PARLIAMENT of CANADA
Home Parliamentary Business Senators and Members About Parliament Visitor Information Employment

41st Parliament, 1st Session

Legislative Summary of Bill C-10: 4 Amendments to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act [Bill C-10, Part 2, Clauses 32-33, 39-48 and 50-51 (Former Bill S-10)] *



 

Publication Number 41-1-C10E PDF  PDF 1.2 MB, 158 pages



4 Amendments to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act [Bill C-10, Part 2, Clauses 32-33, 39-48 and 50-51 (Former Bill S-10)]

4.1 Background

4.1.1 General

Clauses 32-33, 39-48, and 50-51 of Part 2 of Bill C-10 seek to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act 1 (CDSA) to provide for minimum penalties for serious drug offences, such as dealing drugs for organized crime purposes or using a weapon or violence when involved in proscribed drug-related activities. Currently, there are no mandatory minimum penalties under the CDSA. These clauses also increase the maximum penalty for cannabis (marijuana) production and move certain substances from Schedule III of the Act to Schedule I.

The bill contains an exception that allows courts not to impose a mandatory sentence if an offender successfully completes a Drug Treatment Court (DTC) program or a treatment program which, as set out in section 720(2) of the Criminal Code, is approved by a province and is under the supervision of a court. These programs are designed to assist certain individuals who are charged with drug-related offences (should they meet certain eligibility criteria) to overcome their drug addictions and avoid future conflict with the law. The DTC program involves a mix of judicial supervision, social services support, incentives for refraining from drug use, and sanctions for failure to comply with the orders of the court.

Clauses 32-33, 39-48, and 50-51 of Bill C-10 are almost identical to provisions found in Bill S-10, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts (short title: Penalties for Organized Drug Crime Act), which was introduced in the Senate on 5 May 2010 by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, the Honourable Marjory LeBreton. That bill was adopted by the Senate, with one amendment calling for a cost-benefit analysis of mandatory minimum sentences, but it died on the Order Paper when the 40th Parliament was dissolved on 26 March 2011.

A similar predecessor bill - Bill C-15 - was introduced during the 2nd Session of the 40th Parliament. Although Bill C-15 passed the House of Commons and the Senate, with certain amendments, it died on the Order Paper on 30 December 2009 when Parliament was prorogued, thereby ending the 2nd Session of the 40th Parliament. It is almost identical to Bill C-26, which received second reading during the 2nd Session of the 39th Parliament, but which died on the Order Paper when Parliament was dissolved on 7 September 2008.

4.1.2 Drug Use in Canada

According to Health Canada data, drug use in Canada changes over time. This is shown through a comparison of results from the Canadian Addiction Survey (CAS) and the Canadian Alcohol and Drug Use Monitoring Survey (CADUMS) (see tables 4-1 and 4-2).

The Canadian Alcohol and Drug Use Monitoring Survey (CADUMS) is an on-going general population survey of alcohol and illicit drug use among Canadians aged 15 years and older that was launched in April 2008.2 Derived from and similar to the Canadian Addiction Survey (CAS) of 2004,3 CADUMS was designed to provide detailed national and provincial estimates of alcohol- and drug-related behaviours and outcomes, as well as an examination of trends over time. The results for 2010 are based on telephone interviews with 13,615 respondents, across all 10 provinces.

Table 4-1 - Changes in Drug Use by People over the Age of 15, Canada, 2004-2010
  2004
CASa Results
2008
CADUMSb Results
2009
CADUMS Results
2010
CADUMS Results
Number of respondents 13,909 16,640 13,082 13,615
Cannabis Use
Cannabis - Past year (%) 14.1 11.4 10.6 10.7
Cannabis - Lifetime (%) 44.5 43.9 42.4 41.5
Cannabis - Age of initiation 18.8 18.4 18.7 18.4
Illicit Drug Use, Past Year (%)
Cocaine/Crack 1.9 1.6 1.2 0.7
Speed 0.8 1.1 0.4 0.5c
Hallucinogens (excluding salvia) 0.7 d 0.7 0.9
Hallucinogens (including salvia) - 2.1 0.9 1.1
Ecstasy 1.1 1.4 0.9 0.7
Any 6 drugs (hallucinogens excl. salvia)e 14.5 - 11.0 11.0
Any 5 drugs (hallucinogens excl salvia)f 3.0 - 2.0 1.8
Any 6 drugs (hallucinogens incl. salvia)e - 12.1 11.1 11.1
Any 5 drugs (hallucinogens incl. salvia)f - 3.9 2.1 2.0
Pharmaceutical Use, Past Year (%)
Pain relievers - 21.6 19.2 20.6
Pain relievers to get high - 0.3 0.4 0.2c
Pain relievers to get high - among users - 1.5 2.3 1.1c
Stimulants - 1.1 1.0 1.0
Stimulants to get high - 0.3 0.1 Sg
Stimulants to get high - among users - 25.5 9.4 S
Sedatives - 10.7 9.1 8.7
Sedatives to get high - 0.2 0.2 0.1c
Sedatives to get high - among users - 1.4c 1.7 0.5c
Any pharmaceutical - 28.4 25.0 26.0
Any pharmaceutical to get high - 0.6 0.6 0.3c
Any pharmaceutical to get high - among users - 2.0 2.3 1.0c
Drug-Related Harms, Past Year (%)h
Any drug harm to self - of total population 2.8 2.7 - 2.1
Any drug harm to self among users of any 5 drugsi 36.7 37.5 - 36.4
Any drug harm to self among users of any drugj 17.5 21.7 - 17.0
Notes: 
a.  Canadian Addiction Survey [ Return to text ]
b.  Canadian Alcohol and Drug Use Monitoring Survey [ Return to text ]
c.  The estimate is qualified due to high sampling variability.
d.  The symbol “-” means there are no comparable estimates. [ Return to text ]
e.  Cannabis, cocaine/crack, speed, ecstasy, hallucinogens, heroin.
f.  Cocaine/crack, speed, ecstasy, hallucinogens, heroin.
g.  The symbol “S” means that the estimate is suppressed due to high sampling variability. [ Return to text ]
h.  At least one of eight harms to physical health; friendships and social life; financial position; home life or marriage; work, studies, or employment opportunities; legal problems; difficulty learning; housing problems. [ Return to text ]
i.  Among past year users any 5 drugs (cocaine, speed, hallucinogens, ecstasy, heroin). CADUMS 2010: hallucinogens include salvia. [ Return to text ]
j.  Among past year users CAS (cannabis, cocaine, speed, hallucinogens, ecstasy, inhalants, heroin, steroids), CADUMS 2008 (cannabis, cocaine, speed, hallucinogens, ecstasy, inhalants, heroin, meth, pain killers to get high, stimulants to get high, sedatives to get high), CADUMS 2010 (cannabis, cocaine, speed, hallucinogens including salvia, ecstasy, inhalants, heroin, meth, pain killers to get high, stimulants to get high, sedatives to get high). [ Return to text ]
Source: Health Canada, “Table 3: Changes between CAS 2004, CADUMS 2008-2010, overall - Drugs,” Canadian Alcohol and Drug Use Monitoring Survey.

