Backgrounder
Mandatory prison sentences for serious drug crimes

The Government today re-introduced amendments to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA) which was originally tabled in November 2007. The legislation provides mandatory jail time for producing and selling illegal drugs, and will allow special penalties to be imposed when offences are carried out for organized crime purposes, or if they involve youth. This legislation supports the National Anti-Drug Strategy’s efforts to combat illicit drug production and distribution.

The proposed reforms would help disrupt criminal enterprises by targeting drug suppliers. It would send a clear message to growers and traffickers that this illicit activity will not be tolerated, and they will be punished -- especially when their activities involve Canada’s youth or trafficking near schools.

Anyone found guilty of a serious drug offence would automatically receive a mandatory term of imprisonment. For the purpose of this initiative, serious drug offences would include:
• production;
• trafficking;
• possession for the purpose of trafficking;
• importing and exporting; and
• possession for the purpose of exporting.

The Bill would amend the CDSA to include mandatory prison terms for drugs listed in Schedule I, such as heroin, cocaine and methamphetamine, and in Schedule II, such as marijuana. Generally, the minimum sentence would apply where there is an aggravating factor, including where the production of the drug constituted a potential security, health or safety hazard. Also, the maximum penalty for production of Schedule II drugs, e.g., marijuana, would be increased from 7 to 14 years.

The aggravating factors involve offences committed:
• for the benefit of organized crime;
• involving use or threat of violence;
• involving use or threat of use of weapons;
• by someone who has been previously convicted (in the past 10 years) of a serious drug offence;
• in a prison;
• in or near a school, in or near an area normally frequented by youth or in the presence of youth;
• through involving a youth in the commission of the offence; and,
• in relation to a youth (e.g. selling to a youth).


The security, health and safety factors are:
• the accused used real property that belongs to a third party to commit the offence;
• the production constituted a potential security, health or safety hazard to children who were in the location where the offence was committed or in the immediate area;
• the production constituted a potential public safety hazard in a residential area; and,
• the accused placed or set a trap.

Also, GHB and flunitrazepam, most commonly known as date-rape drugs, and amphetamine drugs would be moved from Schedule III to Schedule I, which would provide access to higher maximum penalties for illegal activities involving these drugs.

Exemption for the Drug Treatment Court

The proposed legislation would allow a Drug Treatment Court (DTC) to suspend the imposition of a sentence while the addicted accused person takes an approved treatment program. Drug Treatment Courts encourage the accused person to deal with the addiction that motivates their criminal behaviour. If the person successfully completes the program, the court normally imposes a suspended or reduced sentence.

There's this bit of info from http://www.parl.gc.ca/LEGISINFO/index.asp?List=ls&Query=5273&Session=15&Language=e#constitutionality

B. Constitutionality of Mandatory Minimum Sentences

Mandatory minimum terms of imprisonment are generally inconsistent with the fundamental principle that a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender,(9) as they do not allow a judge to make any exception in an appropriate case. However, this does not necessarily mean that a minimum sentence is unconstitutional. A mandatory minimum sentence may constitute cruel and unusual punishment, in violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms,(10) if it is possible for the mandatory punishment, in a specific matter or reasonable hypothetical case, to be “grossly disproportionate,” given the gravity of the offence or the personal circumstances of the offender.

By way of example, the Supreme Court of Canada concluded in 1987 that a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of seven years for importing or exporting a narcotic constituted cruel and unusual punishment because it failed to take into account the nature and quantity of the substance, the reason for the offence, or the absence of any previous convictions.(11) The applicable provision was accordingly struck down. Conversely, the current mandatory minimum sentence of four years in prison for criminal negligence causing death, where a firearm is used, was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2000, on the basis that such an offence necessarily involves wanton and reckless disregard for life and safety.(12)

Thanks for that Jodie was wondering when Geekiator asked the question.

So how can they put it in C-15 I guess its one that will be amended but hopefully the bill gets tossed out.

Yes I think its a dirty tactic using " If you disagree your soft on crime" what utter bull.

The main crime boss is the government in supporting prohibition. !!

The most distressing part of this bill is the 6 month monitory sentence for 1-200 plants.

So if you are sick and can't get on the Medicinal Cannabis Program and you have even 1 plant growing you will be sent to jail for 6 months. If you don't want to purchase your weed on the black market and grow your own plant for personal use you will be sent to jail for 6 months and if you live in a rented apartment you will get 9 months.

I want that Liberal/NDP/Block coalition government NOW!

In Ontario it costs 1000 dollars a week to jail someone in medium I believe so 2 people in jail for 6 months costs us the tax payer
52000 dollars which is money wasted. The thing is were are we going to put peaceful pot heads ?? In a over crowded jails or waste more tax money on new jails at who's cost ??

Sad part is the sheeple or the ones that say this is great do not look beyond there noises at the cost. The money is better spent on education and health care not jails or jail time.

If the province is complaining about tax money or lack of it maybe make it legal and tax it. Would also put a stop to the black market.

Business 101 says if there is a demand there will be someone to supply the demand so prohibition is a disaster before it starts and to keep it up is just a waste of lives and ruins families

Think I have done my rant for this week !!!

Thanks for reading

I just want to make sure I understand this right - C-15 has to start right from square 1, right? If it has to start from the beginning, isn't there an excellent chance that the government will fall before it can get anywhere near becoming law? And, since Harper seems to be rapidly losing ground to Iggy (who I've heard is favorable to decrim), is there actually reason for hope?

Also, since the BC supreme court ruled that the government had until June 30 of this year to change the drug laws to accommodate safe injection sites (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2008/05/27/bc-supreme-court-insite.html), and it doesn't seem like there's anything like that in C-15, will this law even be valid anyways?

Canada simply don't have enough jails, judges, court houses and lawyers to support such law - and in hard economic times, tax payers just can't afford to pay more taxes in judicial costs

The conservative tactic is to run massive deficits to pay for this crap, then cut the deficit by closing hospitals and schools.

Which creates more desperate people who become criminals, who have to be imprisoned. It's called he prison industrial complex, it is yet another parasite leaching off society.

Sometimes these prisoners are given 'jobs', (telemarketing for mega corporations,say), paid a few cents a day. This is a kind of slavery that helps lower the wages corporations have to pay workers.

The more people in jail, the more slaves there are! And the more slaves there are, the more money owners make. So yet again, the Cons are governing for their base.

Its frustrating that a lot of people who will be imprisoned by mandatory minimum pot laws never believed they had a choice at the ballot box, and didn't even vote.

Thats how Nixon came to power.

It's a shit Bill from the go. We know that and they know that. The opposition parties want decriminalization. Tough on violence I totally agree, tough on weed???? No way. All that type of legislation would do is burden society even more. The laws would be struck down by the courts in no time. A vicious repetative cycle of getting no where fast. They want to put gang murderers in jail, rather than legalize drugs and take away the reason for the violence, idiocy and greed. Problem solved.

KK