Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Issue 16 - Evidence, October 21, 2009
OTTAWA, Wednesday, October 21, 2009
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, to which was referred Bill C-15, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, met this day at 5:02 p.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Pierre Claude Nolin (Deputy Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Welcome, everyone. We will have two things to start with today. First, I have a declaration to report to you. Colleagues, I would like to indicate that Senator Campbell has made a written declaration of private interest regarding Bill S-226. In accordance with rule 32.1(1), the declaration shall be recorded in the minutes of proceedings of this committee.
[Translation]
Welcome, colleagues. As you can see, Senator Fraser is absent today and I have agreed to take her place.
We are continuing today our study of Bill C-15, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts.
[English]
With us today from the Department of Justice Canada, we have Mr. Paul Saint-Denis, Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section. He is here to answer technical questions members of the committee may have on the bill. As such, he will not be making an opening statement.
Welcome, Mr. Saint-Denis. You and I have been discussing that large subject for many years. I welcome you to our committee. I am sure colleagues will have very interesting questions for you, and we will start right away.
Senator Baker: Welcome, Mr. Saint-Denis. I do not know whether you will be able to answer the two questions I have for you, but I will put them to you anyway. They are the two things that stood out for me when I read the bill.
The first question relates to clause 4 of the bill, proposed new section 8 under the heading ``Notice.'' The scheme of the legislation appears to be, if not exactly the same, then mirrored on section 255 of the Criminal Code, which is impaired driving, with the enabling section 727. When you get to your second or third offence, there is a minimum sentence, and the triggering point is that the Crown prosecutor, as proposed new section 8 here says, must satisfy the court that the person has been notified.
I will read from proposed section 8 in clause 4:
. . . 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 . . .
Am I correct in interpreting that as being a similar scheme whereby the Crown attorney is the person who enters the person's previous conviction on the record of the court and that person has been so warned prior to pleading?
Paul Saint-Denis, Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice Canada: That is partially correct, senator. In point of fact, as you go through the bill, you will see that there are a number of aggravating factors that could lead to a minimum penalty. The notice provision here is really for forewarning the accused and the court that there is a possibility that a minimum penalty will be sought. For the minimum penalty to be applied, certain factors will have to have been proven in court. It is to give fair warning. Without that, there would be no minimum penalty imposed.
Senator Baker: I will draw attention to your last sentence, where you said that if that is not done, no minimum penalty will be imposed. That is the scheme of section 727 of the code, without making reference to it, as it relates to impaired driving. That is exactly what you just said. If the Crown attorney does not enter the previous conviction, then a minimum sentence cannot be imposed, correct?
Mr. Saint-Denis: Actually, the provision says that the court is ``not required.'' It does not mean that the court cannot. However, the way the scheme is set out is the court ``must,'' if certain things have been proven and notice has been given. Absent a notice, the court may choose to impose a minimum penalty, but it does not have to.
You keep referring to the prior conviction, senator, but it is not just prior convictions that would trigger a minimum penalty. It could be a range of different things, such as the use of a weapon, use of violence, being gang-related, so on and so forth.
Senator Baker: It also includes previous convictions.
Mr. Saint-Denis: It would include a prior conviction.
Senator Baker: That is the triggering point of a clause of this bill. Here is my concern, and I do not know whether the department has thought about it: In the past year or so, a multitude of cases have decreed that this violates section 7 of the Charter — fundamental rights — that the discretion to enter the record is in the hands of the prosecutor.
I have here in front of me several cases from the Ontario courts that are very clear about it. It dates back to a decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. In other words, these court judgments have said that only Parliament and the court have the right to impose a sentence, that the discretion held in the hands of the Crown, in this instance, is unconstitutional and violates fundamental justice. Have you considered that? You may not want to answer that question.
Mr. Saint-Denis: I do not mind responding. I am not sure I will be able to answer. I know Crown discretion is sensitive to the courts and to others. To my knowledge, the courts have generally acknowledged that discretion is, by and large, constitutional.
I am not familiar with the cases you are referring to, so I cannot comment on them. Your point is that only the courts and the legislator can determine sentencing, or set out the parameters for sentencing. That does not change with Crown discretion. The Crown has always had the discretion to present certain factors, going to aggravating elements to a crime, the result of which would be an increase in the penalty. That has never been contested, to my knowledge.
The Crown here is not really imposing a sentence. The Crown can choose to bring forward certain elements, which would result, if proven, in a minimum penalty.
Senator Baker: I will just read the title of both cases, if I could. The first is R. v. Gill, Ontario Court of Justice, 2008, Carswell, Ontario, 6139. The other one I picked up was prior to that. It is R. v. King, 2007, Carswell, Ontario, 3314. The most recent case cites a multitude of cases upon which, yes, prosecutorial discretion cannot be questioned. However, when prosecutorial discretion is used outside of the core duty of a Crown prosecutor, which is to bring something to trial, to handle it as it goes through and to bring it is to a successful end or an unsuccessful end, whatever the case may be, when it is outside the core responsibility, the courts have judged this to be unconstitutional as it relates to the Crown having the discretion as to whether to impose a minimum sentence.
I understand what you are saying. You say that they are not really in the Crown's hands, but if the Crown does not enter the evidence, then the minimum sentence does not apply.
I have a second question. The chair will not allow me much time.
The Deputy Chair: Obviously, you are not aware of that jurisprudence. Maybe you would like to read it before commenting on it. Perhaps you could do that in writing.
Mr. Saint-Denis: I am not familiar with these cases, nor am I familiar with the level of case; that is, whether it is a trial division decision or an appeal court decision. It is not a Supreme Court decision, which means it has limited import.
Senator Baker: That is true, but it started with the British Columbia Court of Appeal. That is why the lower courts have been judging the same way since then. When you read those cases, you will see the cases that they reference.
The Deputy Chair: Senator Baker raises an important point. Some of us have a similar question about the discretion of the Crown prosecutors. Maybe you could read that and write to us to give us some kind of enlightened answer that we can digest afterwards.
Mr. Saint-Denis: I can certainly take a look at these cases. To make sure on the second reference, it is R. v. King, 2007.
Senator Baker: It is R. v. King, 2007, Carswell, Ontario, 3314. I use those cases because they were not appealed. I do not want to bring a case to your attention that is in the process of being appealed. The time has gone for appeal for both these cases. It is the case law they reference that I am interested in.
My second question is a simple question. It relates to the wording of proposed new paragraph 5(3)(a)(ii)(A) in clause 1(1) of the bill, which states:
. . . near any other public place usually frequented by persons under the age of 18 years . . .
Mr. Saint-Denis, I have been in Parliament a long time, and I can recall that, in 1993, we had to change the Criminal Code. We changed section 161. It was a loitering section as it relates to persons who had previous convictions of sexual assault, sexual offences. The wording was exactly the wording of this, and it said ``at or near a public place.'' In this case, we had to change the words ``at or near a public park or swimming place.''
In R. v. Heywood, Supreme Court of Canada, 1994, Carswell, B.C., 592, we changed the law and we brought in section 161 which said that if you are in a place where children frequent — not if you are near a public place, which could include a street, national park, and so on, because the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in Heywood that that was ``geographically over-broad.'' They struck it down. It was not saved by section 1 of the Charter. However, they referenced with approval the change that we had brought in. This was prompted by a decision of the B.C. Court of Appeal, who made the original decision. The Supreme Court of Canada referenced our new change of section 161, which narrowed down where that person would be. The person had to be either in or close to a place defined — a playground, a swimming area, and so on.
Did you give any thought to the fact that it appears obvious on the face of it that this would raise a constitutional challenge when someone reads it?
Mr. Saint-Denis: I assume that when we submitted our proposals to our constitutional and Charter people they looked at every aspect of this bill. I cannot say specifically whether they focused on that particular matter, but I can point out to you that this is the wording that now exists in section 10 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, CDSA.
Senator Baker: That is right.
Mr. Saint-Denis: It requires courts to take into account aggravating factors such as these listed, but not exclusively. One of the factors listed is exactly this wording.
Senator Baker: Those exact words, yes, in a list.
Mr. Saint-Denis: In a list, that is correct.
Senator Baker: Not a specific offence but in a list.
Mr. Saint-Denis: This is not a specific offence, either; it is an aggravating factor in the same manner as it is an aggravating factor in the present CDSA. The important difference is that the presence of this factor in the bill would mean that a minimum penalty would be imposed. It is possible that the courts would look at this and say that it is too vague, perhaps not. To my knowledge, this provision as it stands now has never been challenged. What will develop is hard to say.
Senator Baker: I will accept that.
Senator Milne: ``At or near a public place'' is very broad. We all know what street limit setbacks are: 16 feet from the centre of the road in a residential area in Ontario at least. You could be on your own front lawn and you would be at or near a public place.
Mr. Saint-Denis: It is not just ``at or near a public place''; it is ``at or near a public place that is frequented by.''
Senator Milne: So I have children.
Mr. Saint-Denis: I think the courts would tend to look at a place where youth tend to congregate rather than just pass by or happen to live. That is certainly the intent.
Senator Milne: That is the intent, but is there legal precedent for this?
Mr. Saint-Denis: The fact that it is the language that exists in the present act is the precedent to which I would point. It has not resulted in a successful challenge. To be fair, I cannot tell you that it was ever challenged, either. We are somewhat in uncertain territory as far as that goes.
Senator Watt: I said I would not ask any questions, but I am from the North and I deal with very small communities. This makes me want to know how close is ``close.'' Do you have an answer for that, when you are dealing with small communities?
Mr. Saint-Denis: I do not have an answer for that. The courts will have to grapple with the question of how close is ``close'' when and if this ever comes up.
Senator Watt: In other words, it will remain sort of vague?
Mr. Saint-Denis: It is ``vague-ish.''
Senator Watt: Very broad.
Mr. Saint-Denis: Yes, and ``broad-ish.''
Senator Milne: Over-broad.
Mr. Saint-Denis: I believe that it could change, depending on the circumstances. Close in dense urban areas might not be the same as close in rural areas or in the territories, for instance. I can imagine courts deciding that there are distinctions to be made there. We did not define ``close,'' because we thought this was the kind of thing the courts could tackle usefully.
Senator Watt: When the law was being constructed, I guess you were basically thinking of a big city, not a small community.
Mr. Saint-Denis: I think that is correct, as I recall. I have been working on this for a long time, including the development of the existing Controlled Drugs and Substances Act; our main concerns were primarily urban areas, where there were more significant problems.
Senator Wallace: As I read Bill C-15, the intention, I think, should be obvious: Bill C-15 attempts to enhance the safety and security of Canadians. It attempts to deal with the scourge of drugs, which exists, unfortunately, to too great an extent in this country. In particular, it zeroes in on organized crime and all of the problems that can bring to society.
Against that backdrop, an issue has come up. I must say that since Bill C-15 has been publicized, I have received messages from people who have various concerns. What I take from some of those messages is that there is confusion; the public seems to be confused.
In particular, I am looking at the proposed new mandatory sentences that would be included within the schedule 2 drugs — in particular, the minimum penalties that would exist for the production of marijuana, cannabis, that would cover five plants or more. The impression I am left with from the questions that are being posed is that somehow Bill C-15 relates to possession of those drugs as opposed to my understanding, which is that it relates to the production for the purpose of trafficking — trafficking in a broader sense — and, as well, exportation and importation. The fact is that Bill C-15 is not dealing with possession; rather it deals with production, particularly production for the purpose of trafficking.
My question for you is what type of evidence is needed to prove that production of five or more plants would be for the purpose of trafficking? What does it take to constitute trafficking in the context of those five or more plants?