 

Table 4-2 - Changes in Drug Use by Age, Canada, 2004-2010
  CASa
2004
15-24
CADUMSb
2008
15-24
CADUMS
2009
15-24
CADUMS
2010
15-24
CAS
2004
25+
CADUMS
2008
25+
CADUMS
2009
25+
CADUMS
2010
25+
Number of respondents 2,085 1,443 955 3,989 11,519 15,197 12,079 9,626
Cannabis Use
Cannabis - Past year (%) 37.0 32.7 26.3 25.1 10.0 7.3 7.6 7.9
Cannabis - Lifetime (%) 61.4 52.9 42.9 41.4 41.8 42.1 42.3 41.7
Cannabis - Age of initiation 15.6 15.5 15.6 15.7 19.7 19.2 19.3 18.9
Illicit Drug Use, Past Year (%)
Cocaine/Crack 5.5 5.9 3.0c 2.7 1.2 0.8 0.9 0.3c
Speed 3.9 3.7 Sd 1.9c 0.2 0.6 S S
Hallucinogens (excluding salvia) 3.5 e 3.2c 3.4 0.1 - 0.3 0.4c
Hallucinogens (including salvia) - 10.2 4.4 4.6 - 0.6 0.3 0.4
Ecstasy 4.4 6.5 3.6 3.8 0.5 0.4 0.4 S
Any 6 drugs (hallucinogens excl. salvia)f 37.9 - 27.3 25.9 10.3 - 7.9 8.1
Any 5 drugs (hallucinogens excl salvia)g 11.3 - 5.5 7.0 1.5 - 1.3 0.8c
Any 6 drugs (hallucinogens incl. salvia)f - 34.0 27.5 26.1 - 7.9 7.9 8.2
Any 5 drugs (hallucinogens incl. salvia)g - 15.4 6.3 7.9 - 1.7 1.3 0.8c
Pharmaceutical Use, Past Year (%)
Pain relievers - 17.7 14.6 18.2 - 22.4 20.2 21.0
Pain relievers to get high - 0.9c 1.2c S - 0.2 0.3 S
Pain relievers to get high - among users - 4.9 8.5 S - 1.0 1.4 S
Stimulants - 3.1 2.7c 3.2 - 0.7 0.6 0.6c
Stimulants to get high - 1.2c S S - 0.1 S S
Stimulants to get high - among users - 38.3c S S - 14.7c S S
Sedatives - 5.5 4.0 3.5 - 11.7 10.1 9.7
Sedatives to get high - 0.8c S S - S S S
Sedatives to get high - among users - 14.4c S S - S S S
Any pharmaceutical - 22.3 18.2 22.1 - 29.5 26.3 26.7
Any pharmaceutical to get high - 2.1c 1.7c 0.8c - 0.3 0.3 S
Any pharmaceutical to get high - among users - 9.4 9.5 3.8 - 0.9 1.3 S
Drug-Related Harms, Past Year (%)h
Any drug harm to self - of total population 9.5 10.8 - 6.9 1.6 1.1 - 1.2c
Any drug harm to self among users of any 5 drugsi 42.1 42.0 - 41.6 28.7 29.5 - 26.6c
Any drug harm to self among users of any drugj 24.0 31.5 - 24.7 12.7 13.5 - 12.2c
Notes: 
a.  Canadian Addiction Survey [ Return to text ]
b.  Canadian Alcohol and Drug Use Monitoring Survey [ Return to text ]
c.  The estimate is qualified due to high sampling variability.
 d. The symbol “S” means that the estimate is suppressed due to high sampling variability. [ Return to text ]
e.  The symbol “-” means there are no comparable estimates. [ Return to text ]
f.  Cannabis, cocaine/crack, speed, ecstasy, hallucinogens, heroin.g. Cocaine/crack, speed, ecstasy, hallucinogens, heroin.
h. At least one of eight harms to physical health; friendships and social life; financial position; home life or marriage; work, studies, or employment opportunities; legal problems; difficulty learning; housing problems. [ Return to text ]i.  Among past year users any 5 drugs (cocaine, speed, hallucinogens, ecstasy, heroin). CADUMS 2010: hallucinogens include salvia. [ Return to text ]
j.  Among past year users CAS (cannabis, cocaine, speed, hallucinogens, ecstasy, inhalants, heroin, steroids), CADUMS 2008 (cannabis, cocaine, speed, hallucinogens, ecstasy, inhalants, heroin, meth, pain killers to get high, stimulants to get high, sedatives to get high), CADUMS 2010 (cannabis, cocaine, speed, hallucinogens including salvia, ecstasy, inhalants, heroin, meth, pain killers to get high, stimulants to get high, sedatives to get high). [ Return to text ]
Source: Health Canada, “Table 4: Changes between CAS 2004 and CADUMS 2008-2010 by age - Drugs,” Canadian Alcohol and Drug Use Monitoring Survey.

Health Canada has summarized the major findings from its latest survey of drug use by Canadians as follows:4

  • Among Canadians 15 years and older, the prevalence of past-year cannabis use decreased from 14.1% in 2004 to 10.7% in 2010.
  • The prevalence of past-year cannabis use decreased, among young people aged 15 to 24 years, from 37.0% in 2004 to 25.1% in 2010.
  • Among Canadians 15 years and older, the prevalence of past-year cocaine or crack decreased from 1.9% in 2004 to 1.2% in 2010, while past-year use of hallucinogens (0.9%), ecstasy (0.7%) and speed (0.5%) is comparable to the rates of use reported in 2004.
  • Among youth aged 15 to 24 years, past-year use of at least one of five illicit drugs (cocaine or crack, speed, hallucinogens, ecstasy, and heroin) decreased from 11.3% in 2004 to 7.0% in 2010.
  • The rate of drug use by young people 15 to 24 years of age remains much higher than that reported by adults 25 years and older; it is three times higher for cannabis use (25.1% versus 7.9%), and almost nine times higher for past-year use of any drug excluding cannabis (7.9% versus 0.8%).
  • The rates of psychoactive pharmaceutical use and abuse remains comparable to the rates reported in 2009: 26.0% of respondents aged 15 years and older indicated that they had used an opioid pain reliever, a stimulant, or a sedative or tranquilizer in the past year while 0.3% reported that they used any of these drugs to get high in the past year.

A number of caveats should be raised with the results of any survey of drug use. Reported drug usage rates are usually considered to be conservative estimates of the actual usage rates, as several factors lead to the under-reporting of drug use in general population surveys. Drug users may be under-sampled, and those who are sampled may not be willing to disclose what is a criminal act. Many younger people use cell phones only and so would not respond to a survey that uses randomly dialled numbers obtained from phone directories. In addition, high-risk groups such as the homeless are excluded from these surveys.

