In Quebec’s long evolution to address addiction issues as a matter of public health (and not criminal law), a major step forward has occurred. Justice Minister Simon Jolin-Barrette has ordered the dejudicialization of simple drug possession cases.
This is the kind of development that is officially announced in a coherent government. The minister could very well have marked the occasion and explained his new directive in the company of his colleagues from Health, Social Services and Public Safety, all of whom are affected by this change.
But no. In this government that is constantly losing its bearings and intuition, Minister Jolin-Barrette buried the announcement in a directive sent to the Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions (DPCP)… in April 2023!
It is only within the framework of a series of the Duty on drugs that the progressive can of worms was unmasked. It is not as if the Legault government had been keeping secrets; the parliamentary correspondents simply did not pick up on this directive published in the Official Gazette of QuebecApril 24, 2023, ten months after the entry into force of the federal law promoting the use of diversion.
Let’s recap. For over a year, Crown prosecutors have been instructed to analyze all the circumstances before laying charges in cases of simple possession of all types of drugs. They can still do so when the context justifies it: presence of organized crime, weapons, minors or vulnerable persons, violence, risks to worker safety, disturbances to the public peace, threat to the feeling of security, or when driving a vehicle. These guidelines should help prevent the impoverishment and disintegration of neighborhoods already hard hit by the unbearable emergence of open-air consumption.
As for the applause, we’ll have to wait. The Legault government missed the opportunity to assert its vision of public drug policy. It’s as if it were embarrassed by its fragile progressivism on the issue. It’s as if it wanted to comply with federal law without alienating a part of the more conservative electorate for whom drugs will always remain a poisoned cocktail of vice, sin or depravity.
Cactus’ board chairman, Louis Letellier de Saint-Just, makes a brutally sincere analysis when he states: “They don’t want to talk about it because it’s not a subject that interests them.” By depriving himself of the force of an official announcement, Minister Jolin-Barrette has seriously reduced the impact of dejudicialization, in addition to harming efforts at consultation between the legal, police and community systems.
The reactions to the new directive clearly illustrate the consequences of this strategy. In an interview with Radio-Canada, the management of the police services of Laval, Montreal, Gatineau, Sherbrooke, Châteauguay and Granby indicated that they were not aware of the directive and that the police officers’ working methods remained the same. The City of Montreal and the Montreal Regional Public Health Department, both in favour of diversion, were also kept in the dark.
Line Beauchesne, a criminologist at the University of Ottawa and a specialist in public policy issues on drugs, sums up the absurdity of the situation. For over a year, police officers have continued to enforce the law, reporting cases of simple possession to the DPCP, which, unless there are exceptional circumstances, will do nothing. Although that is not clear. The DPCP is playing both sides of the issue regarding the scope of the directive and refuses to share statistics on its impact.
The Ministry of Public Security also contributes to the absurdity of the situation. The changes made by Minister Jolin-Barrette have had no impact on police practices and the number of cases submitted to the DPCP, the ministry confirmed. As a symbol of the inconsistency and ineptitude of the state machine, it is a gem. There is certainly a more judicious use to be made of the resources made available to the police and the Crown.
The public health crisis surrounding opiates and stimulants is having disastrous effects on the health of users and the quality of life in neighbourhoods where consumption is carried out with impunity. The four-pillar approach developed in Vancouver is still useful, although it has been roundly criticized, even in its original home. Harm reduction, repression, prevention and treatment must coexist, in balance, in a single public policy. For it to produce the desired effects, leadership, consultation and transparency among the stakeholders involved is a prerequisite that Minister Jolin-Barrette has neglected in this matter. In a sense, he made the right decision in the wrong way.