Mr. Saint-Denis: You would need the number of plants; that is the easy part. The more difficult part is what you would want to call perhaps a gathering of indicia, the result of which would lead one to conclude that there was trafficking. By that, I mean for instance whether the individual has a number of baggies that are filled with cannabis marijuana, whether the individual has what looks to be a client list, or whether he has had prior convictions for trafficking. A number of various events or manifestations or indicia could lead someone to conclude that the production is for the purpose of trafficking. It is an onus that is on the Crown to prove; it is not one that is presumptive.
Senator Wallace: Simply, someone being in possession of five or more plants would not necessarily constitute trafficking and would not be affected by Bill C-15; is that correct?
Mr. Saint-Denis: Not by the minimum penalties. If the individual is growing five or more plants — 201 or fewer but more than five — if there is no demonstration of trafficking or if you cannot demonstrate the purpose, then it is straight production and there is no minimum penalty. However, there is still an offence, which is punishable by seven years presently.
Senator Wallace: To attract the minimum penalties under Bill C-15, the Crown would have to prove that the production was for the purpose of trafficking. The Crown would have to adduce that evidence to convince the court.
Mr. Saint-Denis: That is correct. Another method of proof is through wiretap evidence or through testimony. There are many ways of achieving that proof, but it must be done.
Senator Wallace: Thank you for clarifying that. It is important to a number of people.
The medical use of marijuana, cannabis, is approved in certain circumstances in this country. There is an approval and licensing process, as I understand it, that enables those who need marijuana and cannabis for those approved medical purposes to use it.
How, if in any way, does Bill C-15 affect that present legal right to use marijuana and cannabis?
Mr. Saint-Denis: It should not. It does not purport to interfere with the regulatory process of medical marijuana. Patients who are referred by their doctors apply to Health Canada, and if they get a permit to possess or a permit to grow, they are exempted from the application of this and the CDSA, as far as the marijuana goes.
Senator Wallace: Again, thank you for clarifying that, because I sense from some of the feedback I have received that the public is confused about that issue. I think you have clarified it very well.
Senator Milne: I, too, have been getting emails from users of medical marijuana who are growing their own marijuana who are greatly concerned that they will be caught by this five-or-more provision. They are concerned about being caught in this five or more or fewer than 201.
Is there some way that the government can set their minds at ease? I do not think what you have said in this room will get out to these people very quickly.
Mr. Saint-Denis: I think it is important to make a distinction between those who use marijuana for medical purposes through the regulatory process, and those who self-medicate. Those who self-medicate, without accessing the permits —
Senator Milne: They will be caught by this.
Mr. Saint-Denis: They will be caught. They are contravening the provisions of the CDSA and would be caught by this. We cannot help those individuals.
Senator Milne: Other than advising them to go to their doctor.
Mr. Saint-Denis: Yes. Those who go through the regulatory process, if this bill comes into force —
Senator Angus: When.
Mr. Saint-Denis: When — it is your hands, not mine.
Senator Angus: Hope springs eternal.
Mr. Saint-Denis: Then I have to believe that the media will report this and that more accurate information will be put out there. Plus, the new legislation will be put on the Justice website.
Senator Milne: A great concern I have is the accessibility of drug courts. We do not have them in Quebec, the Atlantic provinces or the territories. Is the federal government planning on opening drug courts in any of these areas?
Mr. Saint-Denis: I understand there is some interest in some of those areas in drug courts. Historically, the drug court program was an evolutionary thing. We did not start off by saying we will have a drug court program and then establish six drug courts. It started with one in Toronto. We then went to a second one in Vancouver. Both those courts were pilot projects. In fact, the four drug courts that have come into operation since then, while not full pilot projects, are closer to pilot projects than established programs. The reason for that is that we have not done a full evaluation of the benefits of drug courts.
In the United States, where they have had drug courts for quite a number of years now, there is still some controversy as to the cost benefit of drug courts. The process is fairly cumbersome and fairly expensive, and there are medical practitioners who believe you get more bang for your dollar by not putting all these monies into this structure but by opening up more treatment centres.
We want to find out for ourselves just how these things work and how beneficial they are. We are not proposing to expand these courts for the moment, to my knowledge. We will certainly not be doing anything until we have a better sense of their merit.
Having said that, it is true that the existing six courts are found only in certain parts of the country. The provision that refers to the drug court here also refers to treatment programs, and those are much more available throughout the country. An individual who is given an opportunity to go to a treatment program and who successfully completes that treatment program, as set out under section 720 of the code here, would also have the possibility of not having a minimum penalty imposed on them.
Essentially, you have a parallel track; you have treatment programs, and they are much more available and dispersed throughout the country, and then you have the six drug courts. Therefore, where there is a drug court, an individual might go to the drug court, or he might end up going through a treatment program. Or where there are no drug courts, there are treatment programs. Individuals may be referred to those, and if they successfully complete their programs, then the court has the option of not imposing a minimum penalty.
Senator Milne: That leads right into my next question. How many people go through the drug court process each year? Have you gathered any data on how many people actually graduate from it?
Mr. Saint-Denis: There is some information. It is actually a fairly small number per court. I understand roughly, on average, 100 people go through a drug court per year.
Senator Milne: Is that the total of the six?
Mr. Saint-Denis: No, per court. Roughly about 600 people in total.
I am given to understand that the courts are not being used to full capacity, on the one hand, and on the other hand, the 600 or so people who go through the drug courts annually represent a very small portion of drug offenders. I can understand why there is a lot of interest in the drug courts, but really, they represent a small portion of the entire phenomenon. Only a small percentage of drug offenders are dealt with.
Senator Milne: In that case, how many additional people do you think would be charged per year under these new provisions? Would it be the same proportion, then, that seek access to these drug courts?
Mr. Saint-Denis: We are now wandering into the speculative. I do not believe these provisions would result in additional charges. Nothing here broadens or adds new offences. No new offences are being created here. What we are doing is taking aggravating factors that courts often take into account, and now we are saying that when those aggravating factors are present, the courts will have to impose a minimum penalty. They range from six months up to three years, depending on the circumstances.
We are not actually attacking the level of activity in a broader way.
Senator Milne: The bill, then, is merely looking at minimum sentences, period.
Mr. Saint-Denis: That is correct. No new offences.
Senator Milne: Nothing new, just minimum sentences. That comes down to whether or not we think there is any value in minimum sentences. Do you have any statistics that indicate that they work?
Mr. Saint-Denis: I do not have statistics that prove they do or do not work. Minimum penalties, in the drug area particularly, are non-existent at the moment. We did have a minimum penalty up until the mid-1980s or late 1980s for importation, and that was struck down. It was a seven-year minimum. Therefore, we have virtually no information on the Canadian experience.
We have looked at the U.S. The experience in the U.S., first, is not definitive. It does tend to show some things, but the U.S. situation is not the Canadian situation. The U.S. has a horrendous drug problem and a totally different demographic makeup. It simply has a different drug problem. I do not think it is reasonable or logical to look at the situation in the U.S. and say that is what will happen in Canada. We do not know that.
Do I have statistics or information that will show that this will work or will not work? No, I do not.
Senator Angus: Good evening, Mr. Saint-Denis. In my first line of questioning, I want to make sure I understand. You are senior counsel in the Criminal Law Policy Section at the Department of Justice Canada.
Mr. Saint-Denis: That is right.
Senator Angus: What goes on in the Criminal Law Policy Section?
Mr. Saint-Denis: We provide advice to the minister if there are amendments to criminal legislation, particularly the Criminal Code, but also the drug legislation and other areas. We will put forward options based on analysis and so on. We will prepare cabinet documents for the minister to transmit to his colleagues for consideration.
Senator Angus: I know the question was a broad one, but I am interested in it from two points of view. I assume that in terms of policy, it includes legislative policy, and probably mainly that.
I wonder also whether it has to do with policy regarding facilities. We are hearing much about how the prisons might be overcrowded as a result of this kind of legislation. Would you folks point it out if there is a risk that we might not have the incarceration facilities that might be needed as a result of legislation?
Mr. Saint-Denis: Yes. When we put forward policy options, we try to consider a number of different elements, including the potential impact it might have on the criminal justice system.
Senator Angus: I am glad to hear that, and it is interesting.
After the minister testified here on this bill, and some suggested there might be an overcrowding of our prisons as a result of this legislation, the minister announced that there was a new policy to expand the prison facilities. I am sure at least some of our colleagues were interested to hear that.
Would that have emanated from your department?
Mr. Saint-Denis: No. I am not 100 per cent clear on the question.
Senator Angus: There were several articles about it in the papers over the weekend. I thought you were acting quickly.
Mr. Saint-Denis: I do not know. The question of the capacities of our penitentiaries and so forth really goes to the Minister of Public Safety. That is his area. They have their own policy shops, as it happens.
Senator Angus: This is the article, right? In any event, it is for the other minister.
The Deputy Chair: It is not the justice minister.
Senator Angus: I was interested in that.
There is another thing, which is more within your mandate. We heard from Minister Nicholson, and it certainly rang true with me, that with this particular amendment or these amendments, the government is aiming at a situation that is driven by organized crime — he used the words ``organized crime'' — wanting to get these people off the streets and to use any means that would diminish their presence. He also used the phrase, ``People are afraid out there.''
That led me to a question I asked a previous witness, Howard Krongold, a representative of the criminal defence bar, I believe. Circumstances necessitated asking the question verbally but getting the answer back in writing. Tonight, I have been handed that response by the clerk. It has been answered by another question, and I need your comments, sir. I will read my question to Mr. Krongold:
I understand that both of you are critical of the bill with respect to the provision on mandatory minimum sentences because, in your view, it will increase the costs of the administration of justice and you feel it contains provisions that are discriminatory, in particular against certain elements of society, namely, Aboriginal peoples.
Are you critical of any other elements in the bill? Is there anything that the minister said he is trying to accomplish that you agree will be accomplished through the bill? You heard Senator Campbell say that he agrees with many provisions in the bill because it is tough on crime and will help to reduce this perception, which I put to you is not false. People are afraid, and the bill is directed against organized crime.
The answer comes: ``This bill will not make people safer.'' Stop there. What is your comment on that? The minister has said that, though I paraphrased it.
Mr. Saint-Denis: I believe the bill has the potential to make people safer. It has the potential to make them feel safer. I guess, in some instances, we are dealing with perceptions. It is meant to deal with organized crime, but it would also deal with drug traffickers who use violence who may not be related to organized crime. Certainly, drug activity where weapons or violence are used is a considerable concern for a number of Canadians. If this bill can help to remove some of these violent offenders, then I would have to conclude that it makes Canadian society a little safer and it might make Canadians feel safer, as well.
Senator Angus: In the generation of policy that led to this bill, was that a factor taken into consideration?
Mr. Saint-Denis: The concern about Canadian safety and organized crime was fundamental to the creation of this legislation.
Senator Angus: Questions were put to the minister regarding certain petty offences and situations where mandatory minimum penalties could be unfair in certain circumstances and it was said there could be unintended consequences. The minister responded — again, I will paraphrase — ``This is not to target those minor offences. This is to target the really bad guys.'' Is that correct?
Mr. Saint-Denis: Yes.
Senator Angus: Do you feel it is clear enough and will not be subject to abuse by prosecutors and enforcers?
Mr. Saint-Denis: I believe this is a reasonably well-balanced approach to the problem.
Senator Angus: Thank you.