Since the publication of the CAS in 2005, some regions of Canada have reported on drug use rates. Yukon and the Northwest Territories, which were excluded from the CAS, have each reported on surveys of their populations. The Yukon Addictions Survey, released in June 2005, reported that illicit drug use in Yukon was generally similar to the rest of Canada except for cannabis use. Twenty-one percent of Yukoners over the age of 15 reported using cannabis in the previous 12 months, compared to 14% of Canadians overall. During the previous 12 months, the rates of illicit drug use by Yukoners were 3% for cocaine, 1% for hallucinogenic drugs and 1% for ecstasy.5 The Northwest Territories reported a similar level of past-year cannabis use (20.7%). An estimated 2.7% of residents of the Northwest Territories 15 years of age and older reported using at least one of the following five drugs in the year preceding the survey: cocaine, hallucinogens, speed, ecstasy, or heroin.6

In 2007, l’Institut de la statistique du Québec released a study indicating that drug use among secondary school students had declined. The study indicated that in 2006, 30.2% of adolescents had consumed an illicit substance at least once in the previous year, while in 2000 the figure was 42.9%.7 Furthermore, the average age at which students started to experiment with drugs increased to 13.2 years from approximately 13 years of age in 2004.8

The Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse published The Costs of Substance Abuse in Canada 2002.9 This study estimated the impact in terms of death, illness and economic costs caused in whole or in part by the abuse of tobacco, alcohol and illegal drugs for the year 2002. In economic terms, abuse occurs when substance use imposes costs on society that exceed the costs to the user of obtaining the substance. These costs are designated as “social” costs. Measured in terms of the burden on services such as health care and law enforcement, and the loss of productivity in the workplace or at home resulting from premature death and disability, the overall cost of substance abuse in Canada in 2002 was estimated to be $39.8 billion. This represents a cost of $1,267 for every man, woman, and child in Canada. Tobacco accounted for about $17 billion or 42.7% of that total estimate, alcohol accounted for about $14.6 billion (36.6%) and illegal drugs for about $8.2 billion (20.7%). Productivity losses amounted to $24.3 billion or 61% of the total, while health care costs were $8.8 billion (22.1%). The third highest contributor to total substance-related costs was law enforcement, with a cost of $5.4 billion or 13.6% of the total.

In 2002, a total of 1,695 Canadians died as a result of illegal drug use, accounting for 0.8% of all deaths. This can be compared to 37,209 Canadians who died from tobacco use (16.6% of all deaths) and 4,258 from alcohol use (1.9% of all deaths). The leading causes of death linked to illegal drug use were overdose (958), drug-attributable suicide (295), drug-attributable hepatitis C infection (165), and HIV infection (87). Deaths linked to illegal drugs resulted in 62,110 potential years of life lost. Illegal drug-attributed illness accounted for 352,121 days of acute care in hospital.

The Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse (CCSA) has also published a document outlining the relationship between the perceived seriousness and the actual costs of substance abuse in Canada.10 The study found that, while the total social costs associated with alcohol are more than twice those for all other illicit drugs, the public consistently rated the overall seriousness of illicit drugs as higher in the Canadian Addiction Survey. The reasons for this misperception may relate to the fact that alcohol is a legal, socially accepted product that is regularly used by the vast majority of Canadians. While over 90% of Canadians have direct, personal experience with alcohol, only 3% of CAS respondents reported past-year use of the five most popular illicit drugs, so perceptions of risk will likely be inflated for these substances due to the unfamiliarity factor. The CCSA also points to the police, concerned citizen groups, political leaders and policy makers as those involved in amplifying the perceptions of the risks associated with illicit drug abuse. One example of this is methamphetamine which, while a dangerous drug, is used much less frequently than alcohol, cannabis, and cocaine. This finding raises questions about the appropriateness of using a drug like methamphetamine as a primary driver for substance abuse policy.

4.1.3 Canada’s Drug Strategy

Canada’s first federal drug strategy was introduced in 1987 under the title “National Drug Strategy.” It acknowledged that substance abuse was primarily a health issue but continued the enforcement-based approach that Canada has adopted since enacting the Opium Act in 1908, which made it illegal to import, manufacture or sell opium. Efforts to control and regulate psychoactive substances have subsequently relied on legislation to ban the production, distribution and use of illicit drugs. The legislation used has included the Opium and Drug Act, the Narcotic Control Act, the Food and Drug Act and the current Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. In 1988, Parliament created the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse as Canada’s national non-government organization on addictions. Its primary responsibility is to provide objective information on addiction.

In 1992, Parliament approved Canada’s Drug Strategy, a coordinated effort to reduce the harm caused by alcohol and other drugs. This strategy called for a balanced approach to reducing both the demand for drugs and their supply through such activities as control and enforcement, prevention, treatment and rehabilitation, and harm reduction. In 1997, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act was introduced and remains the current legislation for controlling the use of illicit drugs. In 2001, the Auditor General published a report on the federal government’s role in the area of illicit drugs.11 The Auditor General noted that there was no comprehensive public reporting on illicit drugs. Until the government provided comprehensive public reporting at the national level, it would be impossible to measure the net effectiveness of Canada’s Drug Strategy.

Canada’s Drug Strategy was renewed in 2003. It was described as an initiative to reduce the harm associated with the use of narcotics and controlled substances and the abuse of alcohol and prescription drugs. The Strategy was said to address underlying factors associated with substance use and abuse. It included education, prevention and health promotion initiatives as well as enhanced enforcement measures. Part of the Strategy involved a commitment to report to Parliament and Canadians every two years on the Strategy’s direction and progress.12 Yet it was reported in a December 2006 article that no reports or evaluations of the renewed Strategy had been made available.13

On 4 October 2007, the Government of Canada introduced its National Anti-Drug Strategy. At that time, funding in the amount of approximately $64 million was provided in three areas: prevention ($10 million), treatment ($32 million), and enforcement ($22 million). As a complement to drug prevention and treatment efforts, the Enforcement Action Plan is said to bolster law enforcement efforts and the capacity to combat effectively marijuana grow operations and synthetic drug production and distribution operations. One part of the plan is ensuring that strong and adequate penalties are in place for serious drug crimes.14

The goal of the National Anti-Drug Strategy (which has funding of $578.5 million allocated from 2007-2008 to 2011-2012) is stated to be the reduction of the supply and demand for illicit drugs.15 The three key priorities of the Strategy are to prevent illicit drug use, treat illicit drug addiction, and combat illicit drug production and distribution. Where the destination of the funding for the National Anti-Drug Strategy is indicated, 22% of it is allocated to the Prevention Action Plan, 31% to the Treatment Action Plan and 47% to the Enforcement Action Plan. This latter figure includes $67.7 million which will be released should clauses 32-33, 39-48, and 50-51 of Bill C-10 receive Royal Assent.16 These clauses are seen by the Government of Canada as part of its effort, under the National Anti-Drug Strategy, to combat illicit drug production and distribution. The proposed changes to the legislation are intended to help disrupt criminal enterprises by targeting drug suppliers.17

4.1.4 The Current Law

The Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA) regulates certain types of drugs and associated substances. The drugs and substances are listed in Schedules I to VIII of the CDSA. There are currently no mandatory prison terms under the CDSA, but the most serious drug offences have a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. The offences in the Act include possession, “double doctoring,” trafficking, importing and exporting, and production of substances included in the schedules to the CDSA. The punishment for the offences will depend upon which schedule applies to the drug in question. Schedule I includes the drugs that are commonly thought of as the most “dangerous,” e.g., cocaine and methamphetamine. Schedule II lists cannabis and its derivatives, while Schedule III includes amphetamines and lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD). Schedule IV includes barbiturates.

