Bill C-15 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts

This enactment amends the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to provide for minimum penalties for serious drug offences, to increase the maximum penalty for cannabis (marihuana) production and to reschedule certain substances from Schedule III to that Act to Schedule I.
As well, it requires that a review of that Act be undertaken and a report submitted to Parliament.
The enactment also makes related and consequential amendments to other Acts.

Controlled Drugs and Substances Act

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that was a very emotional appeal from the chair of the justice committee. He is smiling now. My position and the position of our caucus is based on a very analytical understanding of what drug policy is about. It is not easy for us to take that up. He has pointed out the politics of this. It is so easy to appease people and tell them that if they are worried about drugs, we will get a tougher law. We have decided that we need to be honest about what is going on with drug policy in Canada. We do need to have an honest conversation with people in our local communities and let people know that just bringing in another law will not solve those drug problems.

To that extent, it is from my heart, if I can respond to the member in that way. I deal with those folks on the street every day. They are my constituents. The people dying from overdoses and the people who have been pushed to the margins of society are the ones who gave me the heart to bring this forward. They are the ones who are the victims of our drug policies.

We heard from some of them at committee. The bill will make it a lot worse for those people. They know it and they feel pretty scared about it.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about an area that is coming out of the justice committee. We are dealing with penalties, but I think I heard the member lay out a bit of detail about a national drug strategy and how the government is going to lead in addressing the problems of drugs on all fronts, including rehabilitation, prevention, health, et cetera.

Could the member review again for the House the importance of the four pillars?

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe the member supports the four-pillar approach. I thought this well substantiated policy had been adopted. However, in the latest so-called anti-drug strategy that came from the Conservative government in September 2007, one of the pillars had been dropped, and that was harm reduction.

We know about the huge battle that has taken place in Vancouver to keep Insite, the safe-injection facility, open. In fact, the Conservatives have not been able to close it down because of the massive public support across the country. Insite and things like needle exchanges are part of the four-pillar approach. This has been well adopted across the country by many big cities and smaller communities.

It was adopted by the federal government, but that radically changed when the Conservatives were elected. They dropped harm reduction and are now hell-bent on the idea that they will eliminate any funding or support for any program that they deem to be under the category of harm reduction. Instead, they are now emphasizing an enforcement regime. That will hurt a lot of people who truly need medical and social support to deal with the addiction issues that they face.

The bill will not help those people. A four-pillar approach was a much more rational public policy to deal with substance use issues. Unfortunately, the bill is now taking us in the completely opposite direction.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague, who represents a very difficult riding in the Vancouver area, and has done a tremendous job on the whole issue of narcotics, drugs and diversion programs.

In a perfect world, I would tell her she is right. But since we live a world governed by the Conservatives, who lean to the right, if not the far right, we have a problem on our hands, and that problem is Bill C-15, as my colleague has made clear.

I have just one question for her. I know we are running out of time and I want her to have time to answer. I would like to know what impact this bill could have, not on the penitentiary—and I will come back to that in a moment, since that will have a different impact altogether—but on the provincial court and provincial detention centres in her riding in the Vancouver, British Columbia area.

What impact will this bill's enforcement have on the provincial court and the provincial detention centres?

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish I could provide some clear information to answer the member's question, because this is one of the questions we did pose to the minister. If the bill passes and a regime of mandatory minimums is enacted, we want to know the estimate of how many people would be convicted and would end up in the provincial system, which would be convictions of two years less a day. We need to know what the costs of that might be as well as the number of people convicted.

Our belief is that it will be very high based again on what we saw in the United States. We had evidence regarding that at the committee. As far as we know, there has been no work done by the government, or if the work has been done, the government certainly is not disclosing it.

My constituents and people in other places across Canada are going to be very fearful that because of these mandatory minimums when people get caught up in this net and they go through the court system, the first thing they are probably going to do is plead not guilty to try to get around the mandatory minimum. That is going to take up more court time, more lawyers' time. We are seeing the legal aid crisis, whether it is in Ontario or in British Columbia. This is only going to create more chaos in a system that is already overstressed.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a very short question for my friend. There are two aspects. One is around balance. We have talked a lot about the four pillar approach, but it seems that bills such as this one show the government only to be standing on one pillar out of the four.