Mr. Chair, I wanted to reference these articles. This is from The Globe and Mail on October 16. It is an article from page A1 by Bill Curry, entitled ``Ottawa will expand prisons to suit tough crime laws.'' It says, ``The government is leaning toward renovating prisons and building new wings as a short-term solution to anticipated influx of inmates.''
The reason I bring that out is that it has been indicated — and nobody from Justice or the government side has denied it — that there will be a tendency to increase the prison population if this law passes. The government realizes that and is taking measures to do it.
The Deputy Chair: As we mentioned earlier, it was another department. Mr. Saint-Denis's plate is already quite large and I do not think he has to answer.
Mr. Saint-Denis: I agree that perception is out there. I cannot speak to its accuracy. Again, we are moving into speculation, and one can speculate one way or the other.
Senator Angus: That is exactly right, and much of the criticism of the bill was based on speculation.
The Deputy Chair: We have invited Mr. Van Loan to appear to testify and give us some clarity around such declarations.
Senator Angus: Can I ask for a point of clarification, Mr. Chair?
The Deputy Chair: How about I put you on a second round?
Senator Angus: I am asking you, if I may, sir.
The Deputy Chair: What do you want to ask me?
Senator Angus: I want to ask you a point of clarification.
When we get these answers in writing — which I suggest are not answers but rather throwing us questions — what is the process? How do they get into the transcript?
The Deputy Chair: They do not. Usually they are answers to questions asked, and those questions are in the transcript, but the answers are not.
Senator Angus: It is a total waste of time. Senator Milne, for whom I have great respect, is asking why I am reading the transcript. I have to in order to ask my question properly and to get the point across that we are trying to bring out facts through our questioning. The other chair, if I may — Madam Chair — said the answers will be given in writing. This was my first experience with this, and if it will not appear in the transcript, I have other things to do tonight.
The Deputy Chair: No, there is a process. We are in the Senate of Canada, and we have a process. If you want to table a document and make it the knowledge of the committee, there is an appropriate process to do that.
Senator Angus: We are all in this together. What is our understanding of the process?
Senator Milne: You can table it.
Senator Angus: Is that the only way it goes on the record?
The Deputy Chair: It becomes public knowledge.
Senator Angus: Frankly, I would want all these answers to be incorporated.
The Deputy Chair: Colleagues, we have Mr. Saint-Denis for another 15 minutes, and I hope we can ask him many more questions. Maybe we can deal with that later.
Senator Angus: I want the record to show it because I am having trouble using the answer if it is not in the transcript. I do not want to read out the whole answer and waste the time of my colleagues.
The Deputy Chair: Are you making a motion to append that to the proceedings?
Senator Angus: I am asking that. Yes, please.
The Deputy Chair: Is it agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Watt: I have one or two questions I would like to put forward. First, you mentioned in your presentation — and we also heard it from the minister himself, directly — that this bill targets the big people, the people who actually grow and traffic marijuana. How will a young person, Aboriginal or non-Aboriginal, be dealt with if he is caught with a certain amount of marijuana, even if there is no intent to traffic?
Mr. Saint-Denis: If he is charged with possession, then he will face the existing penalties under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, and the new provisions will not apply. They do not apply to possession of any of the drugs.
Senator Watt: Can you comment on the argument that community-based sentences with the support of addiction treatment programs can be more effective?
Mr. Saint-Denis: I cannot comment on that because I am not familiar with community-based sentencing.
Senator Campbell: Some parts of this bill I like and some parts I simply do not understand. Why would you put a number on the plants and attach that to sentencing?
Mr. Saint-Denis: In part, it was to recognize that there are different levels of meaning to different quantities of plants. Someone who has 500 plants in his house obviously has in mind something different than someone who has four or five plants. Using that logic, we attempted to find levels that were clearly indicative of commercial intent and levels where it was not as clear. For example, 6 plants to 200 plants could be for a commercial purpose, but it is not necessarily evident. We inserted ``for the purpose of trafficking.'' That would catch the commercial intent. Anything over 200 plants we believe to be inherently for a commercial purpose. We made a distinction between under 500 and over 500 for greater penalties.
Senator Campbell: Have you ever seen a room with 200 plants in it?
Mr. Saint-Denis: I have not.
Senator Campbell: I will give you some idea. You could have that many plants in this room easily.
If you are convicted and you have a commercial operation and you are gang-related, they should put you some place where they send you sunshine in a tin can. However, to get to that point, the law has to reflect that in some way, and this law does not reflect that. Rather than worry about the number of plants, worry about the connection to gangs and organized criminals. I feel strongly about that.
I know that you say it will not happen. I was on drug squad for eight years and I can tell you that it can happen. When I found someone with six plants who had been bad before, it was time to bring the hammer down. I know that that happens. My difficulty is that all of a sudden marijuana, which is worth $8 billion per year in my province, is being thrown in with heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine and crack. How do we bring all of that together into this bill to classify all of those drugs in the same way? The bill proposes 14 years for possession for the purpose of trafficking. How do we bring all of that together into the same bag?
Mr. Saint-Denis: I am not sure I have an answer to that question, but I can point out a few things. Bill C-15 proposes minimum penalties, and the maximum penalty for most of these offences is still life imprisonment. We are increasing the maximum penalty for production from 7 years to 14 years.
Beyond that, your question goes beyond the intent of the bill, and I am afraid I do not have an answer.
Senator Campbell: When someone gets popped with 200 plants of marijuana, what kind of treatment program do they go into? What exactly is the person being treated for?
Mr. Saint-Denis: The treatment program would apply if the person was an addict or had some form of dependency on a drug.
Senator Campbell: Is there any evidence that marijuana is addictive?
Mr. Saint-Denis: That is a controversial question.
Senator Campbell: I will tell you my concern: I once asked the drug czar of the United States whether marijuana is addictive and was told that absolutely it is one of the most dangerous drugs. I asked how you determine whether someone is addicted or treated. I was told that if you go to court and you take the treatment, then you must be addicted. That is the distinction I am so worried about in this bill. Suddenly, we have moved beyond that.
I would like you to come back again because there are so many questions I would like to ask. I feel terrible that you did not have full time this evening, but thank you for coming.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: I have a question about the aggravating factors provided for in subsection 3.
The Deputy Chair: Of which section?
Senator Carignan: Section 7. There's a list:
(a) the person used real property that belongs to a third party in committing the offence;
(b) the production constituted a potential security, health or safety hazard to persons under the age of 18 years who were in the location where the offence was committed or in the immediate area;
(c) the production constituted a potential public safety hazard in a residential area;
It is quite clear, we see it in the areas of cannabis, to protect grow ops, they set traps. In the case of (b) and (c), for me, growing large quantities in a residential area for purposes of trafficking, the simple fact that it is in a residential area is enough of an aggravating factor.
My fear is that with the addition of ``potential public safety hazard,'' this additional condition means that it will be harder to find the aggravating factor. I am looking for examples where there is a potential public safety hazard. I do not know if I am being clear enough.
I have seen grow houses in residential areas where the surroundings were very peaceful. I am trying to find an example where there was a potential public safety hazard. Perhaps it was processing of the equipment, I am trying to see, my fear is that this requirement will make us less determined to remove grow operations in residential areas. Do you understand?
Mr. Saint-Denis: First, it is important to realize that we are not just targeting marijuana growing. There is the whole production of chemical drugs, methamphetamine, ecstasy and so on.
Second, the cases we were addressing with this provision were those where people were using highly volatile chemical products like insecticides. These products have a tendency to explode. They cause a great deal of damage and can damage property and goods. That is the type of case we were targeting with this provision, not quiet cannabis grow ops, which do not involve any hazards like that.
The Deputy Chair: Mr. Saint-Denis, I would like to explore two subjects with you. First, let us go back to the department's studies on mandatory minimum sentences. You will recall that in 2002, a study was conducted by Carleton University. The study was posted on the department's Internet site for a while. The study by Gabor and Crutcher showed that it is impossible to measure the positive or negative effect of minimum sentences for drug use or drug-related crime, but drug abuse treatment strategies may have more of an impact.
Did you consider that study when you were drafting Bill C-15?
Mr. Saint-Denis: The study was commissioned by the department. However, it does not reflect the department's official policy.
The Deputy Chair: When you posted the study, all readers were informed that the opinion was not yours.
Mr. Saint-Denis: Correct.
The Deputy Chair: But the study was still posted on the Department of Justice's Internet site.
Mr. Saint-Denis: That is right.
To answer your question, we were aware of and knew about the existence and content of those reports. To the extent that we were asked to draft a bill with a certain direction, the statements in those reports, while they were interesting, became somewhat less useful.
The Deputy Chair: As I told you before this meeting began, public policy issues will be raised throughout the study of the bill. It would be appropriate for the Minister to come back at the end to properly answer on behalf of the government all of the questions raised by the witnesses.
I understand perfectly well that you, with all your experience, carried out the instructions given to you by the government.
Mr. Saint-Denis: Allow me to clarify one little thing. The findings in the report are not cut and dried. There are some ambiguities.
As I said earlier, the report dealt with the situation in the United States, not Canada. We did not have a situation in Canada related to drugs where we could look at our experience. By looking at what happened in the United States, we came to a number of provisional, but not absolute, conclusions. It must be acknowledged none the less that the situation in the United States is different from the situation in Canada. The population is different, the drug problem is different, the players are different.
The Deputy Chair: What conclusions did you reach based on the American experience?
Mr. Saint-Denis: Me personally, none. However, there were conclusions in the report.
The Deputy Chair: Do you mean Gabor?
Mr. Saint-Denis: Yes.
The Deputy Chair: We will be hearing American witnesses who will endeavour to enlighten us regarding the American experience.
I would like to get back to the question asked by the Honourable Senator Milne regarding medical use and Senator Wallace's question. You and he went over paragraph 3(1)(b) of the bill, which refers to the production of cannabis marijuana. Subparagraph (i) refers to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of six months ``if the number of plants produced is less than 201 and more than five.''
The minister also told us that the bill was not aimed at students who grow seven or eight plants in their dorm room. The bill was aimed more at traffickers and criminal organizations.
Mr. Saint-Denis, we know very well that drugs are a big thing in Canada and that medical use of cannabis is also a growing phenomenon. When, eight years ago, a Senate committee looked at the situation — and I realize that you were a very interested and very interesting witness — we determined that approximately 400,000 Canadians used cannabis for therapeutic purposes at least once a year.
Today, we will be hearing witnesses who will show that approximately one million Canadians use cannabis for therapeutic purposes.
Depending on the month, between 85 per cent and 90 per cent of Canadians support cannabis use.
My concern and the concern of many Canadians who have written to us since Bill C-15 was introduced is that the net being cast is a bit too wide. Everyone agrees on the need to stop the criminal trafficking that is putting the lives of young Canadians in jeopardy. We are familiar with the case law on the notion of trafficking and possession for the purpose of trafficking. You referred to that in your answer to Senator Wallace. We also know how what I will call ``trafficking'' operations work, because when you know a bit about the case law on trafficking, the trafficking system used for medical cannabis between producers and consumers is exactly the same as what you described as an offence, which will be covered by subparagraph (i) of paragraph (b) of subsection 3(1) of the bill.
Do you not think the bill needs to be tightened up a bit more in order to exclude them from the enforcement measures in the bill? I don't believe your intent is to include in minimum sentencing the million Canadians who use cannabis for therapeutic purposes. I'm not going to discuss with you whether it is illegal. We can have that debate in another forum. For now, we are looking at the issue of minimum sentencing. Does the bill cast a net that is a bit too wide?
Mr. Saint-Denis: You are talking about medical use. When you talk about use, you are talking about the offence of possession. This bill is not aimed at cases of possession.
