is widely held that strong enforcement and widespread incarceration will deter potential users and dealers from becoming involved in the illegal drug market. In fact, very few countries actually follow through on these statements. Arrest and incarceration rates for drug users are relatively low in most countries in relation to the total number of users and maximum sentences are rarely used.
The one country that has used large scale incarceration as a drug prevention measure is the United States where approximately 500,000 drug law offenders are currently in prison.
Research shows that widespread confinement has failed to fundamentally alter the scale and nature of the illegal drug market, although some marginal impacts on drug prices and prevalence rates can be attributed to the policy. Moreover, there are significant financial health and social costs associated with high rates of incarceration.
I believe we need to carefully look at the evidence of what has and has not worked in the United States, as well as other jurisdictions. Perhaps important questions for the committee include whether we want mandatory minimums for drug related offences that would remove a judge's ability to apply discretion for mitigating circumstances, whether we want to want to turn Canadian correctional institutions and penitentiaries into U.S.-style inmate warehouses, whether we know that longer sentences will have the desired deterrent effect, or whether those given longer sentences are likely to go back to crime.
In order to reduce drugs, Canada has always implemented a national strategy that aims to strike a balance between reducing the black market supply of illegal drugs and reducing demand. The first component emphasizes the fight against drug crimes by the criminal justice system, while the second focuses on prevention and public awareness of the negative effects of drug use.
A strength of the bill is the drug treatment courts as part of the solution. These courts aim to stop drug abuse and related criminal activity through court-directed treatment and rehabilitation programs. Each court has a multi-disciplinary justice and health care systems team led by the judge who oversees each participant's progress. Compliance, which is objectively monitored by frequent substance abuse testing, is rewarded and non-compliance sanctioned.
Evaluations consistently show that drug treatment courts effectively reduce recidivism and underlying addiction problems of offenders. The courts provide closer comprehensive supervision and more frequent drug testing and monitoring during the program than other forms of community supervision.
It costs about $8,000 Canadian per year to provide substance abuse treatment to a Toronto drug treatment court participant and $45,000 to incarcerate the same individual for one year.
In the United States, only 16% of 17,000 drug court graduates nationwide had been re-arrested and charged with a felony offence. The U.S. reports a state taxpayer's return on the upfront investment on the drug courts is substantial. They are a more cost effective method of dealing with drug problems than either probation or prison.
In closing I want to draw attention to the fact that youth at risk of joining gangs tend to be from groups that suffer the greatest inequality, who are using drugs and who are already involved in serious crime. Our youth join gangs for belonging, prestige and protection and there is the correlation between gang presence in schools and the availability of both drugs and guns in institutions. Of a total of 900 male school drop-outs and young offenders, 15% report having brought a gun to school.
Bill C-15 addresses deterrence and punishment. When might we see legislation targeted at prevention? Public Safety Canada recommends targeted, integrated and evidence-based community solutions to reduce and prevent the proliferation of gangs, drugs and gun violence.
As we debate this bill, we need to remember Amon Beckles and all those who have been lost to violence, and honour Nadia Beckles' hopes and prayers.
Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague. She has certainly brought a lot of wisdom, life experience and elegance to this House. She is doing a wonderful job for her constituents. I want to talk a little bit about the last part of her speech where she talked about how important it is that we deal with this through sentencing through the criminal justice system.
My brother is a vice-principal at a school in my own community. Through community organizations in Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, kids who have a better opportunity in life, who have an opportunity for early learning and quality accessible child care and who have complete community social infrastructure supports, such as the Dartmouth East Boys and Girls Club, the Cole Harbour Boys and Girls Club and the Dartmouth North Boys and Girls Club, stay out of trouble. These kids are mentored. They have opportunities to provide leadership and to learn from others.
I wonder if the member would comment on how important it is that we not neglect the social infrastructure that provides opportunities for all young Canadians. It might save us a lot of money in the criminal justice system if we were to invest at the front end as opposed to just dealing with it at the back end.
Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for raising such important issues.
Poverty is a huge issue in our country. We have made it our goal to reduce childhood poverty but the reality is that one million children still live in poverty. In Toronto, 83,000 children go to school hungry, which means that one out of four children goes to school hungry, and that is unacceptable. We need to invest in our children, in reducing poverty, in increasing early childhood education and in giving our children the best start possible.
Megan Leslie NDP Halifax, NS
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her very passionate speech. She talked quite a bit about the drug courts. My worry is that the drug courts are not the panacea they are perceived to be.
In Halifax, I know there are huge wait times to get into drug treatment programs. These programs are totally inadequate in my home province and they are very underfunded. The proposal to have a drug court would actually lengthen these already dangerously long wait times for drug treatment.