Second, my understanding is it is the intention of all members in the House to reduce the misery and effects of organized crime. We see the ripple effects in my region of Skeena—Bulkley Valley. I asked the chair of the committee to produce one piece of evidence, one study, one report from a criminologist, a lawyer or an association anywhere which says that in order to get at the organized drug problem one should use the technique of mandatory minimum sentences that are proposed in the bill. All he could yell out at me was “logic”. Whose logic, his?

My colleague from Vancouver East is not an expert, unfortunately, on the misery of organized crime, but I wonder if she could speak to the lack of evidence that has been presented by the government and the Liberals to this point.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, even the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police talk about the need for a balanced approach. In their letter to the committee the police chiefs did not come out and say that they adopted mandatory minimums as the way to go. They were silent on that matter. They did talk about the need for enforcement to go after the big kingpins. Even they talk about the balanced approach.

The member has made a very good point that we have not seen the evidence that the bill will do anything to deal with the serious situation that exists with drug use.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-15, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts.

Government members seem to think all they have to do is come here and list the provisions of a bill and that is their speech, but that does not speak to why the government is doing things. It does not speak to the impact the government is expecting. It does not address what the opposing views may have been and how they have been addressed or how they have been dismissed or how they have been compensated for. When committees handle bills, it is important that they bring back to the House a sense of where they have been on their important journey dealing with issues that are very important to Canadians.

However, the starting point of this bill was flawed in the first place because it was presented as a justice bill. Therefore, members should understand that we are dealing with a justice issue, not in the context of other important elements such as health issues and certain other areas. In fact, it is even narrower than that because it simply is another proxy for the government to say that it is tough on crime because it has brought in mandatory minimums. If we listen to the speeches and read the transcripts of the speeches that government members have given on this bill, they have continued to say that there is going to be a mandatory minimum and people say that is good because the offenders are not getting a penalty otherwise.

Not one of the government members included in his or her speech, and I listened carefully, that all of the offences that are referred to in this bill are subject to penalties of up to life imprisonment. Do members realize that? I do not think a lot of the people who are following the debate realize that. We are talking about very serious criminal offences. We are talking about drug offences and trafficking related to organized crime, utilization of weapons, dealing with these problems in the schools and being plagues on society. These are very serious crimes and they are subject to imprisonment up to life. I will read from the bill itself. This is the justice language, but these are indictable offences and liable to imprisonment for life. It says “for life”. It does not say “up to life”. Members have to read it. It is imprisonment for life. There is judicial discretion.

We are dealing with the most serious crimes. We are dealing with organized crime, those who are the plagues on society who use drug money to finance all other kinds of criminal offences. That is very serious. I suppose that anybody who is going to be charged with an offence related to organized crime is going to get a penalty up to life. If the government prescribes a mandatory minimum of one year, how is that important? Does it not say something? If a mandatory minimum is being put in, then some people are getting no sentence for this serious crime under the existing law. Is that true? I do not think so.

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

It is true.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

There is plea bargaining; I understand that. If we want to talk about what happens in the real world, in the courts, we will see examples of where they will sacrifice prosecuting some low-level participant in criminal activity for an opportunity to get at the bigger kingpins, as it were.

There are all kinds of these things out there and people have to understand that. I am not a lawyer and I am not an expert in the courts, but I can say as a layperson that if we are dealing with an indictable offence that is subject to imprisonment for life and we say that we are going to also add a mandatory minimum of one year, that tells me that this life thing is not real. Why did the government members not explain that? They have to explain it.

There is a reason I want to speak to this bill. The member for Moncton--Riverview--Dieppe mentioned something about my age and that I have been around a long time. Well, it has been 15 years, but I have learned a lot.