The CDSA fulfills obligations under several international protocols and covers offences relating to property and the proceeds of drug offences. Three international conventions on illicit drugs cover cannabis, cocaine, heroin, other psychoactive substances and their precursors: the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961,18 the Convention on Psychotropic Substances, 1971,19 and the United Nations Convention against the Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, 1988 (Vienna Convention).20 The Single Convention limits the production and trade in prohibited substances to the quantity needed to meet the medical and scientific needs of the state parties. Each state creates the necessary legislative and regulatory measures for establishing the controls within its own territory to fulfill the commitments of the Convention. Under the 1971 Convention, psychoactive substances (such as THC found in marijuana) are to be subjected to controls similar to those that apply under the 1961 Convention. Under the 1988 Convention, parties must take cooperative action to control the illicit cultivation, production and distribution of drugs of abuse.

Canada’s drug laws do not prohibit all possession or use of illicit drugs.21 Thus, the Narcotic Control Regulations 22 allow for the distribution of controlled drugs and substances by pharmacists, medical practitioners and hospitals and outline the records that must be kept to account for the distribution of these drugs. Pursuant to section 53(3) of the regulations, a medical practitioner may administer methadone, for example, if the practitioner has an exemption under section 56 of the CDSA with respect to methadone. Section 56 of the CDSA gives the power to the Minister of Health to exempt any person or controlled substance from the application of the CDSA if the exemption is necessary for a medical or scientific purpose or is otherwise in the public interest. The minister may also issue a licence to cultivate, gather or produce opium poppy or marijuana for scientific purposes.23

In addition, the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations 24 allow for authorizations to possess marijuana to be issued to those persons who can prove a medical need for it. A holder of a personal-use production licence is also authorized to produce and keep marijuana for the medical purpose of the holder.25 A specific limitation on the lawful source of supply of dried marijuana was declared invalid as contrary to section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 2008.26 The one-grower-to-one-user ratio was held to unjustifiably limit the ability of authorized persons to access their marijuana for medical purposes. This decision was confirmed by the Federal Court of Appeal.27 In response, the government published Regulations Amending the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations in the Canada Gazette on 27 May 2009.28 These changes doubled the current ratio, making it one grower to two users. The explanation accompanying the amendments stated that a full review of the access to medical marijuana is required given that the program was never intended to facilitate the widespread, potentially large-scale production of marijuana for medical purposes.

Drug crimes include possession, trafficking, importing, exporting and production-related offences as set out in the CDSA. In 2010, there were almost 108,600 police-reported drug crimes in Canada, about half of which (52%) were for possession of cannabis.29 Between 2009 and 2010, the rate of drug crime increased by 10%, continuing a general trend that began in the early 1990s. The rising trend in the rate of drug crime coincides with a decreasing trend in the overall crime rate.

According to an article in Statistics Canada’s justice-related periodical, Juristat,30 the increases in drug crime rates may be influenced by police practices that focus more law enforcement efforts on addressing this type of offence when time, resources and priorities permit. The overall increase in the rate of drug crime was driven by cannabis offences, which were up 13% between 2009 and 2010. The rate of cocaine offences fell for the third year in a row, down 5% from the year before.31

Statistics Canada has also presented information from the Adult Criminal Court Survey32 and the Youth Court Survey33 on the decisions and sentencing outcomes for those charged with drug offences. Given that not all crimes come to the attention of police, the data likely under-represent the total number of drug offences that occur in Canada. The full extent of drug crime, therefore, is unknown. In 2006-2007, about half of all drug-related court cases were stayed, withdrawn, dismissed or discharged, due to resolution discussions, lack of evidence, or a referral to court-sponsored diversion programs. If convicted, youth were most often sentenced to probation. Probation was also the most common sentence for adults convicted of drug possession; however, adults convicted of drug trafficking were more often sentenced to custody.34

4.1.5 Drug Treatment Courts

4.1.5.1 The Creation of the Drug Treatment Courts in Canada

One part of the effort to break the cycle of drug use and criminal recidivism has been the creation of the Drug Treatment Courts (DTCs). The objective of Drug Treatment Courts is to reduce substance abuse, crime and recidivism through the rehabilitation of persons who commit crimes to support their substance dependency.35 Canada’s first Drug Treatment Court was established in Toronto, on 1 December 1998, as part of a four-year pilot project.36 It was initiated by Justice Paul Bentley of the Ontario Court of Justice. According to Public Safety Canada, the Drug Treatment Court in Toronto was designed specifically to address the unique needs of non-violent offenders who abused cocaine or opiates.37

In February 2001, the Department of Justice announced that the governments of Canada and British Columbia had reached an agreement to develop a new DTC in the city of Vancouver. The Vancouver pilot program would modify the Toronto model in order to meet the specific needs of the community and expand the scope of the drug treatment court models in Canada.38 The goal was to build upon the experience gained in Toronto and establish a successful made-in-BC program.

As part of the renewal of Canada’s Drug Strategy, the federal government made a further commitment to expand the use of drug treatment courts in Canada. In December 2004, a call was made for funding proposals. The proposal review committee included officials from the Department of Justice Canada, Health Canada and the Canadian Centre for Substance Abuse.39 The review was also carried out by treatment experts in the field of addictions. Each proposal was further subjected to a comprehensive assessment based on objective criteria and the demonstrated need for a treatment court in that community.

In June 2005, the government of Canada announced that it would provide additional funding in order to establish four new drug treatment courts. It would give $13.3 million over a period of four years.40 As a result, there are now six federally funded DTCs in Canada. They are located in Toronto (December 1998), Vancouver (December 2001), Edmonton (December 2005), Winnipeg (January 2006), Ottawa (March 2006) and Regina (October 2006).41 It is recognized that each of the drug treatment courts is unique, having its own set of partners to reflect the community in which it operates. Furthermore, each program is designed to meet the multiple and highly complex needs of its community.