The Deputy Chair: I understand, and that is the answer the Minister gave me. Allow me to rephrase my question. Many users of medical cannabis do not grow it themselves. They go to a grower they know. And most medical users want good cannabis, which means organic, with fewer chemicals. Not all cannabis producers are willing to change their production because the return is much higher when chemical products are added.
Users are going to go to a producer who produces the cannabis that is right for them and their medical condition. In order to cover costs, that producer is going to produce more than a certain number of plants. I understand, you are going to tell me that there is a regulatory process for accessing medical cannabis that covers some 4,000 users. There is a big difference between the 4,000 users registered under the Department of Health regulations and the million Canadians who use cannabis. We are going to have witnesses who will be able to explain how it can be said that there are roughly one million Canadians who use cannabis for medical purposes at least once a year. It is not a criminal organization in the sense that you and minister use it when you describe the objective of the bill. It is trafficking between a producer and a user who does it. I remind the members of the Committee that medical use has been ruled acceptable by the Ontario Court of Appeal. That is why we are concerned, and that concern is shared by many Canadians who wrote to us about the bill, which casts too wide a net.
Mr. Saint-Denis: You raise a very interesting question. We were asked to draft a bill in a certain direction. It is possible that in some cases, the provisions will apply only to organized crime or violent crime. There will be producers who are perhaps not violent. When you ask the question, the producer who sells for medical use or to customers who use it for medical purposes is not a producer subject to any regulations. There is no way of knowing what the producer is selling. Is he selling only to people who need it for medical reasons? Do we know if his production does not create a safety hazard for people around the production site and so on.
The Deputy Chair: In Western Canada, there are two examples, and time has shown that those examples had some credibility. They are the two compassion clubs, one in Vancouver and one in Victoria, that have producers who supply them. The producers produce, I believe, exclusively for one of the two medical cannabis distribution sites. It all happens outside the process recognized by the regulatory process.
That is why I am asking you if the aim is to catch along the way the organic cannabis producer who supplies the Vancouver Compassion Club and grows 600 plants of a specific variety of cannabis; if that is the case, that is not what the minister told us.
Mr. Saint-Denis: In your example, it is a matter of illegal production. Already the law is being broken. The question you raise is a political question about the bill. It is a bit beyond my boundaries.
[English]
Senator Joyal: If I understood your response to the question about the Gabor and Crutcher study that had ``scoped the American situation,'' to use your term, the conclusions are interesting but of little practicability. Is that what you have in mind?
Mr. Saint-Denis: No, it is not. The conclusions were interesting but not definitive in any way. Regarding whether or not we bore these in mind, once we were given policy directive for what to prepare, then those studies became less significant.
Senator Joyal: If I read your answer correctly, we are invited to adopt minimum sentences for a series of infractions, and you do not have any real information or reliable information on the impact of those minimum sentences generally.
Mr. Saint-Denis: We have no statistical information about the Canadian situation.
Senator Joyal: At all?
Mr. Saint-Denis: In terms of drugs, no, we do not.
Senator Joyal: In other words, we are asked to do something that we do not know the real impact of, more or less?
Mr. Saint-Denis: Arguments are being put forward that these do have a deterrent effect, that they will put away dangerous offenders for a period of time, and that they may assuage Canadian fears about violence and crime. Until we have something we can gather information with, it is speculative.
Senator Joyal: That is why there is proposed new section 8.1 in the bill, at page 5?
Mr. Saint-Denis: I believe that is why the House of Commons committee put that forward.
Senator Joyal: Because we do not know the cost-benefit analysis of mandatory minimum sentences today when we are requested to adopt those in the bill?
Mr. Saint-Denis: I believe that is correct.
The Deputy Chair: As a supplementary to that question, that was added through the hearings in the House of Commons, if I understand correctly.
Mr. Saint-Denis: At committee stage, clause by clause, yes.
The Deputy Chair: We will go to a second round, only one question each, please.
Senator Baker: I have a technical question for the witness. This has bothered me for some time. I noticed that clause 6 of the bill says ``Schedule I to the Act is amended by adding the following after item 18:'' It then says ``19.'' If you go down to (8) on the English side, it adds ``N-methyl-3,4-methylenedioxyamphetamine,'' and then it goes on and on.
To me, that seems like ecstasy. I have seen charge documents like that, involving other people. You have police officers behind you. They usually try to put in brackets there — in this case, it would be ecstasy — so that, I suppose, the person charged will know what they are being charged with. When that comes to a judge, the judge says, ``The word `ecstasy' has no value in law at all. It is nowhere in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.'' What is in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act schedule is exactly what is listed there in (8). If a comma or a letter is missing, they usually throw out the case. I have read a lot of case law on this. It is not rare that you see a case thrown out because it was not identified properly, because the judge is usually not a chemist. In other jurisdictions, is there not an easier way of doing this in the charge document and listing it in the schedule? Is there a simpler way, or do all other nations in the world use the chemical composition of what is there?
Last, since you are lifting ecstasy up to schedule 1, if you look at section 4.1 in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, you will see there is quite a difference in the penalty between Schedule 1 or Schedule 3, which is where ecstasy is now. Will a public campaign take place to inform all those young people who go to raves and use ecstasy that they will end up with a more serious offence if caught with one of these pills?
There are two questions there: Is there a better way of doing this, and will young people be warned?
Mr. Saint-Denis: You asked whether there is a better way of doing it and whether other countries do it the same way. I believe that in some countries, yes — particularly OECD countries that have well-developed legal systems and so on. Other countries may or may not do it.
I read the transcript after the minister testified, and I noticed that there was an interest in what is happening internationally with respect to minimum penalties, so I did a bit of research. I looked at how other countries formulate or structure their narcotics legislation, and often the chemical breakdown, the analogs and derivatives are not listed as they are here. They will go with just ``amphetamine'' and so on. That level of detail is not found everywhere, but it is found in many countries. It is also found in the international treaties to a certain extent.
It is not that unusual. I cannot say for certain that when a charge is laid in the case of ecstasy only the word ``ecstasy'' shows up.
Senator Baker: No, the whole thing shows up, but in brackets the RCMP officer will put ``ecstasy'' so you know what it is.
Mr. Saint-Denis: I know that if there is a slight error in the charge, judges will allow amendments to be made.
Senator Baker: Some judges do. I think the RCMP might say something different.
Senator Milne: Mr. Saint-Denis, if I can remember exactly what Senator Angus said, he quoted the minister as saying this bill will not make the streets safer. You said this bill will not increase our prison population.
Senator Angus: It was not the minister who said it will not make the streets safer; he suggested it would. The answer in writing from the criminal lawyer said this will not make them safer.
Senator Milne: First, why are we looking at this bill at all? Second, why on earth is this bill written as though drug courts are an option for people who have been convicted and their sentencing can be delayed if they go to a drug treatment court approved by the Attorney General? The Department of Justice does not recognize the validity of these drug courts. You said they are experimental.
Mr. Saint-Denis: I do not believe I said that we do not recognize the validity of them. I said that we have not embarked on a program of expanding them, primarily because the courts are still in an evaluative stage.
Senator Milne: Are you evaluating them? Are you gathering data?
Mr. Saint-Denis: There are evaluation stages for each court, and we hope to be able to gather and collate all of that information to allow us to make a decision as to whether they are beneficial, cost-effective and so on.
Senator Milne: How long have you been gathering this data, and how long will it take?
Mr. Saint-Denis: I cannot tell you. I can tell you that we have been collecting data from the Toronto and Vancouver courts for a good long time now.
Senator Milne: Yes. You should be coming to a conclusion sooner or later. Sooner, I hope.
Mr. Saint-Denis: The thing is that the courts, given where they are situated, tend to represent different realities. The court in Vancouver deals with a clientele that is, I would suggest, fairly different from the clientele in Ottawa or Toronto. Initially, at least with the Vancouver court, there were some issues concerning the evaluative process. I think that has caused delays.
The evaluation of one court in one city might not be conclusive and determinative of the courts in all cities. We need to gather more information.
Senator Milne: And go on and on and on?
Mr. Saint-Denis: Hopefully not. Hopefully there will be a point at which we can say this makes sense and we should expand, or this makes no sense and we should not.
The Deputy Chair: To complement that, would it be possible for the committee to have access to the evaluation criteria you are using to evaluate the drug courts?
Mr. Saint-Denis: Honestly, I cannot tell you, but if you will bear with me one moment, I can check with my colleagues.
I am told the evaluation framework and other information will be put up on the Justice website.
The Deputy Chair: Do we have an idea of when that will be done?
Mr. Saint-Denis: ``Soon,'' is what I am told. I do not have a specific date.
The Deputy Chair: We intend to give this bill a thorough review, so we may have time to see that posting before the end of our study of Bill C-15.
Senator Wallace: Mr. Saint-Denis, Senator Joyal asked you to comment on studies you may have that would reflect on the effectiveness of mandatory minimum sentences and what benefits there may be. We have heard your answer; I will not ask you to repeat it.
A subject that has come up repeatedly around this table in other circumstances and to do with other bills is whether mandatory minimums are effective as a deterrent. I understand that the principles of sentencing involve other objectives — and the deterrence factor is certainly one — but there are other factors, such as the denunciation of criminal activity.
In his evidence, Minister Nicholson clearly said that one of the objectives of Bill C-15 is to remove criminals — those involved in trafficking, production for the purpose of trafficking drugs, exporting, importing, serious drug criminals — from the street. During the periods of time they are not on the street, there would be a benefit to the community, since they have been taken out of the drug trade for that period time. Furthermore, their removal from their drug production and trafficking would be disruptive to the production and trafficking business, which to a large extent is a business of organized crime.
Since you were involved in the preparation of the bill and the purposes that we are obviously aware of, I wonder what your comment might be on that and particularly on Minister Nicholson's thoughts.
Mr. Saint-Denis: I alluded to this earlier: Clearly, if we are imprisoning and segregating violent offenders in the drug trade, that must have some kind of a beneficial effect to the community. These individuals will not be out committing their offences or threatening or endangering citizens. Clearly that must have some impact.
I know my minister is very interested in that element of it. That must be recognized as beneficial. I do not know that I can add much more to that. We will be putting away seriously dangerous individuals. If they are not actively involved in criminal activity outside, with the potential threat of the use of weapons and the use of violence, I think that is to the good.
Senator Wallace: When I hear you say that, having heard Minister Nicholson say much the same, for me — and I think for most people who do not know the ins and outs of the Criminal Code — it is so logical and such an extension of common sense, I do not think I need a study to confirm that. If those involved in the drug trade are off the streets, there must be a benefit to the public; and the mandatory minimum penalties will keep them off the streets for a longer period.
I would not be looking for a study to confirm that. I think I would know enough to realize that is a logical consequence, but maybe others think differently.
The Deputy Chair: Are we catching the real people? That is the question.
Mr. Saint-Denis: We are catching some violent offenders. I guess maybe your question is are we catching everyone.
The Deputy Chair: Let us look at the drug trade in schools. Every Canadian knows there is a huge phenomenon of drug trade and exchange in schools. No one agrees with that, but it is there.
With this bill, will we be satisfied because we will catch a young Canadian distributing cannabis or ecstasy or whatever to his colleagues in school? Probably he is doing that for someone else.
Mr. Saint-Denis: I would suggest that there are some people who will be happy about catching people, whether they are students or whether they are adults, who traffic in schools. I know many parents who will be more than happy to see individuals like that removed from the school.