Back on October 30, 1995 in the 35th Parliament, I stood in this place and gave a 40-minute speech. At the time, lead speakers actually had 40 minutes. I was the chair of the health subcommittee on Bill C-7 regarding the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. This bill actually started under the former Mulroney government but was never dealt with. It finally came before the 35th Parliament and the subcommittee was set up because it was not just a problem of health; there were justice and criminal issues that had to be addressed. There was a whole bunch of issues within society about decriminalizing marijuana and the advent of designer drugs. All of a sudden, people were getting very clever on how to manufacture drugs which were not even known. They had different chemistries and names and they were not included on the list. As a consequence of second reading debate, we found that it was necessary to expand the list.

A subcommittee was established. The member for Hochelaga was on that committee as well. There were thousands of communications and representations and dozens of submissions and witnesses on broad aspects. One of the important reasons we were doing that is that Canada, which is a signatory to many international conventions, had been identified as having failed to live up to its international obligations and had become basically a shipment point for the export of drugs to other countries. This was a very serious issue. We were under a great deal of pressure. I will refer to that a little later.

When we were finished our work, it was clear that it was important that we not only have a national drug strategy but that we also have the tools and plans to make that drug strategy work. When a drug strategy works, it is not just a matter of someone having done something, whether it be possession or trafficking, being a given a penalty, going to jail and everything is fine; it involves people. There are people involved in drugs at all levels. There are users, traffickers, the people who are financing and everybody in between. People are hurt. Families are hurt.

As has been discussed by a number of members, there is the importance of having some balance, such as a harm reduction strategy. How do we deal with these things? There is the aspect of a four pillar approach: harm reduction, prevention, rehabilitation and treatment, and enforcement. It requires much more.

This bill is simply a proxy for the government to say it is getting tough on crime and there will be a mandatory minimum for terrible crimes. Incidentally, and the government does not tell us this, people are subject to life imprisonment already. It did not go far enough.

As a matter of fact, the other thing government members did not mention in their speeches was proposed section 8 in Bill C-15. Proposed section 8 states:

The court is not required to impose a minimum punishment unless it is satisfied that the offender, before entering a plea, was notified of the possible imposition of a minimum punishment for the offence in question and of the Attorney General’s intention to prove any factors in relation to the offence that would lead to the imposition of a minimum punishment.

In other words, notwithstanding what the bill prescribes, the crown attorney has to give notice before someone enters a plea. There is discretion, in fact, if Parliament passes this bill, notwithstanding what members from the Conservative Party said that it is going to be mandatory and people are going to jail, no, the bill hands it over to the courts, to the crown attorneys, plea bargaining and all of that other stuff.

I should mention that the speech I gave was on October 30, 1995. It was significant in my life, and I think in Canada's life, because that was the day of the last Quebec referendum. That is why there were many people engaged in other things. I was asked to give the lead speech on it.

At the time, we debated, we discussed, and the committee went for over two years to address all the issues and concerns that had been raised at second reading. It went to committee. We started getting feedback from our international partners in terms of dealing with drugs, and Canada was a laggard and needed to do something.

Interestingly, many of the points now raised in this debate are the same issues and points that were raised in 1995.

We could not legislate a number of these things. These were recommendations coming out of the committee. These were pleas on behalf of a committee, and a committee report. It said not only does the bill have to be dealt with, we have to deal with scheduling of drugs and with designer drugs. We have to deal with fortified drug houses, for example, organized crime. We have to deal with rehabilitation and treatment and we have to deal with prevention. We could not put that into a bill because that was beyond the scope of the bill, but we reported on those things.

Still today, the solution to all problems of the government is that if people commit an offence it is throwing them in jail. I suppose that is fine for some, but what is the reality in the courts where people are going through the system and they are being judged with regard to the offences that are being referred to?

Back in 1995, the courts were overcrowded. There was no money for rehabilitation and treatment. There were no resources to have effective prevention programs. There was no comprehensive strategy to address the whole family of problems in the world of drugs. There was a plea by Parliament back in 1995, and the same kinds of problems continue today.

