|
|
|
|
ISSUES RELATING TO
CANADA’S INTERNATIONAL TREATIES THAT TOUCH ON DRUGS
|
|
|
|
April 19, 2018
Presented to:
THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE
ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE
The Senate of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario Canada K1A 0A4
Submitted by:
REAL Women of Canada Ottawa Office
Box 8813 Station T Ottawa Ontario
K1G 3J1 Tel: (613) 236-4001
Fax: (613) 236-7203
|
ISSUES RELATING TO CANADA’S INTERNATIONAL TREATIES THAT TOUCH ON DRUGS
Introduction
REAL Women of Canada
is a non-partisan
non-denominational
women’s organization, federally incorporated in 1983. The members of REAL Women
of
Canada come from all
walks of life and from differing economic, social, cultural and religious backgrounds. We are
united by our concern for the family, the
basic unit of society.
REAL Women of Canada has long had an
interest in the drug issue
in Canada. Our concern is based
on the harms caused to the addicts themselves, their families and to
society.
REAL Women of Canada
was
accredited as an NGO in Special Consultative
Status with Economic
and Social Council of the United Nations in 1998. In this capacity, we have
attended over 30 UN meetings both
in New York and
around the world.
Because of our work with
the
UN, we are familiar with the three UN
drug treaties as well as all
the UN human rights treaties.
REAL Women was closely involved with the
UN
meeting on drugs called UNGASS 2016, held
on April 2016 in New York City. The purpose of this meeting was to review the
effect of the
progress made in the
implementation of the UN
strategy on the world drug
problem up to the
target year of 2019. It included
an assessment of the achievements
and challenges in countering
the world
drug problem within
the
framework of the three
international drug
control
conventions and other relevant United Nations treaties.
This was the first time in twenty years that such a review of the drug
treaties has taken place.
At this meeting, the three international
drug control conventions were confirmed by world leaders who
stated:
These treaties are the cornerstone principles of the global drug
control
system, emphasizing the health
and welfare of humankind as the founding
purpose of these treaties.
During this meeting, Werner Sipp, the President of the
UN
International Narcotics Control
Board, condemned countries which, “defy the international consensus upon
which
international
cooperation depends by legalizing drugs for non-medical uses”.
There is a good reason why the
world leaders in attendance at UNGASS in
2016 endorsed the drug
treaties. Antonio Mario Costa, Executive Director of the UN Office
on Drugs and
Crime (UNODC), after his analysis on the
effect of the treaties, in an article
published
in the U.K. newspaper The Observer (September 5, 2010) stated:
Legal controls on
drug use
have been successful. Over the last decade,
world output of cocaine and
amphetamines has been
stabilized, with
a reduction in marijuana use
and opium production. Without legal prohibitions
against these
drugs, the results would be markedly different.
Canada
ratified the UN Drug Treaties which include
the criminalization
of possession and
production of marijuana.
The UN Drug Treaties were ratified by Canada as follows:
1.
Single
Convention
on Narcotic Drugs, 1961: ratified by Canada, October, 1961
2.
Convention on Psychotropic Substances 1971: ratified by Canada, September, 1988
3.
Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances 1988:
Ratified
by Canada, July, 1990
In addition, Canada ratified the UN
human rights treaty, the Declaration on the Rights of the
Child
in 1991. Article 33 of this Declaration provides as follows:
States Parties
shall take all appropriate measures, including
legislative, administrative, social and educational measures, to protect children from
the illicit use of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances as
defined in the
relevant international treaties, and to prevent the use of children
in
the illicit production and trafficking
of
such substances.
By ratifying
the Declaration on the Rights of the Child, in 1991, Canada
has
agreed to protect
children from illicit drugs and prevent the
use of children
in the production or trafficking of drugs.
On March 7-9, 2013, the UN Human
Rights Council in Geneva reviewed the Declaration
on the Rights of the Child.
The Council approved and
affirmed the provisions of the
Declaration
and specifically referred to Article 33 as
necessary for the protection
of
children against drug use and
abuse.
The following provisions of Bill C-45
indicates that Canada
is in
non-compliance with Article
33 of the Declaration on the Rights of the
Child:
Section 2 of Bill C-45 defines young person
as
an individual
who is “between
12-18 years of age.”
Section 8 (1) (c) of the bill
provides: that a young
person may possess 5 grams of
marijuana (or ten joints).
Section 9 (1) (b) provides: that a young person may distribute up to 5 grams of marijuana (or ten joints).
Section 12 (4) (b) provides: that private homes may grow up to
4 marijuana
plants
without legal sanction.
Consequently, Bill C-45 provides that individuals between
12 to 18 years of age may freely possess, use, and even
share marijuana
up to 5 grams at a time (10 joints). There is no recourse if a minor is seen
carrying, using, or handing out marijuana. A child
can literally take ten joints from his parents’ stash, hand it out to his friends, go back home, take another ten,
hand them out and keep doing it as often
as he wants. This will
deeply affect school
environments and our neighbourhoods.