However, we will not be catching just those individuals; we will be catching others who are violent and who use weapons and so forth.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: Mr. Saint-Denis, it was, once again, a pleasure having you as a witness. Your testimony was very enlightening, and I thank you for your expertise.
[English]
Joining us now from the RCMP is Chief Superintendent Pierre Perron, Director General, Criminal Intelligence. He is accompanied by Superintendent Bill Malone, Director, Organized Crime. We also are joined by representatives from the Ottawa Police Service. We have Deputy Chief Sue O'Sullivan and Inspector Jill Skinner. They are here to give us their perspective no the law enforcement of that future bill.
Chief Superintendent Pierre Perron, Director General, Criminal Intelligence, Royal Canadian Mounted Police: At the invitation of the committee, we are appearing to provide an overview of the drug situation in Canada. I will be referring to the most recent information and intelligence gathered for the 2008 Canada Drug Situation Report, which is currently being finalized and translated for public distribution later this year.
We must keep in mind that although we are discussing the drug situation in the country, the reality is that organized crime is behind the drug trade. One cannot be talked about without addressing the other.
We believe knowledge and foresight are at the heart of any effective strategy to combat organized crime. Criminal intelligence is needed to accurately assess the threats and investigate key groups on a priority basis.
The RCMP recognizes this necessity, and it adopted an intelligence-led approach several years ago. Through strategic and tactical criminal intelligence work, the RCMP, together with other Canadian police services, has been assessing the growing threats posed by organized crime.
[Translation]
The trends we have seen in this country in recent years continue to evolve. Despite the sustained efforts of Canadian law enforcement agencies, the narcotics trade continues to thrive in Canada.
Canada remains one of the world's biggest sources of MDMA, also known as ecstasy, and methamphetamine. Trafficking in synthetic drugs, both national and international, is still a serious threat, so serious that the RCMP has made efforts to stop the production of and trafficking in synthetic drugs a national operational priority.
Cannabis, which is still the leading drug produced in Canada, accounted for 75 per cent of drug seizures in 2008. Cocaine remains one of the most widely distributed narcotics in Canada.
Trafficking in narcotics is still a very lucrative business, and money, of course, means organized crime. Organized crime earns more from drug trafficking than from trafficking in any other goods. The total market value of the narcotics seized by Canadian law enforcement agencies in 2008 was more than $2.4 billion. Between 2006 and 2008, Canadian law enforcement agencies seized narcotics with a combined value of more than $7.3 billion.
The RCMP continues to clamp down on the production and distribution of marijuana in Canada. Marijuana is the number one drug on the black market because there is a strong and steady demand, it is relatively easy to produce and the profits are big. Canadian marijuana production is also driven by high demand in the United States.
While some specialize in specific stages of drug trafficking, criminal groups continue to be involved in the establishment of sophisticated rings set up to get marijuana from producers to the street. Marijuana is still bartered or traded for cocaine, ecstasy, contraband cigarettes and proceeds of crime.
Ecstasy and methamphetamine are still two of the most widely available and sought-after narcotics on the Canadian synthetic drug market. The involvement of organized crime in trafficking in these narcotics in the past decade has had more impact than any other factor in transforming this relatively quiet market into a thriving multifaceted industry.
It is estimated that in 2008, 99 per cent of the methamphetamine and narcotics sold in Canada, such as ecstasy in tablet and powder form, was produced right here in this country.
Almost as many clandestine laboratories were shut down in 2008 as in 2007, but the number of facilities making some type of narcotic appears to be on the rise.
The production capacity of clandestine laboratories is higher than ever. The ecstasy produced in Canada supplies the Asia-Pacific market. The leading importer is Australia; many large shipments in or bound for that country have been seized by Australian authorities, the Canada Border Services Agency or other federal bodies.
Criminal rings are learning from their success in worldwide trafficking in ecstasy and are applying their new-found knowledge to large-scale production of methamphetamine, smuggling and global trade in chemical precursors. These rings, which are taking advantage of the growing demand in the Asia-Pacific region, account for the rapid rise in trafficking in methamphetamine we have seen in recent years.
Cocaine is still one of the most widely distributed and sold drugs in Canada. Most criminal organizations based in Canada that engage in drug trafficking are involved in the cocaine trade in some way. These organizations have connections around the world that help them bring cocaine into Canada and other countries.
Most of the cocaine imported to Canada comes through the United States, usually carried by commercial vehicles driving across the border. Since most of the cocaine in the United States travels through Mexico and the long Central American corridor, Mexico continues to play a leading role in supplying Canada with cocaine.
[English]
In summary, organized crime in Canada has evolved in the scope of their operations and the complexity of their networks and markets. Synthetic drugs, cocaine and cannabis remain criminal markets dominated by organized crime. The transnational nature of illicit drug activities continues to require intelligence, assessment and the strengthening of domestic and international partnerships.
I will now hand over to Superintendent Bill Malone to discuss organized crime, the transnational nature of crime and the drug trade, as shown in the recent enforcement operations.
Superintendent Bill Malone, Director, Organized Crime, Royal Canadian Mounted Police: Good evening. As was mentioned by Chief Superintendent Perron in his opening remarks, it is impossible to talk about the drug situation in Canada without also discussing organized crime.
[Translation]
Organized crime is the dominant force at all levels of the drug trade, from importation and production to sales on the street by street gangs and low-level dealers. For these groups, the appeal of this criminal activity lies in the enormous profits it generates.
[English]
On the proposed issue of mandatory minimum penalties, this will not have a direct impact on how the RCMP investigates criminals or criminal organizations. The approach taken by the RCMP is that it does not investigate or pursue suspected criminals based on the prescribed sentences outlined in the Criminal Code. It is based on a careful assessment of those groups that pose the greatest threat to public safety within the communities we serve.
Notwithstanding this, we do however welcome any legislative tools that will support and contribute to enhancing healthy, strong and safe communities. The RCMP believes in a balanced approach to the issue of substance abuse in Canada, consisting of prevention, education, enforcement, counselling, treatment, rehabilitation and, where appropriate, alternative measures and diversion to counter Canada's drug problems.
I would posit that the debate concerning the effectiveness of mandatory minimum penalties as a deterrent to crime should be left to government officials, legal experts, academics and other individuals with the requisite expertise to make this assessment. However, I would like to take this opportunity to draw your attention to some additional areas where legislation could be improved to enhance law enforcement's ability to pursue organized criminal groups.
The first is the listing of criminal organizations. A criminal listing process would assist and complement the proposed legislative amendments set out in Bill C-15, such as trafficking and other offences being committed on behalf of criminal organizations. This process would facilitate law enforcement's ability to prove that a particular individual was part of a criminal enterprise and engaged in drug trafficking activities on behalf of the organization, which would then subject him or her to the provisions of the proposed legislation.
The current legislation requires that criminal organizations must be proven to be a criminal enterprise each and every time these penalties are pursued, thus limiting the potential impact of the proposed legislation. Parallel legislation allowing for the listing of organized crime groups should complement the proposed revision of Bill C-15 if this new legislation is to have its intended effect. Therefore, the RCMP supports the listing of criminal organizations as it would increase our efficiency in the fight against organized crime and contribute to building safer communities.
[Translation]
Second, I would like to talk about legal access. A colleague recently commented that the aims of justice need not be hindered by technological advances if everyone understands and accepts the fact that the procedures the government uses to authorize the interception of communications is properly regulated.
Communications technology has grown by leaps and bounds in recent years, and criminals are making the most of all the advances, from anonymity to encryption. Canadian laws, meanwhile, have not kept pace. Increasingly complex technology is forcing us to change the way we legally access the information we need to bring these criminal organizations to justice. This has to change; otherwise, our investigations will be ineffective.
[English]
Another issue that poses significant challenge for law enforcement is disclosure. Disclosure in Canada has become an onerous and burdensome exercise in many criminal cases. This requirement has had an ever-increasing impact on the costs and the progress of investigations and prosecutions.
As the investigation of criminal organizations has become increasingly complex, the requirements for the purposes of disclosure have also become a huge challenge. Consequently, this affects our capacity to investigate other criminal organizations in an expeditious and timely manner.
Furthermore, the volume of disclosure has affected the capacity of law enforcement and prosecutors to attack organized crime as an offence in and of itself. In many instances, prosecutions for substantive offences are preferred over organized crime charges. There is a need to establish a well-defined and consistent threshold for relevant disclosure. This could be accomplished through enacting disclosure requirements and procedures and enshrining them in legislation.
An example of how expanding disclosure can affect an investigation is the following: during a recent investigation of a major organized crime group, 1.7 million pieces of communication were intercepted. Of those, 27,000 were required to be transcribed, but at the end of the day only 200 were deemed sufficiently relevant and used in court. This exercise expended a significant amount of resources, both human and financial.
The last item I would like to mention is the scheduling of certain chemical precursors used for the production of controlled substances. As Chief Superintendent Perron pointed out earlier, Canada has been identified as an export nation for synthetic drugs, namely methamphetamine and ecstasy. Under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, it is only an offence to import and export these chemical precursors, while offences such as possession for the purpose of production and trafficking are found in precursor control regulations. However, there are no offences for possession of chemical precursors or lab equipment such as pill presses.
Finally I would like to note that the RCMP supports the portion of Bill C-15 that addresses the move of amphetamines, GHB and Rohypnol from Schedule III to Schedule I in the CDSA.
[Translation]
To conclude, we realize that we have to work together so that we can focus more on organized crime and do more to tackle the drug problem in Canada.
I hope we have succeeded in giving you a clear picture of the drug situation in Canada and the problems law enforcement communities have to deal with every day.
[English]
Deputy Chief Sue O'Sullivan, Ottawa Police Service: Thank you for the opportunity, Mr. Chair, to have a few minutes with the committee.
I am the deputy chief that oversees our criminal operations division as well as our emergency and support operations. With me is Inspector Jill Skinner, who oversees our drug section as well as intelligence and some of our other squads.
I am here at the invitation and on behalf of Chief White — because Chief White presented to your committee on Bill C-15 previously, in May — to provide what I think is a local operational perspective about the drug situation and Bill C-15.
From the local overview, our service, in concert with our community, addresses the issues of substance abuse. I think what you have heard a lot about this community is that we get that there are different approaches. There is no either/or here. The enforcement piece, the legislation piece is one part of that, but as you have all identified, the prevention, the education, the treatment, all of that is an important part of us as communities together fighting the issues of substance abuse and the impacts to our communities.
We need all of those elements along that continuum, and obviously, as with many comments here already tonight, we are not here to incarcerate every person that perhaps is a substance user or who is using drugs, but rather we seek to reduce the victimization through enforcement of targeted individuals engaged in the business of importation and distribution of drugs, where profits to their organizations supersede the value of healthy and safe communities.
In his previous testimony, Chief White reported from our service's perspective a number of areas where Bill C-15 is important. It is, as was said many times here tonight, targeting criminal organizations in the distribution of drugs and focusing our enforcement efforts on those individuals who engage in the unlawful business of selling drugs to children and youth, in parks, school grounds and other locations where children and youth gather, and who engage children and youth in the criminal enterprise of drug trafficking or drug transportation, and who use weapons to carry out their business of drugs.
A lot of violent crime is associated with many of the people involved in the trafficking and importation; it is basically how they do business.
The Ottawa Police Service Drug Unit conducts investigations of criminal organizations that are involved in trafficking of controlled substances, such as cannabis, marijuana, crack cocaine, cocaine, ecstasy and methamphetamine, to name a few. It is important to note that the investigations conducted by the drug unit have revealed that criminal organizations employ, as I talked about, various tactics to ensure they continue to profit from the sale of their drugs. Therefore, members of the organizations are tasked with tackling — you see this and you read this in the news — takeovers, home invasions, with trafficking drugs so the police have difficulty in identifying patterns, while others are tasked with collecting money from drug dealers who work for the organizations. The collection of money often turns violent when payments are late and results in serious bodily injuries or death.