4.1.5.2 The Purpose of the Drug Treatment Courts

One of the main goals of the Drug Treatment Court Program is to facilitate the treatment of drug offenders by providing an intensive, court-monitored alternative to incarceration. It is said that drug treatment courts have a more humane approach to addressing minor drug crimes than incarceration.42 According to the Department of Justice, the DTCs take a comprehensive approach “intended to reduce the number of crimes committed to support drug dependence through judicial supervision, comprehensive substance abuse treatment, random and frequent drug testing, incentives and sanctions, clinical case management, and social services support.” 43

Another purpose of DTCs is to reduce the social and economic costs of illicit substance abuse. In 2005, then Minister of Health Ujjal Dosanjh said that the expansion of the DTCs underscored the government’s commitment to helping drug offenders overcome their addictions. He further stated that the benefits of these new courts would extend not only to participants but also to all Canadians by helping to reduce the staggering health, social and economic costs associated with substance abuse.44

4.1.5.3 Evaluation and Funding of the Drug Treatment Courts

Funding is provided through the Drug Treatment Court Funding Program and is managed by the Department of Justice Canada, in partnership with Health Canada.45 All of the treatment programs, “as a condition of their funding, are responsible for developing site-specific results-based evaluation/accountability frameworks, as well contributing to the national evaluation/accountability framework.” 46 The funding recipients are therefore required to complete reports of their activities annually.47 The DTC Funding Program is responsible for collecting data on the effectiveness of the drug treatment courts and promoting and establishing standards that are consistent from region to region.48 The compiled results are used to support annual reports to Parliament and the Canadian public.49

It is said that the success of the DTCs can be measured not only in terms of dramatic reductions in criminal behaviour by those engaged in the program but also by a significant reduction in drug use.50 The positive effects may not only have an impact on the criminal justice system, but may also spill over into the health system. Most of the participants in the drug treatment programs demonstrate a significant improvement in their physical and mental health. In August 2006, a meta-analytic examination of drug treatment courts was done by the Department of Justice Canada in order to determine whether or not the DTCs reduce recidivism. It was determined that the results provide clear support for the use of drug treatment courts as a method of reducing crime among offenders with substance abuse problems.51 The study, however, did not examine the cost-effectiveness of the program.

According to Health Canada, early evaluations of the Toronto DTC showed that there were high rates of retention of drug abusers and program participation. The ongoing evaluations have recognized this Canadian program as a promising form of drug intervention.52 The National Crime Prevention Centre has published some evaluations of DTCs. The evaluation of the Vancouver DTC concludes that, although many participants maintained patterns of criminal behaviour and substance use after the program, the data suggests that there is a modest but significant decrease in drug use and drug-related crimes for those who complete the program. Only 14% of participants, however, completed the program. The evaluation concluded that, for the model to be successful, strategies are needed to encourage participants to complete the program.53

4.1.5.4 The Drug Treatment Court Program

Participation in the DTC program is voluntary. The accused who has been charged with a non-violent criminal offence or an offence under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act must apply for admission into the program. Individuals who are charged with violent offences or have a history of violent offences generally do not qualify for the DTC program.54

The participants in the DTC are most commonly charged with non-violent Criminal Code offences, such as theft, possession of stolen property, non-residential break and enter, mischief and communication for the purpose of prostitution. With respect to drug offences, the more frequent offences are those of simple possession, possession for the purpose of trafficking and trafficking (at the street level). The above-noted offences are generally known to be committed by individuals who are trying to feed an addiction.

An application form must be completed and then reviewed by the DTC team. The applicant’s eligibility is determined by the Crown Attorney, who acts as the gatekeeper. The prosecutor has final discretion with respect to the nature of the offence and/or the applicant’s criminal record.55 Eligibility is determined on a case-by-case basis. Therefore, a criminal record will not necessarily keep an applicant from being considered for the program. Offenders who are gang members or who used a weapon in the commission of their offence may not be eligible for the DTC.56

A common condition for admission into the DTC is a plea of guilt. The participant is assessed in order to create a treatment plan that is tailored to his or her specific needs. He or she will be stabilized and receive medical attention. If necessary, the methadone program will be administered. Drug treatment court staff will help ensure that the participant has safe housing, stable employment and/or an education. If required, job training will also be provided. The length of the program is approximately one year. As it is considered an outpatient program, the offender will be required to attend both individual and group counselling. Each participant is subject to random urine screening. The participant will be required to appear personally in court on a regular basis. It is expected that the participant will be honest and disclose any high-risk activities and information on whether or not he or she has relapsed. The judge will review his or her progress and can either impose sanctions or provide rewards.57

As the program is designed to assist individuals who have severe and long-term addictions, a relapse will not necessarily lead to expulsion from the program. This being said, persistent non-compliance with the treatment program, such as the continued use of substances, could lead to the individual’s removal from the program.

Once the participant has met the minimum participation requirement, he or she may apply for graduation. Participants who successfully graduate from the DTC may receive a non-custodial sentence. The sentence may include a period of probation, restitution and/or fines.58

4.1.5.5 Other Drug Treatment Courts in the World

Drug treatment courts also exist in the United States, the United Kingdom, Jamaica, Bermuda, Brazil, Ireland, Scotland and Australia. DTCs in the United States have been in existence since 1969. There are well over 1,000 drug treatment courts in that country, where follow-up studies indicate that only a very small percentage of program graduates reoffend.59

4.1.5.6 Women in the Drug Treatment Court Program

According to Public Safety Canada,60 one of the lessons learned in the Toronto Drug Treatment Court project was that when planning the program, more attention needed to be given to women and young people under the age of 25. It was observed that a significant number of people in these groups would not return to the project after their initial assessment or would often drop out in the early stages of the program. It was further recommended that monitoring techniques be used to assess and address the needs of women.

Dawn Moore, a professor of criminology at Carleton University, is conducting a nationwide study of women in treatment programs. She is interested in knowing why there is such a high rate of females who drop out of the programs. She has observed that the programs are largely designed without accounting for the specific needs of women.61

4.1.6 The Illicit Drug Situation in Canada

Each year, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) publishes a report on the illicit drug situation in Canada. The latest report provides an overview of illicit drug activity, including trafficking, smuggling and production in Canada for 2009.62

In its report, the RCMP states that, for the past five years, the Canadian illicit drug market has remained relatively stable. Cannabis continued to be the most commonly used illicit substance in Canada, with domestically produced marijuana providing a source of considerable profit for Canadian-based organized crime. Next to marijuana, cocaine generated the most revenue among illicit drugs.

Canada remained one of the primary global source countries for MDMA (ecstasy) and methamphetamine. Organized crime groups not only produced synthetic drugs for domestic markets, but also provided significant quantities for international markets such as the United States. The United States remained the predominant transit country for cocaine shipments, while African countries remained key transit points for hashish products destined for Canada.