If Bill C-45
is
passed, Canada will clearly have failed to be
in
compliance with
the
UN Declaration on the Rights of the Child as well as the three drug control treaties.
No Notice of Withdrawal from the Treaties
Under the terms of these drug Treaties, Canada must provide the
UN with a notice
of withdrawal, twelve
(12) months in advance. The government of Canada, however, has failed to provide such a written notice. According to the treaties, therefore,
Canada cannot legalize marijuana until 2019, at the
earliest, in order to comply with its international obligations.
Mark Gwozdecky, the
Assistant Deputy Minister of International Security and
Political Affairs at
Global Affairs Canada, in his testimony before this Committee in
March, 2018, stated that Canada
will not be
withdrawing from, or seek reservations
to, or take “any treaty actions regarding
the three drug conventions. In short, Canada
will
ignore the treaties.
Mr. Gwozdecky’s creative circumventions of Canada’s commitment under the treaties – namely, that Canada
will
remain in compliance with
the
“overarching goals” of the conventions because it purportedly protects
the health and safety of Canada’s citizens, is not accurate.
The UN Narcotics Control Board released its 2017 annual report in which it stated that Canada’s Bill C-45
is
incompatible with the obligations assumed by
Canada under the
Drug Control Treaties, regardless of Canada’s assertions to the contrary.
Further, if the health and safety of the public are protected
by the decriminalization of marijuana
by Bill
C-45, why then
has
Health Canada listed in its website the
extensive harm that arises
with the use of marijuana?
Urugua y’ s Experience with the
Legalization of Marijuana
In 2013, Uruguay was the first country to regulate recreational marijuana
at
the national level.
The
regulation of marijuana in
that country, however, differs significantly from that which is provided
in Canada’s Bill C-45.
Under the Uruguay legislation, the government is the only supplier, putting limits on what is sold and
the
way it is sold. No commercialization or advertising of marijuana is permitted. Other restrictions under the Uruguay regulations include: marijuana
being prohibited
while
driving, no
consumption in enclosed public spaces, no advertising, only citizens and permanent residents
may participate in the marijuana
program, and they must
register with The Institute for the
Regulation
and Control of Cannabis in order to
purchase marijuana. In addition, individuals are restricted to 480 grams per year (10 grams per week) which can be obtained
only in licensed pharmacies.
In contrast, Bill
C-45 provides for a wide
distribution and
availability of marijuana depending on the regulations
determined by the
provincial and
territorial governments who
have
the responsibility in respect to the distribution and sale
of
marijuana. Obviously, as a result,
the method of sale and point of sale
restrictions will differ in the many jurisdictions across Canada. Further, marijuana is to be produced in
Canada
as
a commercial for-profit substance, unlike the situation
in Uruguay.
Unexpected
Consequence of Uruguay’
s Regulation of Marijuana
An unexpected consequence of Uruguay’s marijuana law is that the U.S. government invoked
the Patriot Act which prohibits U.S. banks from handling
funds for distributors of marijuana.
In Uruguay, this is by way of
the pharmacies only. International banks – both those with U.S. headquarters such
as Citibank and European banks such as Santander have advised
their
Uruguayan
branches that they are
prohibited from providing services
to
the distributors of marijuana.
As a result, pharmacies tasked with the sale
and distribution
of
marijuana have been
cut off from the entire financial services market because the banks in Uruguay announced
that
every business associated with the newly legal marijuana
industry risked
being in violation
of the U.S. drug laws and
would lose
their access to U.S. banks and dollar transactions.
This business isolation
in Uruguay will undoubtedly also occur
in Canada. This will
prove to be a very difficult challenge if Bill
C-45 is passed
into
law.
The Importance of International Treaties
By its intention to fail
to comply with
the international legal obligations that Canada acquired
when
it ratified the drug control treaties, Canada will be setting a dangerous precedent for other countries to similarly violate
UN
treaties. This puts in jeopardy significant treaties
as
the non- proliferation nuclear treaties, treaties against war crimes, and the seven human rights treaties. This creates major
problems for world order and
international governance. In
short, since Canada
is
picking and choosing which treaties to follow, it will
have set a dangerous precedent
for the respect and the upholding of international law and this will
result in the encouragement of other
countries to selectively implement international conventions it has ratified. This is not a
trivial matter.
Canada’s violation of the
drug
treaties
and also the Declaration
on the Rights of
the Child, will have long range ramifications
not
only for this country, but also for the world
at large.
That is, the rejection by Canada of international treaties it has ratified is clearly not appropriate, and
is very harmful.
The United
Nations Convention on the
Law of Treaties, which came
into effect in January, 1980 specifically provides in
Section
3 Article
54 that the termination of a treaty or the withdrawal of a party may take place with the consent of all the
parties after consultation with the other
contracting States. This has not occurred.
If Canada continues
with
its intention to
pass Bill C-45, despite its many problems both
in respect to its domestic applications and
to international law, it must do so in
a principled manner, especially as
Canada
prides itself in being a democratic country that respects and
promotes the rule of law.