Weapons and firearms of all types are regularly seized by our units. Criminal organizations carry and use them to protect themselves from competition and from the police who are mandated with investigating them.
Criminal organizations are also heavily involved in the production of cannabis marijuana, and millions of dollars in profit are made from growing cannabis marijuana.
I want to talk briefly about the complexity of these investigations when targeting organized crime and the allocation of a significant amount of police human resources, which takes away from other law enforcement activities, and the costs associated with that. When I say costs, I refer not only to monetary costs. You can imagine that what is often a one-day headline about a major takedown is years in investigation, many members working in undercover capacity, and the kind of costs that come with that as well in order to disrupt these organizations.
As I mentioned, these investigations have significant impact on our resources, and as you are aware, that does not end with the arrest of the persons. That was also spoken about by the RCMP. It continues in prosecutions and court processes, which also require huge human resources and allocations in order to disclose all of the evidence acquired.
We have also begun to see an increase in the number of robberies, where prescription drugs, such as OxyContin, are being taken. This is not unique to Ottawa; you have heard about it in other communities. The Ottawa Police Service has at present two major investigations with links to organized crime in relation to these types of robberies.
I really want to reinforce the message that we are here to talk about Bill C-15, but we cannot forget that we are talking about making healthy and safe communities. There is not a person sitting in this room who does not know someone, a youth or someone in their family or someone they know personally, who has a substance abuse issue, and all of the impacts to our communities. This is about targeting those criminals who are involved in organized crime who are absolutely in a business here to make money, and all of the violence and all of the crime that goes with that.
Bill C-15 is not a panacea and minimum sentences will not be the total answer here, but it has to be looked at as a complete package, and we need to make sure that all the legs of the stool get equal attention here.
I realize we are specifically talking about Bill C-15. We know that the largest group we can have an impact on is the prevention piece and the education piece, but it has to be looked at in the entire continuum.
I will stop there and say thank you very much for this opportunity to say a few words on behalf of our community and our service.
Senator Watt: I will start off with the RCMP. Has there been a particular increase in drug-related crimes in a specific province or territory in Canada? That is my first question.
Second, I realize you might not have exact figures on the drugs used in the North, but what trend are you seeing in the northern communities?
Third, is there a different trend for youth as opposed to adults with respect to drug-related offences?
Fourth, can you tell us how long the waiting list is for the provincial drug treatment programs established in accordance with section 720(2) of the Criminal Code?
The Deputy Chair: I understand that probably the last question will be much more for Ms. O'Sullivan or Ms. Skinner.
We will start with the representative of the RCMP.
Mr. Perron: In your first question about an increase of drug crime in British Columbia and the North, I would not say there has been an increase as far as a higher tendency. However, I would say it certainly has been more publicized with the gang war situation happening in British Columbia.
I would like to say that the Vancouver gang-related violence is largely attributed to the cocaine shortage in British Columbia, but we cannot use solely the cocaine shortage as a reason for the violence. Gang violence is also related to increasing the territory of the gangs, as well as the rivalries among different street gangs. The violence has been portrayed in the media more extensively in the last several years, mainly in Toronto and Vancouver.
As far as the North, we see a steady trend. Definitely we see strong substance abuse in the North. However, I cannot say it has increased.
Mr. Malone: In terms of the trends, many of the products that are making it to the North are coming from major hubs, such as Ottawa, Montreal, Edmonton, and Vancouver. That is being fuelled by organized crime groups in the South, and they will chase the money. There is money in the North because of the mines and so forth, and as a result of that they are looking to sell their products up North as well. We are also seeing that.
The Deputy Chair: There was an interesting question, which you might have missed, about the difference between trends in the younger population and the older population. Are they similar?
Senator Watt: That was the third question. Is there a different trend for youth as opposed to adults with respect to drug-related offences?
Mr. Perron: As related to the North, certainly we see the young population being extremely vulnerable to the organized crime group trying to gain market share.
Senator Watt: That is definitely increasing.
Mr. Perron: In the youth population, I would agree. As Mr. Malone stated, in the adult population, with money and investment in the North and more employment, organized crime will arrive and try to increase its market share.
Senator Watt: What will happen with the waiting lists for provincial drug treatment programs that were established in accordance with section 720(2) of the Criminal Code?
Mr. Malone: I am not able to comment on that, senator.
The Deputy Chair: I would suggest that Deputy Chief O'Sullivan could provide that answer.
Ms. O'Sullivan: We have an effective drug court in Ottawa. However, it is a lengthy and involved process given all the issues that accompany addiction. A great deal of time is required for reporting, checking, compliance issues and reappearance in court. We are awaiting the final evaluation, which hopefully will be by the end of the year. We see it as valuable.
My chief is quite vocal about drug treatment programs. I also happen to be a member of the Dave Smith Youth Treatment Centre board. We are passionately going after residential treatment facilities in our city. Currently, people have to go to the United States because we do not have the facilities to avoid a major waiting list. That is a significant issue.
We do not have high numbers using the drug treatment courts that have been out for a few years. They are working and we are seeing some successes. They have all the issues associated with addiction and reoccurrence.
Senator Watt: Does it mean that given the lack of facilities in the North, offenders will be brought South to attend the specialized court?
Ms. O'Sullivan: I cannot speak to the North, but we have someone who works with Aboriginal communities in Ottawa as well as in the North and across Canada. Various drugs from Ottawa are finding their way up North. We have a large movement of drugs between Ottawa, Montreal and Toronto as well as up North.
There was a recent takedown of the Hell's Angels in Quebec. We are in discussions about the impact of that in our area. The RCMP will speak to the money associated with drugs and all that goes with that. We constantly have to look at the impacts. Organized crime investigations are lengthy. Someone who supplies a certain area one day could change and supply another area another day. Certainly, drugs in Ottawa are making their way North.
Senator Watt: I understand there are a few Inuit in Ottawa.
Ms. O'Sullivan: We have one of the largest Inuit populations outside the North right here in Ottawa.
Senator Watt: Are most of those people in treatment? Are you seeing any results?
Ms. O'Sullivan: We are working closely with many of the Aboriginal health centres in Ottawa, in particular the Wabano Centre for Aboriginal Health. They have some rather fantastic plans coming up in order to address that. We also work with the Ottawa Inuit Children's Centre. At a local level, we work closely with our youth and health serving agencies in particular with our Aboriginal and Inuit communities.
Senator Baker: The amount of $1.7 million mentioned by Superintendent Malone is rather interesting. I congratulate you on your presentations and the work that you do; it is quite remarkable.
Bill C-15 will affect both of you negatively or positively, depending on how you look at it, because, as you have explained, part of your budget is dedicated to trials. It would seem that under this bill, no one will plead guilty on those minimum sentences. The vast majority of people will plead not guilty and you will be stuck providing $1.7 million for disclosure, Superintendent Malone, because it will not be simply the initial disclosure. You will have to appear before court for pretrial arguments and then the trial. You might even have to go out to B.C. if that is where the charges are laid. This is a massive intrusion on your budget. Have you sat down and looked at that? You did not mention it. Have you calculated the numbers as to what will be required the day after this is implemented?
Mr. Malone: For clarification, Senator Baker, 1.7 million pieces of communication were intercepted.
Senator Baker: It cost you about $1.3 million.
Mr. Malone: It cost a significant amount of money for that file.
I am not aware that anyone in our organization has looked at the numbers in terms of the impact on us. We operate with the tools that we are given. When the time comes, we will do what we have to do to enforce the law of the land. The decision in R. v. Stinchcombe a number of years ago has had wide ramifications throughout the policing community in Canada with respect to disclosure. We receive terabytes of information on files. You can well imagine that during investigations that continue for three or four years, the wire intercepts and video surveillance become a huge undertaking that is a tremendous drain on resources.
Senator Baker: Yes, it certainly is.
Senator Angus: I have a point of information. Perhaps you could put disclosure into perspective.
Senator Baker: Initial disclosure at plea ensures that the person is aware of the charges and the basic evidence. That is followed by the unsealing of the packets, which contain sworn information, including that of the affiant — police officer — and their sub-affiants. The law says that the affiant and the sub-affiant may be called to give evidence on the opening of the sealed packet. These officers then have to appear before a court to justify a 500-page sworn information to obtain a warrant.
With people pleading not guilty, then all of these packets will have to be opened, all of the disclosures will have to be made and all of the witnesses will have to appear.
Senator Angus: Is that disclosure to the defence counsel?
Senator Baker: Yes.
That is a huge drain on resources. I cannot understand why the numbers have not been calculated for the people you will have to prosecute under this bill, and within a reasonable period of time.
Have you made some effort with the Crown attorney to sit down with them to say what will be needed by counsel — the officer's notes, the continuation report and the Crown attorney's case report? Sworn statements and the CD-ROMs would come later from the sealed packets if they are needed. That should be done, because I know the problem you have.
The Deputy Chair: That is very interesting. Are we sure it pertains to this bill?
Senator Baker: Yes, the cost pertains to the bill.
Mr. Malone: Dialogue is ongoing between us, the public prosecution service and defence counsel. The work product of any of our investigations is subject to disclosure. It is a question of relevancy. Who determines relevancy? What I, the Crown and the defence determine as relevant is a subject of debate all the time. As you put it, I wish it were as simple as the officers' notes and the Crown brief and that was it.
Senator Baker: It is that simple for plea.
Mr. Malone: Sometimes. The defence counsel could argue, as well, saying, ``I do not have enough information. They know more is coming. We want to defer a plea.''
Senator Baker: Then you open the sealed packets and so on.
Another point you made to try to lessen your costs and give you a better handle on things — as you talked about here — was lawful access. What is wrong with what we did with section 487.01 of the Criminal Code, the general warrant? You can do whatever you want to do under the sun. I have the exact wording. We passed it. The Senate committee questioned it at the time. You can apply for anything that, ``. . . if not authorized, constitute an unreasonable search or seizure in respect of a person or a person's property.''
That means you can now do your sneak and peeks. Do you know what I am talking about? Of course you do. You can go into someone's house in the middle of the night and leave the next day. You can do whatever you want with electronic sophistication.
Senator Angus: With a court order.
Senator Baker: We passed the law that says they can do whatever they want. Why would you be asking?
The Deputy Chair: In terms of drugs, there are different laws applying to your work.
Mr. Malone: The use of wiretap is the same. With technology changing the way it is, I am not sure. I am not a legal expert, either, and this may be a question for Justice lawyers to respond to. However, with regard to whether the laws are appropriate to deal with some of the technology that we currently have, I cannot answer right now as you have put forward, senator.
Senator Baker: I think you have done and are doing an excellent job, and you are taking advantage of every bit of technology. You actually have greater access than you are admitting you have access to.
I wanted to get back to the cost, Mr. Chair.
Senator Joyal: Following that amendment —
Senator Baker: Yes. Following that amendment, yes. You can do whatever you want to do.
Getting back to the overall cost, looking at this bill, I really believe you are not prepared. You cannot handle this bill when it comes. You will need a huge increase in your resources; you will need more people.
Mr. Perron: In the context of criminal investigations done by the RCMP or by other law enforcement agencies, such as the Ottawa police, we do a priority-setting exercise. We need to do a threat assessment on which organized crime group poses the highest threat to the community. This is how we investigate those groups with the resources we have, with the capacity of the Crown to prosecute and so on. We do prioritize.