The fastest growing industry in the United States now is the prison industry: building jails. It is a system where if one commits an offence, one goes to jail. They say, “We will squeeze them in there. We will keep building jails. We will start privatizing them.” It is a growth industry. It is the biggest growth industry in the United States.

In a small way we are following that same kind of pattern, that when we have crimes we put people in jail and that takes care of it. However, eventually those people come out of jail, they go back into society. Many of them are repeat offenders.

Our system of justice incorporates the whole principle of rehabilitation, but it does not often work. If there are no resources, how can we expect people to come out of jail with a sense that they did something wrong, it was not a good thing, it hurt a lot of people, their life is going to get fixed up and they are going to have the support to make sure they continue on the straight road.

That is not part of the Conservative philosophy. The Conservatives' philosophy is, “They are criminals. We are putting them in jail and we will throw away the key. We are getting tough on crime.”

I think the country is probably worse off if all we do is continue to throw people in jail without trying to deal with the importance of rehabilitation, treatment and crime prevention. Where are those things?

As the federal government, we can pass laws that can amend the Criminal Code and drug laws. Who enforces those? Who is responsible? The responsibility for dealing with crime on the street is substantively within provincial jurisdictions. They, most of them, are the ones that are responsible for the courts. They are responsible for the programs. They are responsible for most of the jails. We have federal judges, but there are also provincial judges.

If we continue to pass laws that pass on more onerous responsibilities and all they are doing is filling up jails, who is going to pay for it? How are they going to be able to afford to discharge those responsibilities that are thrown at them by the federal level of government?

There has to be a shared responsibility. If the system is going to work, we need a strategy that covers all the possible approaches to dealing with serious crime whether or not there is a possibility of rehabilitation or appropriate treatment to deal with people who have been in the drug system. We have to deal with prevention.

I became a member of Parliament in 1993, and the first committee I was on was the health committee. I remember health officials coming before the health committee to talk about the state of our health system in Canada. They told us at the time that 75% of the money spent in the health system was on fixing health problems, addressing illness, and that only 25% was spent on prevention.

I will never forget it. There were 200 green rookies who had just been elected. Officials came before a committee of Parliament, and they concluded that how we spend our health dollars in Canada, with 25% on prevention and 75% on dealing with problems after we had them, was not sustainable. That has stayed with me all my years as a member of Parliament: the value of prevention versus punishment.

Our health system has tried to move in that direction, and it is very difficult, but I think that a dollar spent on prevention provides much more benefit in terms of better health for Canadians than a dollar spent on fixing problems and cures. We have to deal with it before it happens. That is part of why I wanted to speak on this.

I want the government members to know that I do not have a problem with mandatory minimums conceptually. If the courts are not able to do their jobs for one reason or another, there should at least be some period of incarceration. We need to defend the principles. The Liberals brought in mandatory minimums before the Conservatives. We had mandatory minimums in Canada, though not in all areas. It was not a philosophical thing, but it was not across the board.

However, the government seems to think that all it has to do is bring in 10 or 12 justice bills, prescribe mandatory minimums right across the board and that will tell everybody it is getting tough on crime. All it is really doing is filling up the jails and making angry people who will come right back to society. It is going to get worse, and it has in many cases, although some of the statistics I have seen seem to fly in the face of that in certain areas and for certain types of crime.

If we look at what happens in a period of recession and economic duress, the property crime in Canada goes up. It will track unemployment. It did in the last recession, and it will do so in this one too. That is going to put more stress on the system. We have to learn from history about how this works.

I want to conclude by saying that if the members are going to speak in this place, I do not want them to read the bill or give me all the provisions; I want them to tell me why we are doing this and to tell me the truth, that these provisions have life sentences associated with them.