Profits derived from the Canadian illicit drug market continue to drive most organized crime in the country. Organized crime groups continue to change and adapt production and distribution methods in response to law enforcement pressures and activities, and to meet domestic and international demand to ensure a continued supply of illegal drugs.

In its report, the RCMP supplied the data on drug seizures in Canada found in Table 4-3.

Table 4-3 - Drug Seizures in Canada, 2006-2008
Drug 2006 2007 2008 2009
Cocaine 2,676 kg 2,630 kg 2,263 kg 2,373kg
Hashish 27,730 kg 227 kg 899 kg 9,667 kg
Hashish oil 1,060 kg 115 kg 761 kg 241 kg
Heroin 93 kg 112 kg 102 kg 213 kg
Khat 13,917 kg 28,270 kg 22,710 kg 19,003 kg
Marihuana 1,749,057 plants/
13,154 kg
1,878,178 plants/
49,918 kg
1,828,861 plants/
37,169 kg
1,845,734 plants/
34,391 kg
MDMA (Ecstasy) 3,000,347 units 1,374,592 units 1,494,769 units 954,929 units
Methamphetamine 58,506 kg 170.50 kg/
9,000 tablets
109 kg/
52,142 tablets
79 kg/
62,307 tablets
Opium 124 kg 148 kg 108 kg 338 kg
Dode: 17 tonnes
Source: Royal Canadian Mounted Police, “Appendix A: Canada Drug Seizure Data - Report on the Illicit Drug Situation in Canada, 2009,” Drug Situation Report 2009.

4.2 Description and Analysis

The following discussion highlights selected aspects of Bill C-10 as they relate to the issue of illicit drugs. It does not review every clause.

4.2.1 Mandatory Minimum Sentences (Clauses 39 to 41)

Sections 5 to 7 of the CDSA deal with, respectively, the offences of trafficking in a controlled substance, importing and exporting such a substance, and the production of a controlled substance. Clauses 39 to 41 of Bill C-10 amend each of these sections.

The current section 5(3)(a) of the CDSA makes trafficking in a substance included in Schedule I or II an indictable offence. The maximum punishment for this offence is imprisonment for life. This measure reflects the seriousness with which these substances are viewed, particularly the opiates and coca and its derivatives found in Schedule I. One exception is found in section 5(4) of the Act and concerns trafficking in Schedule II substances, mainly cannabis and its derivatives. Should the amount trafficked not exceed the amounts set out in Schedule VII to the Act (3 kg of cannabis resin or cannabis [marijuana]), the maximum possible punishment is imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years less a day.

Clause 39 of Bill C-10 amends section 5(3)(a) of the CDSA to provide in certain circumstances for mandatory minimum terms of imprisonment for the offence of trafficking in a substance included in Schedule I or in Schedule II if the amount of the Schedule II substance exceeds the amount for that substance set out in Schedule VII. There will be a minimum punishment of imprisonment for one year if certain aggravating factors apply: the offence was committed for a criminal organization, as that term is defined in section 467.1(1) of the Criminal Code (a group of three or more people whose purpose is to commit serious offences for material benefit); there was the use or threat of the use of violence in the commission of the offence; a weapon was carried, used or threatened to be used in the commission of the offence; or the offender had been convicted of a designated substance offence, or had served a term of imprisonment for such an offence, within the previous 10 years. A “designated substance offence” is defined in section 2 of the CDSA to mean any of the offences in sections 4 to 10 of the CDSA, except the offence of possession of a substance found in Schedule I, II, or III to the Act, as set out in section 4(1).

Clause 39 amends the CDSA to impose a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of two years if certain other aggravating factors apply, including that the offence was committed in or near a school, on or near school grounds, or in or near any other public place usually frequented by persons under the age of 18 years. Defining such places may prove to be difficult. The use of the terms “school ground, playground, public park or bathing area” in section 179(1)(b) as a restriction on the movements of those who may commit a sexual offence against a child was found to be overly broad and, therefore, a violation of section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.63 The minimum two-year punishment will also be imposed if the offender used the services of a person who is under 18 years of age, or involved such a person, in committing the offence or committed the offence in a prison, or on its grounds. The term “prison” is defined in section 2 of the Criminal Code to include a penitentiary, common jail, public or reformatory prison, lock-up, guardroom or other place in which persons who are charged with or convicted of offences are usually kept in custody.

New section 5(3)(a.1) of the CDSA re-enacts the current section 5(4) of the CDSA and imposes a maximum punishment of imprisonment for five years less a day if the trafficking offence is for a small amount of cannabis or its derivatives, as listed in Schedule II.

The current section 6(3)(a) of the CDSA makes the importing into Canada or exporting from Canada of a substance included in Schedule I or II of the Act or the possession of such a substance for the purpose of exporting it from Canada an indictable offence. The maximum punishment for this offence is imprisonment for life. Lesser maximum punishments apply if the offence is committed in relation to substances in the other schedules.

Clause 40 of Bill C-10 imposes a mandatory minimum punishment of imprisonment for one year if the offence is committed for the purpose of trafficking and the substance involved is included in Schedule I and is in an amount that does not exceed one kilogram, or is listed in Schedule II. The minimum punishment will also apply if the offender, while committing the offence, abused a position of trust or authority or had access to an area that is restricted to authorized persons (such as in an airport) and used that access to commit the offence. As in clauses 2 and 4, the maximum punishment of imprisonment for life is retained. Under new section 6(3)(a.1), the mandatory minimum punishment increases to two years’ imprisonment if the Schedule I substance that is trafficked is in an amount that exceeds one kilogram.

The current section 7(2)(a) of the CDSA makes the production of a substance included in Schedule I or II of the Act, other than cannabis (marijuana), an indictable offence with a maximum punishment of imprisonment for life. Section 7(2)(b) of the CDSA makes the production of cannabis (marijuana) an indictable offence with a maximum punishment of seven years’ imprisonment.

Clause 41 of Bill C-10 imposes a mandatory minimum punishment of imprisonment for two years if the subject matter of the production offence is a substance included in Schedule I, with a maximum punishment of imprisonment for life. The mandatory minimum punishment is increased to three years if any of the health and safety factors listed in new section 7(3) apply. These health and safety factors are:

  • the offender used real property that belongs to a third party to commit the offence;
  • 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;
  • the production constituted a potential public safety hazard in a residential area; or
  • the accused placed or set a trap that is likely to cause death or bodily harm to another person in the location where the offence was committed.

If the substance produced is one listed in Schedule II, other than cannabis (marijuana), new section 7(2)(a.1) imposes a mandatory minimum punishment of imprisonment for one year if the production is for the purpose of trafficking, or for a term of 18 months if the production is for the purpose of trafficking and any of the health and safety factors listed above apply. If the subject matter of the production offence is cannabis (marijuana), section 7(2)(b) will double the maximum possible term of imprisonment from 7 to 14 years.

