Stop Bill C-26

The odour is pronounced.
Bill C-26: End it, don't mend it!

Further Reading on Bill C-26

Libby Davies, MP
Vancouver East
NDP Spokesperson for Drug Policy

C-26 An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act

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, to reschedule certain substances from Schedule III to that Act to Schedule I, and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

The Conservatives claim this bill is tough on organized crime and big time traffickers. The reality is that mandatory minimums do not deter organized crime. Instead, they affect almost exclusively the small dealers, street traffickers, and non-violent offenders while leaving the door open for organized crime to step in and fill the void created at the lower levels. Mandatory Minimums for drug sentences increase enforcement costs exponentially, and the burden on the criminal justice and prisons systems is great.

Summary of C-26

The Bill proposes minimum penalties for the production, possession, trafficking, importing/exporting and production of Marijuana, Cocaine Heroin, Methamphetamines and other drugs.

Marijuana:

• 1 to 2 year mandatory prisons sentences for the production, possession for the purposes of trafficking, trafficking, and importing/exporting.
• Length of sentences depend on "aggravating factors" such as a prior drug offence, if trafficking takes place in areas where there are young people or children, if health and safety of children, property, residential property or property of a third party is threatened.
• Sentences relating to possession, trafficking, importing/exporting, mostly depend on quantities however, mandatory sentences for production of even 1 marijuana plant calls for a minimum sentence of 6 months.

Cocaine, Heroin, Methamphetamine, etc.

• 1 to 3 year mandatory sentences for the production, possession for the purposes of trafficking, trafficking, and importing/exporting.
• Sentences are not related to quantities
• Sentences do relate to "aggravating factors" as outlined for marijuana

Other

• The maximum penalty for cannabis production would increase from 7 to 14 years imprisonment; and
• Tougher penalties will be introduced for trafficking GHB and flunitrazepam (most commonly known as date-rape drugs).
• Amphetamines, all its by-products, GHB and flunitrazepam (a.k.a. the date rape drug) have been moved from schedule III to schedule I.

Overall Concerns

• There is no proof that mandatory minimums are effective and appropriate measures to reduce drug use and crimes related to drugs. Most evidence shows the opposite.
• C-26 does not address the core issue of why people use drugs.
• C-26 increases already imbalanced and over-funded enforcement approach to drug use in Canada without reducing crime rates or drug use.
• Abandons successful measures such as harm reduction and grass roots education programs.
• Moves toward expensive, failed US style war on drugs that spends tens of billions a year on enforcement and incarceration while crime rates and drug use soar.
• Leads to greater incarceration rates and greater burden on courts, police, and prisons.
• The Bill leaves it open for enforcement to go after the low level dealers and marijuana infractions (The selling of one joint or growing one plant could constitute trafficking).
• Current waiting lists for drug treatment beds is from months to years, depending on the city and region, Drug Treatment Courts will only serve to put more people on a waiting list.

Failed US War on Drugs

• Mandatory-sentencing policies have produced record incarceration rates of non-violent drug users in the United States. (HIV/AIDS Legal Network).

• 2.1 million people are in US prisons. 80 % of the increase in the federal prison population from 85-95 is due to drug convictions. By 2004, drug offenders made up 54 percent of sentenced federal prisoners, up from just 25 percent in 1980 (American Bar Association and Drug Policy Alliance). US minimums were introduced in 1986.

• The supposed targets for these sentences - the Kingpins are in the best position to negotiate lighter or no sentence deals with the prosecutors.

• MMs disproportionately target visible minorities (American Civil Liberties Union)

• In June 2004, the American Bar Association's (ABA's) Justice Kennedy Commission called on Congress to repeal mandatory minimum sentences, particularly with respect to drug crimes. "Mandatory minimum sentences tend to be tough on the wrong people."

• The US Sentencing Commission concluded that MMs fail to deter crime, and reported that that only 11% of federal drug defendants are high-level drug dealers, 59% of crack defendants are street level dealers compared to 5% of defendants who are high level crack dealers. (US Sentencing Commission, Special Report to Congress, 1995).

• In 2000, California repealed MMs for minor drug offences. In 2004, Michigan repealed MMs for most drug offences including repealing the "harshest drug law in the nation", life without parole for dealing more that 650 grams of cocaine. (Michigan Senate Fiscal Agency) Delaware and Massachusetts have similar legislative reviews in process.

Canadian Picture

Canada spends 73% of its drug policy budget on enforcement.

Treatment 14%

Research 7%

Prevention 2.6%

Harm Reduction 2.6%

Still, drug use continues to rise. In 1994 28% of Canadians reported to have used illicit drugs. By 2004, this number was 45%.

Canadian Picture continued

A 2002 Justice Department report concluded that mandatory minimum sentences are least effective in relation to drug offences.

"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."
- MANDATORY MINIMUM PENALTIES: Their Effects on Crime, Sentencing Disparities, and Justice System Expenditures, 2002

• Minimums will drive out small operations and open the door for more organized crime involvement.