I do not see Bill C-15 creating more investigations, because we already have a limited capacity to go after so many organized criminals.
Senator Baker: Where will the hold up be? You will have more cases to prosecute. How will that not cost more? Are you saying you will just drop some charges or not charge?
Mr. Perron: I am saying there are so many known organized crime groups in Canada. We do a priority-setting exercise to identify their various risks. We call it SLEIPNIR. It is one of our priority-setting exercises. We identify which of the groups poses the highest threat and needs to be handled by law enforcement and to be neutralized and put off the street. We do our priority-setting exercise on an annual basis.
Senator Milne: How will this bill affect you?
Senator Angus: Positively. You are suggesting it will be bad. It will be great.
Senator Milne: I think it will cost them so much more.
The Deputy Chair: The witnesses are trying to give an answer.
Ms. O'Sullivan: From a local level, exactly that. We have our known organized crime groups. We do our threat assessments, and we will make our decisions based on our priorities. As in any organization, we have limited assets and resources.
There are a lot of organized crime groups and issues there. I do not know that I would make the leap you do that there would be a huge increase in charges based object minimum sentences —
Senator Baker: Not charges; prosecutions.
Ms. O'Sullivan: I guess you could speculate that more people will plead not guilty because of the minimum penalty.
Senator Baker: Everyone will.
Ms. O'Sullivan: What we do hope and what we prepare is the best evidence we can to bring forward to prove before the court the allegations and the charges. In some cases there are many decisions that go into it. I cannot speak on behalf of defence lawyers, who obviously have a lot of experience in this. They will assess the evidence before them and make a determination on behalf of their client.
What goes into that and how many will factor minimum sentences into that decision, I cannot answer. I can tell you that, as in any organization, we work closely with our partner agencies, we prioritize and we set those threat assessments. Human resources is always a challenge, particularly when you are going after organized crime groups.
As in my earlier comments — and I know Chief White also presented on this — this is one more tool in the tool basket for targeting those who are preying on our communities and who are out there doing the trafficking and production. As you have seen, this is not unique to Ottawa; we have a lot of gang-related shootings and, unfortunately, we have seen innocent people caught in some of those gang shootings around the world. Much of that is around drug activity, production and the selling of cocaine and other drugs.
Senator Baker: There is not just our section 11 warrant, which the chair is very well aware of and which is under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, but you utilize, when necessary, all the other warrants under the Criminal Code. The unsealing of those warrants is a complicated procedure. The examination of those people who swore the affidavits is a complicated procedure before the court.
This is why I believe you are in for being stretched thin. You are stretched now; you do not have enough personnel now. You will have to move your people all over the country to where these prosecutions are taking place.
The Deputy Chair: I think they have already given their answers, unless they have something else to add.
Inspector Jill Skinner, Ottawa Police Service: I do have one point. We are so supportive of this bill because, if we focus on a subject this year, we do not have to focus on them again next year if we know they will be in custody.
The Deputy Chair: Senator Baker, I am putting you on the second round.
Senator Wallace: I found Senator Baker's comments interesting, and Senator Milne's as well, to some extent. When you listen to those kind of comments, being on the front line and providing protection to the public — to all of us and our children — yes, you realize that to provide that protection there is a cost. There is a cost to protecting children and society. I think it is wise that we understand the implications of Bill C-15 and what resources are needed.
I would certainly hope that the conclusion would not be that we cannot afford to protect ourselves, that we cannot afford to protect society, and that we make these decisions of protection off a balance sheet. I would hope that protection brings costs associated with it. It is one of those things in life we have to find the money for.
That is more of a statement, and Senator Baker probably would not disagree with that. I will not ask him whether he does.
I will direct my first question to Inspector Skinner. A major focus of Bill C-15 is directed towards the trafficking of drugs as it affects our children. The aggravating factors, for both Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 drugs, include drug offences that are near a school and would affect our youth. As parents and grandparents, the protection of our children is paramount to us.
Perhaps you might comment on that, being on the front line and dealing with this — not around a boardroom table but in reality with what is happening on the street and in our schoolyards and in our schools. How much of a problem is the trafficking of drugs in our schoolyards? What type of a risk is that posing for our children? I would be interested in any comment you might make in that regard as it would be affected by Bill C-15.
Ms. Skinner: It is definitely a problem in the areas of our schools. Children are easily manipulated, and they will try things. They do not understand risk. They feel that they are invincible, and drugs are just something they will try. They believe they will be able to stop.
Unfortunately, organized crime understands that, too. They give drugs free for the first hit. They will do that to provide the hook. They also use things like increasing the potency of the drugs and mixing various types of drugs together. Often when we make seizures we find that something held out as ecstasy may contain methamphetamine, which is extremely addictive.
Those are the things we are concerned with. These kids think they are buying one thing when they are actually buying something that is totally addictive.
Ms. O'Sullivan: Although we are talking about drugs, kids face a lot of concurrent issues these days that we are not talking about that are compounded by drug use and many of the things Inspector Skinner has spoken about. Those issues include mental health and cutting. We have a high rate of self-mutilation with kids here in Ottawa.
Our kids are struggling with many things that are compounded by drugs. The people who prey on kids know how to engage them. This compounds the challenges that kids, parents and our schools are dealing with.
Senator Wallace: Deputy Chief, as you pointed out, there are numerous legs on the stool, and there is no one simple answer to this societal problem. However, with regard to our children and the drug trafficking that is going on in the schoolyards, do you see Bill C-15 as an important tool to deal with this reality?
Ms. O'Sullivan: Yes, we do.
Senator Wallace: Superintendent Malone, you commented on the effectiveness of mandatory minimum sentences as a deterrent and said that is perhaps best left for others who may have analyzed that more carefully, so I will not pursue that.
Minister Nicholson has said that Bill C-15 would obviously assist in getting traffickers off the streets and away from our children, which would have the effect of disrupting drug production and drug trafficking, and he believes that is a worthwhile objective.
Do you agree that mandatory minimum sentences are beneficial for this objective and are needed in order for you to do your job?
Mr. Malone: I cannot comment on whether they work. There is certainly a benefit to removing from the street a high-level drug trafficker involved in organized crime. As Inspector Skinner said, when a big trafficker is put in jail, that is one less drug trafficker we have to worry about. On the issue of mandatory minimums, as I said, I think that lawmakers and academics are in a better position to determine whether that works.
Senator Wallace: You made that comment in the context of whether mandatory minimums would act as a deterrent. I am not addressing that issue. If drug traffickers are taken off the street for greater periods of time, which would likely be the result of mandatory minimum sentences, is that not beneficial in disrupting drug traffic?
Mr. Malone: Absolutely.
The Deputy Chair: What is happening now without Bill C-15? Are you telling us that without Bill C-15 you are not arresting drug traffickers and putting them in jail?
Mr. Malone: I am not saying that at all.
The Deputy Chair: I know that is the answer and that is what I wanted to hear you say. I am sure you are doing your job now.
Mr. Malone: Absolutely, to the best of our ability.
The Deputy Chair: The real question is how Bill C-15 will help you to do your job.
Mr. Malone: As I said in my opening remarks, it will not change how we target organized crime groups, because of the exercises to which Chief Superintendent Perron and Deputy Chief O'Sullivan referred. We target our resources at the biggest problems in our neighbourhoods. I hope I have answered your question.
The Deputy Chair: Yes, but I was a bit misled about the value of Bill C-15, because the law already exists and you are already doing a very good job.
Mr. Malone: I hope so.
The Deputy Chair: Yes, we are convinced of that.
Senator Angus: The chair got to the nub of the matter, which was the main question I was going to ask. I will pursue it a little further.
First, I want to salute you all for resisting my friend's effort to put words in your mouths. It gives me renewed confidence, not only in municipal law enforcement in this town where I spend three days every week, but also in the RCMP. You are all doing good work. This is not an easy job.
With this bill the government is obviously trying to give you more tools, as you have said. Could you each briefly tell me how you see Bill C-15 assisting you in doing your job?
Ms. O'Sullivan: It will allow us to target the people who are in the business of supplying and producing those drugs with the aggravating factor of using weapons and in areas where there are young children. The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the CACP, has submitted a written statement that reiterates their support for moving drugs from Schedule III to Schedule I, making dealing in them a more serious crime.
Those are some of the things in Bill C-15 that are important messages and tools for us to have.
Ms. Skinner: When we incarcerate people for a lengthy period of time, we will not have to target them so soon again.
Senator Angus: My friend Senator Baker makes a point of studying the jurisprudence, and he says that this will provide more cases for you. However, if these people will be put in jail for longer periods of time, they will not be in the prisoner's box every six months and there will be fewer cases, will there not?
Ms. Skinner: That is exactly my point.
We talked about other tools, and we also look at disclosure tools. We are working to improve our abilities in conducting disclosure. We are moving to electronic disclosure to get away from the volumes of binders we have had in the past. We are trying to find ways to improve our systems. We want to make the evidence searchable so that it is easier to present.
Senator Angus: Will this bill help in that regard?
Ms. Skinner: No, the bill does not.
Senator Angus: I would like to hear from the RCMP how the bill will help you.
Mr. Perron: I can see the potential for individuals facing mandatory sentences to be compelled to provide further assistance by becoming informants or agents. I can see that as a potential benefit prior to the court process being initiated. An individual facing sentencing may want to cooperate with law enforcement to enable us to focus on bigger organizations or bigger threats.
The Deputy Chair: The Sword of Damacles.
Mr. Malone: With regard to disclosure, the bill will do nothing with regard to the preparation of materials for court.
Senator Angus: Is there anything in the bill that you welcome that you have not already told us?
Mr. Malone: No, I have nothing to add.
Senator Angus: As I heard you and now reread, you are recommending to us to do what we can to get other legislation that would minimize the red tape involved with the current disclosures processes. You have said in a bigger way how this is so time consuming and restricts your ability today, quite apart from Bill C-15, and you are urging the government to come up with a further law in that respect. Is that right?
Mr. Malone: That is correct.
Senator Milne: Senator Angus asked my question or reinforced it. Superintendent Malone, you spoke about the RCMP believing in a balanced approach to the issue of substance abuse in Canada, consisting of prevention, education, enforcement, counselling, treatment, rehabilitation and, where appropriate, alternative measures and diversion.
I strongly suspect that the money will not be forthcoming for those things that we all know will work. We all know that this is the way to go. This is the way to prevent young people from getting hooked on drugs: rehabilitation and education.
In your presentation you have come up with six suggestions. First, there are criminal organizations: criminal organizations must be proven to be a criminal enterprise each time you go after them. There is lawful access: Canadian law has not kept pace with changing technology. There is disclosure, Senator Baker's point: establishing a well-defined and consistent threshold for relevant disclosure. Then there is scheduling of certain chemical precursors used for the production of some of these things.
You have given us some excellent suggestions. I wish some of the government people had been listening to them because I know we are not investing enough in treatment and prevention. Would you suggest that is the way to go?
Ms. O'Sullivan: You have hit the nail on the head, and I will say it again: There is no either/or here. We need all pieces of the continuum. Enforcement is one piece of that continuum, and it happens to be a very expensive piece. I could not agree with you more that the legs of the stool have to be equal.
Inspector Skinner just leaned over and wrote ``proceeds of crime.'' There is a lot of money we can seize that can be put back in our communities.
I happen to sit on a couple of other committees, one being crime prevention. We have a national coalition of round tables working with 40 other national agencies on exactly these issues, and that is delivered at the local level. The national drug strategy speaks to the pieces as well.
