Bring Back Minimums for Hard Drug Crimes

Summary#

This bill would change the federal Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to bring back certain mandatory minimum prison sentences for importing, exporting, and producing some illegal drugs. It focuses on Schedule I drugs (for example, opioids, cocaine, methamphetamine) and sets special rules when there are risk factors or misuse of trusted access.

• Reinstates mandatory minimums for importing/exporting Schedule I drugs: 1 year in some cases up to 1 kg, and 18 months for more than 1 kg (Bill amending CDSA s.6(2.1)(a)-(b)).
• Keeps life imprisonment as the maximum for serious import/export offences; sets maximums for other schedules without new minimums (Bill s.6(2.1)(c)-(e)).
• Sets a mandatory minimum for producing Schedule I drugs: 2 years, or 3 years if certain risk factors apply (Bill amending CDSA s.7(2)(a), s.7(3)).
• Lists four aggravating factors that raise the production minimum to 3 years, including hazards to youth and public safety in residential areas (Bill s.7(3)).

What it means for you#

• Households

  • If someone is convicted of importing or exporting a Schedule I drug in amounts over 1 kg, they must serve at least 18 months in prison. Judges cannot go below this minimum (Bill s.6(2.1)(b)).
  • If the amount is 1 kg or less, a 1‑year minimum applies only if one of three triggers is present: done for trafficking, abuse of a position of trust or authority, or misuse of access to a restricted area (Bill s.6(2.1)(a)(i)-(iii)).
  • For producing a Schedule I drug, the minimum is 2 years. It rises to 3 years if any listed aggravating factor applies (Bill s.7(2)(a), s.7(3)).

• Workers

  • People in positions of trust or authority who take part in import/export offences face a 1‑year minimum even for 1 kg or less (Bill s.6(2.1)(a)(ii)).
  • People who have access to restricted areas (areas limited to authorized persons) and misuse that access to commit an import/export offence also face the 1‑year minimum for 1 kg or less (Bill s.6(2.1)(a)(iii)).

• Businesses

  • Workplaces with restricted areas (for example, secured facilities) may face higher legal risk if employees misuse access for drug import/export, because that triggers a mandatory minimum on conviction (Bill s.6(2.1)(a)(iii)).
  • No new compliance programs or reporting duties are created by the bill text. It changes sentencing rules, not business regulations.

• Local governments and justice system

  • Police and prosecutors would see more cases where guilty pleas or trials lead to fixed minimum sentences for the listed offences, reducing judicial discretion (Bill s.6(2.1); s.7(2)-(3)).
  • Correctional services may manage longer average time in custody for affected convictions. Data on scale is not provided in the bill.

• Timing

  • The bill does not set an implementation date. It would take effect on coming into force if enacted. No specific date is provided in the text.

Expenses#

Estimated net cost: Data unavailable.

• No appropriation or new program spending is in the bill text. It changes sentencing rules (Bill text).
• No official fiscal note identified. Data unavailable on expected changes in incarceration or court costs.

Item | Amount | Frequency | Source Appropriations in bill | None | — | Bill text Official fiscal note | Data unavailable | — | Data unavailable Projected incarceration/court impacts | Data unavailable | — | Data unavailable

Proponents' View#

• Restores clear, certain jail time for serious import/export of Schedule I drugs, which they argue deters crime and targets organized trafficking (Bill s.6(2.1)(a)-(b)). Assumption: certainty of punishment reduces offending.
• Sets a strong baseline for producing Schedule I drugs: 2 years minimum, or 3 years when risk factors are present, which they argue protects public safety (Bill s.7(2)(a), s.7(3)).
• Focuses higher penalties on aggravating cases: use of third‑party property, hazards to youth, hazards in residential areas, or traps likely to cause harm (Bill s.7(3)).
• Addresses abuse of trust and misuse of restricted areas in import/export offences by triggering the 1‑year minimum even for smaller amounts up to 1 kg (Bill s.6(2.1)(a)(ii)-(iii)).
• Maintains maximum penalties for other schedules while not adding new minimums, which they may argue preserves proportionality for less serious substances (Bill s.6(2.1)(c)-(e)).

Opponents' View#

• Mandatory minimums remove judicial discretion and may not reduce crime; critics argue they can lead to unjust outcomes, especially for smaller quantities up to 1 kg when a trigger applies (Bill s.6(2.1)(a)). Assumption: deterrence from minimums is limited.
• May increase prison populations and costs due to longer mandatory custody terms for affected offences; no cost estimate is provided (Data unavailable).
• Could pressure defendants to plead guilty to avoid risk at trial, since minimums create high stakes; this may affect low‑level couriers more than organizers (Bill s.6(2.1)(a)-(b)). Assumption: charging and plea patterns will shift.
• Risk of constitutional challenge to certain mandatory minimums as grossly disproportionate under the Charter, given past court rulings; outcomes are uncertain. No specific legal analysis is provided in the bill.
• Terms like “potential” hazard and the triggers tied to “position of trust” or “restricted” areas may be applied unevenly, creating implementation and fairness concerns (Bill s.6(2.1)(a)(ii)-(iii); s.7(3)(b)-(c)).