• Frank Addario, head of the Criminal Lawyers Association of Ontario noted that Justice Department research shows that MMs do not deter offenders more that "tailored proportionate sentences" and often result in LOWER CONVICTION RATES because judges are reluctant to convict somebody for a minor transgression if they know the penalty is harsh.

• Neil Boyd, SFU drug expert, "The changes will only hike the prices of drugs, including cannabis. It will make increased profitability - it will be good for the dealers."

• This and other Conservative crime initiatives are opening the door to the privatization of prisons. Canada's prisons are overcrowded and, "boiling over with violence." (B.C. Government and Service Employees' Union.) With the expected explosion in prison populations that accompany all the Conservative crime Bills, the NUPGE and the John Howard Society agree that the government will see no other alternative but to privatize the prison system in Canada.

• In 2005/2006 adults in remand for the first time outnumbered convicted offenders serving a sentence in provincial institutions. (Statistics Canada Daily, November 21, 2007)

• The annual average cost of incarcerating an individual male in Canada:

$110,223 (maximum security level)
$71,640 (medium security level)
$74,431 (minimum security level)

Canada's first large privately run prison, a 1,200-inmate maximum-security "super-jail" has been deemed a failure and will be taken over by the province.

Drug Treatment Court (DTC)

This element of the bill reveals the real intentions of this Bill, that it is targeted at low level users and not organized crime.

Forced or coerced treatment doesn't work. In the US, DTC options have resulted in a surge of individuals who don't need treatment going into treatment to avoid mandatory terms. It is a colossal waste of resources.

Treatment programs are desperately inadequate - tailoring them to the point of conviction is unrealistic will deplete already severely under-resourced treatment services. The waiting time for a treatment bed in Ottawa is four months.

The NDP Drug Strategy

The NDP is calling for a balanced approach to address drug use and build safer, healthier communities.

Prevention - Realistic peer based education, stronger social safety net, stable ongoing funding for programs

Treatment - more beds, treatment on demand, stable funding

Harm Reduction - Saving and expanding safe injection sites, recognizing drug use as health issue

Enforcement - for violent and serious drug offences, equal application of the laws

Treatment, Prevention, Harm Reduction and Enforcement

The four-pillar approach has proved successful in cities in the U.S., UK, and Europe. It is based on the four pillars of Prevention, Treatment, Harm Reduction and Enforcement. All pillars are equally important and they must be integrated and jointly implemented to be effective. The Big city Mayors caucus supported the four-pillar approach.

In 2002, the House Special Committee on Non-Medical use of drugs, the Office of Auditor General, and the Senate Committee called for:

• Strengthened leadership, coordination and accountability with dedicated resources
• Enhanced data collection to set measurable objectives, evaluate programs and report on progress
• Balance of supply & demand activities across government
• Increased emphasis on prevention, treatment and rehabilitation

Existing Laws

Canada has extensive organized crime legislation. C-24 (Liberal Bill supported by the Conservatives) makes participation in a criminal organization an offence. The provisions of C-24 can target anyone (not just organized crime members) who knowingly becomes involved in activities that further an organization's criminal objectives. C-24 allows the Seizure, freezing and confiscation of the proceeds of crime - although this has NEVER been used.

Existing maximum penalties for serious drug offenses already include life sentences.

GHB and flunitrazepam: Administering a stupefying substance with the intent to cause harm is already a very serious offence under the criminal code, Section 245 (a), and carries a maximum sentence of 14 years.

Conclusion

• C-26 is designed to appeal to the core Conservative base. It is an oversimplification of drug use in Canada that uses scare tactics to bully people into thinking that marijuana is at the root of violent and organized crime in Canada. This Bill does nothing to address either of those problems.

• Conservatives are taking Canada in the wrong direction. A direction that is expensive, has no effect on drug use, and will only increase the prison population, creating a new set of overpopulation, health, safety, and crime problems within the prison system.

• Canada must have a balanced to drug use. The 4 Pillar Approach: Prevention, Treatment, Harm Reduction and Enforcement, has been successful in Europe and is being adopted by big city Mayors in Canada.

• Mandatory Minimums are least likely to work on drug crimes.

• The experience in the American system shows us this model does not work.

Key points

• The bill ignores the root causes and problems of drug use in Canada.
• Mandatory Minimums don't work on drug crimes.
• This is a recipe for exploding prisons, courtroom backlogs and millions of wasted tax payer's dollars.
• As usual, the Conservatives are ignoring what is working and going for a failed George Bush style war on drugs.
• This is a win for Organized Crime - taking the small players off the street, pushing up the prices of drugs and leaving the door open for organized crime.

What the experts are saying

Craig Jones, Executive Director John Howard Society of Canada
"The feds will crack down on crime, but the provinces will be punished."

Thomas Kerr, PhD, BC Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS
"If Canada wants to fulfill it 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 shoveling millions of dollars towards these failed programs."

Former B.C. Judge Jerry Paradis, Spokesperson for LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition)
"MMs 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."

Other validators
Frank Addario, head of the Criminal Lawyers' Association of Ontario
Professor Neil Boyd, Simon Fraser University, Associate Director of the School of Criminology
Associate professor, Eugene Oscapella, Ottawa University, Barrister and Solicitor
Canada HIV/AIDS Legal Network