You can hear a bit of passion coming out because I am so passionate about what you are speaking about. We know that we need all of this on the continuum. We happen to be speaking today about that enforcement piece in Bill C-15, and some of the aids to that. But you have hit on the fact that we have to have all those pieces, and those pieces need equal attention.
Senator Milne: Will this bill help you? It certainly will not help you on prevention, and I am hearing many people, including the man from the ministry who was here earlier, say they do not think this would put any more people in jail than are presently there.
Ms. O'Sullivan: I will go back to my earlier comments. You are right that Bill C-15 is not here to address the education and prevention. However, we hope to divert proceeds of crime monies to some of those things and get back from people engaged in criminal activity monies that could be used toward that.
We are talking about one piece of that, and it is one more tool in the toolbox for targeting and going after the people engaged in the trafficking, getting them off the street. I know Chief White spoke to this, and he has a passion for the importance of drug treatment issues and those alternative measures that could be available. Again, it is one tool in the toolbox and is not in isolation of the entire balanced approach.
Mr. Perron: The bill will certainly send a strong message that Canada is serious about drug trafficking. We are taking this as a serious threat to the community, to our children and the population in general. This is how I would see the bill giving us a hand.
Senator Milne: Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Senator Carignan.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: I would like to raise two or three points. I am actually quite familiar with prevention because I had the honour of being a guest speaker at the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police conference in Charlottetown this summer, during which prevention was the subject of much discussion. I know that the police chiefs in attendance were very aware of prevention. However, I also learned that prevention may work with some types of offender but not necessarily with all identified criminals.
The people being targeted here are drug traffickers. Based on your experience, do you believe that prevention has a real impact on these highly criminalized individuals?
[English]
Ms. O'Sullivan: No. You have hit the nail on the head. It is almost like Maslow's theory. It is the broadest base at the bottom of people who are not involved that you have the most likelihood to impact. As you go up and you become involved in organized crime or gangs, our ability to intervene becomes much less. We are often left with the criminal justice system to address those people.
Mr. Perron: From your question, you talk about prevention, perhaps as it relates to Bill C-15. It certainly does not; I do not see an impact.
However, with respect to the prevention impact, organized crime is fuelled by economics. Economics creates the funding, so if you reduce the supply and demand based on prevention, you will have an impact on organized crime. We are talking about an extremely long-term strategy and so on, but I could see that, yes.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: My second question is related to change. You — especially Mr. Perron — spoke about geographical changes in the trade. Producers and traffickers are driven by demand, which means they go where there is a demand.
You also talked about drugs aimed at young people. If I'm not mistaken, in the marketplace, the product is modified and presented so as to make it attractive to youth. Have you noticed following your investigations or searches over the past few years that the methods used to process drugs have been changed to target young people more specifically?
Mr. Perron: Manipulating drugs to make them more appealing to children is a phenomenon that has existed for many years. We need only look back to the 1970s and LSD, which was presented with small pieces of paper in different colours or with different images. We are seeing the same thing today with ecstasy pills and methamphetamine, which are made attractive to young people. I am not sure, however, if this has an impact on drug use.
[English]
Ms. Skinner: They do use things such as suckers, putting the drugs into suckers so the youth will use them instead, or putting logos on it. They will try to appeal to the youth.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: Have you noticed if it has become more frequent in recent years? I have never heard of suckers. Has it reached that point?
Ms. Skinner: Not really.
[English]
Ms. O'Sullivan: For youth, the most common drugs are marijuana, cocaine and ecstasy. Those are the drugs we see out there. We do drug seizures and have them analyzed. We are seeing an increase in OxyContin in our pharmacy robberies. It is not just our community that has battled it, because it is so addictive. I am sure you have heard publicly about things like people taking their parents' prescription drugs and putting them in a bag. They call that jelly beaning. There is all kinds of access for children, but the three most common drugs being put forward to the children in our community are marijuana, cocaine and ecstasy. I believe that is reflective of most communities across Canada.
Mr. Perron: No, it goes right into our drug situation report. That is very consistent.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: Put my mind at ease, because when I hear economic arguments being used to justify or not justify investigations, it worries me. I would imagine that in your budgets, you look at the proportion between the individuals and the type of investigation you are considering and the amount it will generate. However, I hope you will refrain from deciding for economic reasons not to investigate a person involved in organized crime who is suspected of trafficking.
Mr. Perron: I can assure you that our assessment of the threat does not take that factor into account. We determine the greatest threat that a group can pose in Canada and that should be addressed or eliminated. The foundation of the system is fairly complex, but the financial part certainly has no impact.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Deputy Chief, you are probably the one closest to the police budget. How much money out of your budget is spent on the drug enforcement side of your jurisdiction?
Ms. O'Sullivan: That is a multi-faceted answer because we have a multi-faceted approach to drugs in our community. Chief White was vocal on this when he first came in on our street crime unit. You are close to an area of our city that is visible in terms of apparent drug use, drug dealing, and people with huge addiction issues. It goes on just down the street here.
We have a street crime unit that deals with those situations every day. That also causes many concerns — not only about safety but also about more minor crime that occurs in relation to them having a drug addiction, for example, things like theft from vehicles. This is a full unit that has been there since Chief White came on to deal with everyday minor drug situations.
We also have complex organized crime investigations, which can be smaller projects or multi-year projects involving millions of dollars. We partner with other police agencies. As a representative of our local police agency, I want to assure you that we do not have millions of dollars in our budget to address this.
The Deputy Chair: How much money is spent out of your global budget as a percentage?
Ms. O'Sullivan: I am having difficulty answering that question because many of our homicides, robberies, shootings and other crime are related to drugs. I wear one other hat, and that is chair of the POLIS Committee, the Police Information and Statistics Committee, involving police-related crime data, co-chaired with Statistics Canada. One of our challenges is gathering data around organized crime. I had a meeting on Monday with the organized crime committee regarding that. Regarding our ability to answer some of those questions on the extent of organized crime, we are working hard to do that, but it will not be easy to answer.
How much crime in your communities is drug-involved or related to it? Again, that is not an easy piece of data to gather. The Edmonton Police Service did do a quality-of-life and some data gathering around that, but there is not a lot of information there. Your question sounds simple, but it is complex to answer.
The Deputy Chair: Could you give us a more elaborate answer to that question in writing?
Ms. O'Sullivan: If you would like that, I will get back to you on that.
The Deputy Chair: That would give us a picture of a typical large urban community in Canada that is trying to have ends meet in terms of the vastness of the drug world and the drug reality in Canada.
Ms. O'Sullivan: Yes, because it is interconnected and interrelated to many crimes in our community.
The Deputy Chair: We are not asking for the impossible.
Ms. O'Sullivan: No, I understand.
The Deputy Chair: On the second round, we have a short question from Senator Baker.
Senator Baker: Superintendent Malone mentioned the listing of criminal organizations and asked that a list be produced. The problem is that in the Criminal Code, you have to prove each time what may be a criminal organization. The Hell's Angels, for example, was recognized in two or three provinces as a criminal organization but not in other provinces. I realize your problem there, but the standard of proof in the Criminal Code and the way it is worded would probably preclude that.
As far as the disclosure is concerned, we should get involved in that. There is a serious problem there. It is a huge cost. Now that you are going to CD-ROMs, which is a good thing, it would be nice if the RCMP and the municipal and provincial forces could come up with one searchable program.
Ms. Skinner: I am fighting for that.
Senator Baker: You agree? I hope you are successful, because there is no continuity right across this country. Every province is different. In some provinces, it is searchable; in others, it is not. It leads to huge problems. I agree with you that some committee of the Senate or of the House of Commons should look into the question of disclosure. I think there is a simple answer there. As you say, Superintendent Malone, you only need a certain amount of information initially for a plea. You know what the charge is, and it should not be necessary for you to unseal every single packet that you have until the matter goes to trial in an advanced manner.
I want to congratulate you for being here. If you come up with a searchable program, that would be a good thing.
The Deputy Chair: You have already answered that question.
Senator Milne: It might be of interest to you to know, Deputy Chief O'Sullivan, that the minister said, ``We are not guided by statistics.'' I find that discouraging.
Senator Baker raised the point about these additions to Schedule I. New substances are being put in there, and he has difficulty pronouncing them and so would I, and I am sure every police officer in the land would have difficulty pronouncing them. He mentioned item 19(8) under clause 6 of the bill. If I count through the syllables in this substance that Senator Baker thinks might be ecstasy, there are 16 syllables there, and I am not counting dashes or commas or Greek letters that are included in it. Do you foresee any problem with this type of description when they are laying charges and a judge is throwing it out?
Mr. Malone: As pointed out by the gentleman from the Department of Justice who was here earlier, when we are drawing up charges and when we are in consultation with the public prosecution service, if amendments need to be made, from what I have seen, the scientific name or the chemistry name for these drugs is included. However, it may include such things as ``ecstasy'' in brackets as an amendment so that everyone knows what they are talking about. You are correct, I am not a chemist. If I had to pronounce some of those substances, I would be in a great deal of difficulty.
As far as charging people goes, I personally do not see that as being problematic. That is why we rely on the public prosecution service people to work with us and navigate that.
Ms. O'Sullivan: To add one last point, obviously every police agency in the country is working very hard to prioritize and go after the people selling drugs and trafficking in our community.
We have not talked about some of the costs that come in when it comes to drug investigations, particularly with labs. We have talked about marijuana labs. In Ottawa, on average, there are about 50 to 52 labs and warrants that we execute on marijuana labs in a year.
The other thing we are getting into is personal protection equipment for chemical labs. I am aware of investigations where the kind of chemicals used are huge health and safety risks; there are the costs of dismantling those physically, and what goes into those because of the types of chemicals and hazardous materials.
I want to highlight that when you get into the cost of doing business, even in entering any of these labs, the personal protective equipment required for our members is also an issue. We had not talked about that. Sometimes when you look at the costs of these investigations, it is not just the investigations; it is the physical part as well. I will also include that.
The Deputy Chair: That is exactly why I asked you for a written answer. I knew it could be an elaborate answer with all the ramifications. Please put in your answer whatever you think is appropriate for us to know.
Mr. Malone: With regard to the cost, if we seize a grow house, there is the cost of remediating that grow house if it is forfeited to the Crown as a result of a conviction. We still have a responsibility to make sure that before that house goes back on the market it has a clean bill of health. Because of the mould and all that, it costs a significant amount of money to get a house environmentally sound again before you sell it to a family with children.
Ms. O'Sullivan: Inspector Skinner just leaned over. One of the advantages of being locals is that she picked up the passion in this group about this issue, and she wanted to extend an invitation to anyone on the committee who might have an interest.
Ms. Skinner: If any of you would like to do a ride-along with our drug squad, we will allow you to do that. We will make sure you stay safe, but we will provide you an opportunity to see it up close and see the impacts. It is a different life, and we are certainly open to that.
Senator Angus: What did you welcome us to?
Ms. Skinner: To be part of our ride-along with our drug squad. It may not just benefit Bill C-15. I know you are involved in many other law amendments, and I see Senator Baker has much knowledge. I would like to ensure everyone else has the opportunity.
The Deputy Chair: I have done it in Toronto and Vancouver, and Senator Milne was with me when we did that. Thank you very much for the invitation, Inspector Skinner.
I want to thank our witnesses for their participation tonight. Please excuse us for being a bit late, but I think it was for a good cause.
Colleagues, we meet tomorrow at 10:45. We will hear from a panel from Statistics Canada, and also our new friend, Mr. Chaffe, from the Canadian Association of Crown Counsel.
(The committee adjourned.)