However, proposed section 8 with regard to mandatory minimums sets conditions and provisions whereby the crown attorney and the people in the courts can basically decide that there will not be a mandatory minimum. Not one of those members said it, because it takes away from their argument that we are getting tough on crime. We are simply delegating that decision to the courts. The bill is not setting mandatory minimums; we are delegating that opportunity to the courts. There is much more that goes on in the courts. The members have not addressed it, and they have not done their jobs.

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

Madam Speaker, I do have some comments, and probably not any questions, for the hon. member for Mississauga South.

I was a little confused listening to his speech. In one instance he was against the bill. He does not think it is tough enough because he thinks there is an escape clause in proposed section 8, but then he goes on to say that all it will do is fill up our jails with criminals who do not deserve to be there.

I am a little confused. Is he for or against the bill? If he is against it, why exactly is that? I will try to help him out. He was critical of my speech because it listed the salient features of the act and he did not like that. He does not understand proposed section 8, so I will attempt to explain it to him.

Proposed section 8 is the provision that entitles an accused person to notice if the Crown is seeking a mandatory minimum sentence. There is nothing new or novel about proposed section 8, and this was not the focus of debate or discussion at committee.

I appreciate that the member for Mississauga South is not a lawyer, but if he talks to the lawyers within his caucus, I am sure they will satisfy him that in our criminal justice system the accused is entitled to full disclosure. The accused is entitled to know the evidence against him and the Crown's intention.

There is nothing novel or new about section 8. The Criminal Code is full of notice provisions, for example, if the Crown is seeking incarceration on a subsequent impaired driving operation, the accused is entitled to notice of that. The accused is entitled to notice of all the evidence. There is nothing new or novel about that.

With respect to the need for this, the member for Mississauga South was quite right, the maximum penalties do exist. For some trafficking offences, life imprisonment is available. The problem was that the courts were not awarding anything close to the maximum sentences. We have all sorts of anecdotal evidence where people who were selling drugs were sentenced to house arrest or to conditional sentences. The government feels very strongly that those who are involved in those types of activities ought to be subject to minimum mandatory sentences--

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

As there were a number of other members rising to ask questions, I will let the member for Mississauga South answer.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, the first thing is the point about the mandatory minimums. My comments were about the principle of mandatory minimums brought in across all the legislation.

The member may recall, maybe he was not listening at the time, that I was referring to the series of bills that the government had brought in, particularly in the last Parliament. That is why I reached the conclusion that in all of those bills the mandatory minimums would tend to increase the prison population. It is not this bill. It will not. It does not have to. For serious crimes, when a person is subject to up to life imprisonment, clearly if they are not getting, and he said “close to the maximum”, are they getting mostly in the middle? To say it is one year, clearly that is a token. It does not reflect an explanation as to why it is one year. Is the reason because the courts are not giving any sentences? The member has to be clear in his question.

I explained very clearly that if the court has the discretion, the court is not required to impose a minimum punishment, et cetera. That is proposed section 8. It is not what the member said. He should read it himself.

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

Madam Speaker, I will make a comment before asking my question.

My colleague is quite right when he says that the court is not required to impose a prison sentence. However, we must read the clause in its entirety. The judge will have to justify and explain the reasons for his decision in the warrant of committal, which is forwarded to the prison. In addition, these decisions may be appealed. There is nothing more than that to guide judges. It would be exceptional. Furthermore, the accused must agree to participate in and complete a drug treatment program. That is what clause 8 says.

I would like to ask my colleague a question. In his riding, in the region he represents, what will be the impact of this bill on provincial prisons, the prisons that house adults serving a sentence of less than two years? Is the opportunity for rehabilitation not compromised by this bill?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, earlier in the debate I started to jot down some notes, and one of the first things I did was to try to figure out what the assessment was of the current situation in the courts. I wrote down, “jails crowded, courts crowded, rehabilitation treatment not available for far too long”. The system has some problems. If there is no room in the jails, then new jails are built or people are not sent to jail but given house arrest or whatever.

The member who just asked a question previously raised this and said that all we were doing is giving house arrests. If the member would just think it through he would have to ask himself why. Is it just because we are soft on crime, or is it because we have a problem in the prison system?