Would the member not agree that increased funding for treatment, one of the four pillars, would be absolutely essential if this bill were to succeed and even begin to address the problem of drug crime in this country?
Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
Mr. Speaker, the member raises a good point. Law enforcement is one part of the puzzle but we do need to invest in prevention and in treatment. Drug courts are one part of the treatment process and they do reduce recidivism. There are numerous studies to support this.
Yasmin Ratansi Liberal Don Valley East, ON
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her thoughtful analysis. When I was young, my parents always used to say that prevention was better than cure.
Many civil society organizations have asked us to help in the infrastructure. For example, organizations, like ProAction Cops & Kids, get the kids together with the police in very at-risk communities. I remember having it brought to my attention that it was during the Harris era that the after-school programs were shut down.
The hon. member gave the analysis that it costs $45,000 to keep one criminal in jail. That $45,000 would be well used for after-school activities. Is jail a solution? The member gave an analysis that the United States, which incarcerates the largest number of people, still has not been able to keep it safe or prevent drug abuse. I would like to have her analysis of what sort of infrastructure funding the government should do instead of going into ideological jail building.
Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
Mr. Speaker, I think prevention is important, as well as a public health policy. Regarding poverty and childhood education, the after-school programs are so important.
An excellent organization in my riding called Breaking the Cycle helps get youth out of gangs. It is strongly supported by the police. It has a six-month program consisting of daily programs of education, helping young people get into safe homes and giving them the start that many of them did not have. It is a terrific program.
Megan Leslie NDP Halifax, NS
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-15, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts.
Some of the proposals in the bill are minimum penalties for the production, possession, trafficking, importing and exporting of marijuana, cocaine, heroin, methamphetamines and other drugs. It also moves amphetamines, all its 19 byproducts, and GHB and flunitrazepam, also known as the date rape drugs, from schedule 3 to schedule 1. Tougher penalties will be introduced for trafficking date rape drugs.
The maximum penalty for Canada's production would increase from seven years to fourteen years imprisonment. Mandatory sentences would be introduced for the production of even one marijuana plant, with a minimum sentence of six months. The legislation would impose six months imprisonment for any act of cultivation of cannabis, irrespective of issues of violence and gang involvement. These are some of the provisions in this bill.
Prior to my election, I worked at Dalhousie Legal Aid Service, a legal clinic in Halifax's north end. Dal Legal Aid is a teaching clinic where students, who are in their last year of law school, can come and spend four months with us, working on poverty law cases and developing their skills in a clinical law setting. The mandate of Dal Legal Aid is to provide legal assistance to low-income Nova Scotians, while also working with low-income Nova Scotians to help change the laws that oppress and penalize poor and marginalized Nova Scotians.
Our mandate was to deal with poverty. Inextricably enmeshed with poverty are the issues of race, gender, ability, sexual orientation and identity and age. My clients came to me for help with asserting their rights as tenants and asserting their rights under welfare and their entitlements. They came to me for assistance with their CPP disability applications and for help understanding the law generally.
To ensure that Halifax's most vulnerable people had access to their rights and an understanding of the law, the students and I would staff monthly clinics around the city, ensuring we had a presence at places like Direction 180, Halifax's low-threshold methadone clinic, Stepping Stone, an organization that supports workers in the sex trade, Metro Turning Point and Adsum House, Halifax's men's and women's shelters, as well as food banks and soup kitchens around the municipality.
Many of my clients used drugs and while I never counselled them legally or otherwise on their drug use, many of my clients would share with me the details of their lives as we built a relationship of trust. None of my clients used drugs because they got a thrill from breaking the law. None of them used drugs because they were bad people, criminals or people not worth caring about. All of them talked to me about stopping their drug use. None of them talked to me about getting off crack because the jail time for offences was on the rise. They talked to me about getting off crack because it was destroying their lives.
None of them talked to me about enrolling at Direction 180 because they had heard that Parliament may be rescheduling certain substances from schedule 3 to schedule 1. They wanted to enrol at Direction 180 to deal with their opiate addictions, rebuild their lives and re-establish contact with their children or families.
The Conservatives have manufactured a debate that tells Canadians that if we oppose this bill, then we oppose enforcement and think that drug users should run free, terrorizing children in their schoolyards and corrupting the very fabric of our society. The government has manufactured this debate to make itself look tough on crime and the opponents of this bill soft on crime.
The truth of the matter is that this bill would not do anything to solve the drug problem in Canada. The bill is not smart on crime. We need legislation that is based on best practices. We need legislation that will work.
