Megan Leslie on Mandatory Minimums, Bill C-15

Halifax MP Discusses Punitive Drug Law, Four Pillar Approach, Insite

May 31, 2009

S101's recent interview with New Democrat Member of Parliament Megan Leslie, Halifax, spanned a variety of topics ranging from civil liberties to addictions and poverty.

S101 : On the tone of social activism, in particular Bill C-15 with regards to mandatory minimum sentencing, we were wondering how you feel on two separate aspects of that bill.

The first being the effectiveness of mandatory minimum sentencing in and of itself as a practice – what your stance is on that – and secondly the particular portions regarding charges of possession and "trafficking" of marijuana or cannabis?

Megan Leslie : Yeah, mandatory minimums ... I'm generally against mandatory minimums for many charges in particular for drug offenses.

I mean, over and over and over, we hear from so many experts, we hear from so many countries that have done this already, that mandatory minimums simply don't work. Not only do they fail to work, they punish the wrong people; so who are they punishing?

Well, they're punishing people who don't have access to the financial resources to navigate the system. If you look at mandatory minimums for drug offenses in the U.S they are punishing black Americans; they are punishing poor Americans, almost exclusively.

I heard this incredible statement, very recently we invited some witnesses to testify at the commitee, the justice commitee. We were hearing about the impacts of C - 15, one of the witnesses said that in the U.S when they implemented mandatory minimums for certain drug offences that there was am 888% increase in the incarceration rate of black women.

Megan Leslie : 888% increase, right? Yes, perhaps there are black women selling drugs; there are white women doing the same, just like there are white men also. Skin colour is irrelevant. Gender is irrelevant. The law should be blind, but in this case it clearly is not. An 888% increase, that is not reasonable in any justifiable way.

So, we're very much against mandatory minimums when it comes to drug legislation; We're very much for "The Four Pillar Approach". It's been developed in other countries with great success.

So those four things in contrast with the concept of mandatory minimums, which are only about providing enforcement – and further they are enforcement procedures based on the wrong premise.

If you look in Canada, if you look at what our drug policy is, we're spending 73% on enforcement. By contrast, we're spending less then 3% on treatment and prevention, and less then 3% on crime reduction.

S101: It's one of those things where it's a matter of view and perspective, too. It's easy to understand the New Democrat position this this as well – we're going to include the Liberals despite their embrace of Bill C - 15, and even the Bloc Quebecois in this assessment, those parties generally being very supportive of the ideas of treatment and rehabilitation, not only regarding addictions but also for people in lower social classes having very little access to legitimate, fulfilling work.

Megan Leslie : This bill, what it's going to do is, if you have one pot plant you could go to jail for 6 months. Because, that pot plant could be for the purposes of trafficking. Trafficking under the definition of the criminal code, trafficking is transferring. So, if I am smoking a joint and I pass it to you,strictly and legally speaking, that is trafficking.

Megan Leslie : Under the criminal code, you could be convicted for trafficking and if convicted would have to face a mandatory minimum. Now, let's imagine that you and I are roommates, and we're off at university. I'm 18, you're 17, which is an age that some few kids will go to university. If I pass it to you and you're under 18, well then I have enticed a minor, and I've trafficked to a minor. This results in an even more severe sentence.

I get some of these changes and proposals in Bill C-15 and I see what they are trying to do here but it's not going to be effective nor ethical – the unintended consequences are quite dramatic.

S101 : On another matter, just to move on slightly, how do you feel about Insite and what do you think of the New Democratic position?

Megan Leslie : Oh yeah, we are very supportive of Insite, it's a wonderful health treatment programme and it's also contributing to crime reduction, it makes total sense and has had a great impact so far.

We don't have a safe injection site in Halifax but we do have a methadone clinic, Direction 180, and I've working with them for years. Im very supportive of the work they do.

I work with people who are addicted to opiate based drugs and they continue to be in conflict with the law because their meds might be on a wait list and they continue to use opiates; they continue to have problems with their landlords and they continue to have income insecurity because they don't eat properly. They don't have the money to eat properly.

So, I'm very supportive and grateful for the great work that Direction 180 has done and other wonderful volunteer or non-profit organizations.

Other Articles Related to This Interview

The copyright of the article Megan Leslie on Mandatory Minimums, Bill C-15 in Canadian Politics is owned by Nicholas Morine. Permission to republish Megan Leslie on Mandatory Minimums, Bill C-15 in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.