Mandatory minimum punishments will also be introduced for the production of cannabis (marijuana), with their length depending upon the number of marijuana plants produced. The minimum penalty is six months where the number of plants produced is fewer than 201 and more than five and the production is for the purpose of trafficking, while the minimum penalty is nine months where the number of plants produced is fewer than 201 and more than five, the production is for the purpose of trafficking, and any of the health and safety factors also apply. If the number of plants produced is more than 200 and fewer than 501, the minimum term of imprisonment is one year, which increases to 18 months if any of the health and safety factors apply. The minimum term of imprisonment will be two years if the number of plants produced is more than 500, which will increase to three years if any of the health and safety factors apply. There is no mention of the production being for the purposes of trafficking when the number of plants is more than 200.

4.2.2 Report to Parliament (Clause 42)

Clause 42 of the bill adds sections 8 and 8.1 to the CDSA. New section 8 requires that, before a plea is entered, notice be given of the possible imposition of a minimum punishment. New section 8.1 requires that, within five years after the section comes into force, a comprehensive review of the CDSA will be undertaken by a committee designated by Parliament. This review is to include a cost-benefit analysis of mandatory minimum sentences. A report concerning the committee’s review, including a statement of any changes the committee recommends, is to be submitted to Parliament within one year of its being undertaken.

4.2.3 Drug Treatment Courts and Treatment Programs (Clause 43)

Section 10 of the CDSA sets out the aggravating factors to be considered by a court imposing a sentence. Many of these factors have been included in the amended section 5 of the CDSA. The new wording of section 10(2) of the CDSA, as set out in clause 43(1) of Bill S-10, distinguishes between the aggravating factors that lead to the imposition of a mandatory minimum punishment and the aggravating factors that should be considered by a sentencing court when no minimum punishment is specified.

The key part of clause 43 is that a sentencing court may delay sentencing to enable the offender to participate in a Drug Treatment Court Program approved by the Attorney General of Canada or attend a treatment program under section 720(2) of the Criminal Code. If the offender successfully completes either of these programs, the court is not required to impose the minimum punishment for the offence for which the person was convicted.

The suspension of the imposition of a sentence while an addicted accused person takes an approved treatment program is intended to encourage the accused person to deal with the addiction that motivates his or her criminal behaviour. If the person successfully completes the program, the court normally imposes a suspended or reduced sentence. It should be kept in mind that the Drug Treatment Court Program operates (as of September 2011) in only six cities and so will not be available to large numbers of offenders. Because section 720(2) of the Criminal Code only came into force on 1 October 2008, it is difficult to determine at this stage what effect the treatment programs offered under that section will have on sentencing.

4.2.4 Amendments to the Schedules of the CDSA (Clauses 44 to 46)

The schedules to the CDSA are amended by Bill C-10. Clause 44 of the bill transfers items 1, 25, and 26 of Schedule III to become items 19, 20, and 21 of Schedule I. The first item encompasses the amphetamines, their salts, derivatives, isomers and analogues and salts of derivatives, isomers and analogues. Methamphetamine had earlier been transferred to Schedule I. The other two items transferred are flunitrazepam and any salts or derivatives thereof and 4-hydroxybutanoic acid (GHB) and any salt thereof. Flunitrazepam is a benzodiazepine (sedative) readily soluble in ethanol and also known as Rohypnol. Gamma-hydroxybutyrate (GHB) has sedative effects that are very similar to those of alcohol. Both of these substances are commonly referred to as “date rape drugs.” The effect of this change will be to ensure that, when the offences addressed in the bill concern amphetamines or the date rape drugs, the mandatory minimum punishments will apply. Furthermore, possession of Schedule I substances in contravention of section 4 of the CDSA is more harshly punished than is possession of substances listed in the other schedules. Clauses 45 and 46 of the bill remove these three items from Schedule III.

4.2.5 Related Amendment (Clause 32)

A reverse onus is placed on an accused person to show cause why he or she should be released on bail under section 515(6)(d) of the Criminal Code if charged with certain offences under the CDSA. Clause 3211 of Bill C-10 will expand this section so that all of the newly amended sections 5 to 7 of the CDSA will be considered when eligibility for release on bail is being considered.

4.2.6 Consequential Amendments (Clauses 32, 33, and 50)

Clause 32 will clarify that any of the offences listed in sections 5 to 7 of the CDSA will lead to a firearm prohibition, unless the justice granting release on bail feels it is not required. The broader language in this section will take account of additions to the CDSA, such as the new section 7(3). Clause 50 does the same for the portion of the National Defence Act that deals with firearms prohibitions.

Clause 33 takes into account the fact that the current section 5(4) of the CDSA has been replaced by the new section 5(3)(a.1). New section 553(c)(xi) of the Criminal Code will mean that a provincial court judge has absolute jurisdiction to try an accused charged with trafficking in small amounts of substances included in Schedule II of the CDSA (cannabis and its derivatives).


Notes

*  Notice: For clarity of exposition, the legislative proposals set out in the bill described in this Legislative Summary are stated as if they had already been adopted or were in force. It is important to note, however, that bills may be amended during their consideration by the House of Commons and Senate, and have no force or effect unless and until they are passed by both houses of Parliament, receive Royal Assent, and come into force. [ Return to text ]