A four-pillar approach has been developed and has been proven successful in cities in the U.S., the U.K. and Europe. It is based on the four pillars of prevention, treatment, harm reduction and enforcement. Each pillar is equally important and must be integrated and jointly implemented to be effective. This is what the best practices are telling us to do. This is the direction in which we must move. This is the approach that the NDP supports. The NDP is not soft on crime. We are smart on crime.
Mandatory minimums do not deter drug use. A 2002 Justice Department of Canada report concluded that mandatory minimum sentences, or MMS, were least effective in relation to drug offences. It stated:
MMS 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.
The supposed targets for these mandatory minimums, the kingpins, are in the best position to negotiate lighter sentences or no sentences at all. They have access to resources that enable them to challenge these sentences. Therefore, who gets scooped up by these provisions?
In June 2004, the American Bar Association's Justice Kennedy Commission called on Congress to repeal mandatory minimum sentences stating, “Mandatory minimum sentences tend to be tough on the wrong people”. According to the American Civil Liberties Union, MMS disproportionately targets visible minorities. According to the HIV/AIDS Legal Network, mandatory sentencing policies have produced record incarceration rates of non-violent drug users in the United States.
The U.S. Sentencing Commission also concluded that mandatory minimums failed to deter crime and reported that only 11% of federal drug defendants were high-level drug dealers, and 59% of crack defendants were street-level dealers, compared to 5% who were high-level crack dealers.
The bill is based on a deterrence theory of punishment for which there is no evidence. In their article called “Sentence Severity and Crime: Accepting the Null Hypothesis”, Anthony N. Doob and Cheryl Webster concluded that 25 years worth of research, sometimes in ideal conditions, had shown that there was no support for the idea that harsher sentences reduce crime. They also point out that:
Deterrence-based sentencing makes false promises to the community. As long as the public believes that crime can be deterred by legislatures or judges through harsh sentences, there is no need to consider other approaches to crime reduction.
In other words, adding a harsher sentence is pretending to do something instead of actually doing something. The bill makes a false promise, to use their words. This approach is not smart on crime.
While mandatory minimums do not work, we do know what does work, and that is the four pillars: prevention, treatment, harm reduction and enforcement. Each pillar is equally important and they must be integrated and jointly implemented to be effective.
Sadly, we are not following the four pillars approach in Canada. In fact, we are doing the opposite. Listen to these numbers. Canada spends 73% of its drug policy budget on enforcement, 14% on treatment, 2.6% on prevention and 2.6% on harm reduction. These pillars clearly are not integrated and jointly implemented. They are clearly not even being valued equally by the government. We have a government that is solely focused on enforcement, which is only one piece of the solution. As a result, drug use continues to rise.
In 1994, 28% of Canadians reported to have used illicit drugs, but by 2004, this number was 45%, almost double.
The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken
I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but as she knows, at 11 o'clock we have to proceed with statements by members. There will be eleven and a half minutes remaining in the time allotted for her remarks when we resume the debate. In the meantime, we will move to statements by members.
Rick Norlock Conservative Northumberland—Quinte West, ON
Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise to pay tribute to a true Canadian hero, my friend, Dr. Bob Stephens. Dr. Stephens, a fellow resident of Warkworth, has spent most of his life attending to the medical needs of thousands of men, women and children in Africa, China and Cuba.
During the 1950s, Dr. Bob spent 10 years with his young family in the Belgian Congo. He built a 100-bed hospital with outpatient services, nurse and midwife training and four satellite clinics, where he spent most of this time treating people with a myriad of diseases, including snake bites.
Upon his return to Canada, Dr. Bob set up practice and played a leading role in the Evangelical Medical Aid Society, the Christian Medical and Dental Society, including HPIC, Interserve, SIM and World Relief Canada.
For his service to the people of Canada and the less fortunate around the world, Dr. Bob Stephens was recognized by the Governor General and became a Member of the Order of Canada.
Dr. Bob Stephens is a true Canadian hero.
Yasmin Ratansi Liberal Don Valley East, ON
Mr. Speaker, in 1991, John Bitove Sr. established ProAction Cops & Kids, which brings together local police with kids at risk in the communities of Durham, Hamilton and Toronto.
ProAction Cops & Kids provides the opportunity for police to establish positive relations with kids and help create an environment of mutual understanding and respect. For example, TROOP is a week-long camping program for youth who may not have ever camped or taken a canoe trip in their lives, and to have fun with police volunteers from their own communities.
Crime prevention is the best way to protect society and youth at risk. I congratulate ProAction Cops & Kids and thank all police officers for their volunteer efforts.