  1. Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 1996, c. 19. [ Return to text ]
  2. Health Canada, “Summary of Results For 2010,” Canadian Alcohol and Drug Use Monitoring Survey. [ Return to text ]
  3. Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, Canadian Addiction Survey (CAS). [ Return to text ]
  4. Health Canada, “Major findings from the Canadian Alcohol and Drug Use Monitoring Survey (CADUMS) 2010,” Drug and Alcohol Use Statistics. [ Return to text ]
  5. Government of Yukon, Department of Health and Social Services, Yukon Addictions Survey (YAS): Preliminary Results 2005 - A survey of Yukoners’ use of alcohol and other drugs  pdf (86 kB, 12 pages), Whitehorse, June 2005. [ Return to text ]
  6. Northwest Territories, Health and Social Services, Northwest Territories Addiction Survey  pdf (737 kB, 35 pages), Yellowknife, January 2006. [ Return to text ]
  7. “Moins d’ados prennent de la drogue,” Le Droit [Ottawa], 26 November 2007, p. 25. [ Return to text ]
  8. Institut de la statistique du Québec, Enquête québécoise sur le tabac, l’alcool, la drogue et le jeu chez les élèves du secondaire, 2006  pdf (1.4 MB, 189 pages), 5th ed., Québec, November 2007, p. 119. [ Return to text ]
  9. J. Rehm et al., The Costs of Substance Abuse in Canada 2002  pdf (145 kB, 14 pages), Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, Ottawa, March 2006. [ Return to text ]
  10. Gerald Thomas and Christopher G. Davis, Comparing the Perceived Seriousness and Actual Costs of Substance Abuse in Canada: Analysis drawn from the 2004 Canadian Addiction Survey  pdf (353 kB, 8 pages), Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, Ottawa, March 2007. [ Return to text ]
  11. Office of the Auditor General of Canada, “Chapter 11 - Illicit Drugs: The Federal Government’s Role,” 2001 December Report of the Auditor General of Canada, Ottawa, 2001. [ Return to text ]
  12. Chantal Collin, Substance Abuse Issues and Public Policy in Canada: I. Canada’s Federal Drug Strategy, Publication no. 06-15E, Parliamentary Information and Research Service, Library of Parliament, Ottawa, 13 April 2006, p. 3. [ Return to text ]
  13. Kora DeBeck et al., “Canada’s 2003 renewed drug strategy - an evidence-based review,” HIV/AIDS Policy & Law Review, Vol. II, No. 2/3, December 2006. [ Return to text ]
  14. Department of Justice, “Backgrounder: National Anti-Drug Strategy,” Ottawa, November 2007. [ Return to text ]
  15. Department of Justice, “Backgrounder: Mandatory Prison Sentences for Serious Drug Crimes: Tougher Laws to Stop Producers and Traffickers,” Ottawa, November 2007. [ Return to text ]
  16. Department of Justice Canada, “Section III - Supplementary Information,” 2008-2009 Part III - Departmental Performance Reports, (Table 4: Horizontal Initiatives). [ Return to text ]
  17. Department of Justice, “Backgrounder: Penalties for organized drug crime act,” Ottawa, 5 May 2010. [ Return to text ]
  18. See United Nations, Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961, As amended by the 1972 Protocol amending the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961  pdf (503 kB, 44 pages). [ Return to text ]
  19. See United Nations, Convention on Psychotropic Substances, 1971  pdf (817 kB, 28 pages). [ Return to text ]
  20. See United Nations, United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, 1988  pdf (747 kB, 31 pages). [ Return to text ]
  21. Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy, “Drugs and Drug Policy in Canada: A Brief Review & Commentary,” Prepared for the Senate of Canada, November 1998. [ Return to text ]
  22. Narcotic Control Regulations, C.R.C., c. 1041. [ Return to text ]
  23. Ibid., s. 67. [ Return to text ]
  24. Marihuana Medical Access Regulations, SOR/2001-227. [ Return to text ]
  25. Ibid., s. 24. [ Return to text ]
  26. Sfetkopoulos v. Canada (Attorney General)  pdf (70 kB, 24 pages), 2008 FC 33. [ Return to text ]
  27. Canada (Attorney General) v. Sfetkopoulos, 2008 FCA 328. [ Return to text ]
  28. Regulations Amending the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations, P.C. 2009-746. [ Return to text ]
  29. Shannon Brennan and Mia Dauvergne, “Police-reported crime statistics in Canada, 2010,” 21 July 2011. [ Return to text ]
  30. Mia Dauvergne, “Trends in police-reported drug offences in Canada,” Juristat, Vol. 29, No. 2, May 2009. [ Return to text ]
  31. Ibid. [ Return to text ]
  32. Statistics Canada, Data Sources, “Adult Criminal Court Survey.” [ Return to text ]
  33. Statistics Canada, Data Sources, “Youth Court Survey.” [ Return to text ]
  34. Dauvergne, “Trends in police-reported drug offences in Canada,” Juristat, Vol. 29, No. 2, May 2009. [ Return to text ]
  35. See the website of The Canadian Association of Drug Treatment Court Professionals. [ Return to text ]
  36. Health Canada, “Reducing the Harm Associated with Injection Drug Use in Canada,” Ottawa, 2001. [ Return to text ]
  37. Public Safety Canada, “Toronto Drug Treatment Court project,” 2007. [ Return to text ]
  38. Department of Justice, “Governments of Canada and British Columbia Work Together on Vancouver Drug Treatment Court,” News release, Ottawa, 19 February 2001. [ Return to text ]
  39. Department of Justice, “Expanding Drug Treatment Courts in Canada,” Backgrounder, Ottawa, 2 June 2005. [ Return to text ]
  40. Ibid. [ Return to text ]
  41. Department of Justice Programs Branch, “Drug Treatment Court Funding Program,” Ottawa. [ Return to text ]
  42. Health Canada (2001). [ Return to text ]
  43. Department of Justice Programs Branch, “Drug Treatment Court Funding Program.” [ Return to text ]
  44. Department of Justice, “Government of Canada Announces New Drug Treatment Courts,” News release, Ottawa, 2 June 2005. [ Return to text ]
  45. Department of Justice, Backgrounder (2 June 2005). [ Return to text ]
  46. Department of Justice Programs Branch, “Drug Treatment Court Funding Program.” [ Return to text ]
  47. Department of Justice, News release (2 June 2005). [ Return to text ]
  48. Department of Justice Programs Branch, “Drug Treatment Court Funding Program.” [ Return to text ]
  49. Department of Justice, Backgrounder (2 June 2005). [ Return to text ]
  50. This information was provided in a 2003 National Crime Prevention document on the Toronto Drug Treatment Court that is no longer available on the Government of Canada website. [ Return to text ]
  51. See Jeff Latimer, Kelly Morton-Bourgon, and Jo-Anne Chrétien, “A Meta-Analytic Examination of Drug Treatment Courts: Do They Reduce Recidivism?,” Report prepared for the Department of Justice, Research and Statistics Division, August 2006. [ Return to text ]
  52. See Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, “Toronto Drug Treatment Court Celebrates 5 Year Anniversary,” News release, 15 January 2004. [ Return to text ]
  53. Public Safety Canada, National Crime Prevention Centre, Building the Evidence - Evaluation Summaries, “Drug Treatment Court of Vancouver (DTCV),” 2008-ES-18. [ Return to text ]
  54. See the Winnipeg Drug Treatment Court Program, Participant Handbook  pdf (77 kB, 10 pages). [ Return to text ]
  55. Winnipeg Drug Treatment Court newsletter  pdf (47 kB, 4 pages), June 2007. [ Return to text ]
  56. Winnipeg Drug Treatment Court Program, Participant Handbook. [ Return to text ]
  57. Department of Justice, Backgrounder (2 June 2005). The rewards can vary from a verbal commendation to a reduction in the required court appearances. The judge can impose sanctions ranging from a verbal reprimand to expulsion from the program. [ Return to text ]
  58. Winnipeg Drug Treatment Court Program, Participant Handbook. [ Return to text ]
  59. Department of Justice, Backgrounder (2 June 2005). [ Return to text ]
  60. Public Safety Canada (2007). [ Return to text ]
  61. See Felan Parker, “Women, Drugs and Court-Ordered Therapy,” Carleton University Research. [ Return to text ]
  62. Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Report on the Illicit Drug Situation in Canada - 2009. [ Return to text ]
  63. R. v. Heywood, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 761. [ Return to text ]

Previous   Next




© Library of Parliament 2012

[ Top of Page ]