Evidence of meeting #15 for Justice and Human Rights in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was minimums.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Catherine Kane  Director General and Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Philippe Massé  Director, Temporary Resident Policy and Program, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Paul Saint-Denis  Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice

10:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie

There are a number of amendments here.

Mr. Cotler, I believe the first five amendments are yours, NDP-12, -13...I mean Mr. Harris.

10:10 p.m.

NDP

Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL

Yes. Thank you. It is getting late.

10:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie

Yes.

10:10 p.m.

NDP

Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL

Thank you, Chair.

Amendment NDP-12 deals with clause 41, and there's a whole series of mandatory minimums there.

NDP-12 would have the effect of replacing the schedule and the schedule I offences and eliminating the mandatory minimum of three years and leave the punishment of life imprisonment for the offences listed.

NDP-13 replaces the one-year and 18-month minimums with life imprisonment.

NDP-14 provides for an exception for growing a certain number of plants:

cannabis (marijuana), except if the production is for medical purposes

I believe you have a ruling on that one.

10:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie

I do, Mr. Harris.

As in others, this amendment was an amendment to a bill that was referred to committee after second reading. It is out of order. It is beyond the scope and principle of the bill. In the opinion of the chair, the introduction of an exemption is a new concept that is beyond the scope of Bill C-10. Therefore, the amendment is inadmissible.

10:10 p.m.

NDP

Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL

We're withdrawing NDP-15.

10:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie

Thank you, sir.

10:10 p.m.

NDP

Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL

NDP-16 would eliminate lines 19 to 43 on page 24 of the bill. This is where a whole series of mandatory minimums are set out in relation to “cannabis (marijuana)”. This is what we believe to be the arbitrary distinction between numbers of plants, more than five, less than five, 200 attracting certain sentences, and 201 attracting others. We believe this is all arbitrary and not to be in the act.

So we would substitute a term of 14 years as a maximum for all of those provisions that provide for mandatory minimums. That's the purpose of NDP-16.

We have another, although Mr. Cotler is in there with an article between them.

I will advise that we're withdrawing NDP-17, NDP-18, NDP-19, and NDP-20, all of which refer to other subsets of those individual sentences, and we would stand or fall on the elimination of all of them as a group.

10:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie

Thank you, Mr. Harris.

Mr. Cotler, you have amendment Liberal-18.

10:15 p.m.

Liberal

Irwin Cotler Liberal Mount Royal, QC

I thought we had done Liberal-18, Mr. Chairman, and that we are on Liberal-19 now. Am I wrong?

10:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie

I don't think Liberal-18 has been moved, Mr. Cotler. It's in the middle of the NDP ones.

10:15 p.m.

Liberal

Irwin Cotler Liberal Mount Royal, QC

If you're referring to the one that says clause 40 be amended by replacing line 24 on page 23....

10:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

10:15 p.m.

Liberal

Irwin Cotler Liberal Mount Royal, QC

No?

10:15 p.m.

NDP

Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL

It's on clause 41; I almost withdrew it.

10:15 p.m.

Liberal

Irwin Cotler Liberal Mount Royal, QC

I had numbered it wrong in my own notes. It's that Bill C-10, in clause 41, be amended by deleting lines 21 to 24 on page 24.

Mr. Chairman, I believe Mr. Harris has previously addressed this. I will just restate the rationale for it, from the Canadian Bar Association:

For example, clause 3(1)(b) would impose escalating MMS for production of marijuana geared to the number of plants produced. If less than 201 and for the purpose of trafficking, the MMS would be six months. If less than 201, for the purpose of trafficking and any of the aggravating factors apply, the MMS would be nine months. If more than 200 but less than 501, the MMS would be one year. In the same case, if any of the aggravating factors apply, the MMS would be eighteen months. If the plants exceed 500, the MMS would be two years. If any of the aggravating factors apply, the MMS would be three years.

Now, the whole point of the amendment, Mr. Chairman, is that it is somewhat

...contrary to common sense for someone responsible for a 200-plant grow operation to receive a six-month MMS, while someone responsible for 201 plants to be subject to twice that sentence.

That's the rationale for the amendment.

10:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie

Thank you, Mr. Cotler.

Now, Mr. Goguen, you have G-1.

10:15 p.m.

Conservative

Robert Goguen Conservative Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair.

The motion is to amend clause 41 on page 24 at line 27, and we would add at that line, “and more than five”.

Some of us will remember there was a witness who had picked up on this error. It's a drafting error. It's a technical mistake. What the clause was intended to do was set out a minimum sentence for a scale of number of plants, if there were aggravating factors and it was for the production for the purpose of trafficking. Where there was to be a parameter of five plants or more, up to 201, there would be a minimum sentence. The terms “more than five” were omitted. As such, all you've got is that it says, “is less than 201” plants and it doesn't give the other parameter of “more than five” plants.

It's really more of a cosmetic thing. I don't know if I've enunciated it clearly so you understand, but there was to be a greater and a lesser, and the lesser is not there.

10:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie

Thank you.

Mr. Cotler, you now have Liberal-19 and Liberal-20.

10:15 p.m.

Liberal

Irwin Cotler Liberal Mount Royal, QC

Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill C-10 in clause 41, be amended by replacing line 28 on page 24 with the following:

purpose of trafficking for financial gain and any of the

In other words, as with the previous section, this should be amended to specify that the offence, regarding the production of marijuana, must be for the purposes of trafficking for financial gain. Otherwise, Mr. Chairman, we run the risk again of having an overly broad provision.

We want to criminalize the trafficking, not the mere production.

Do you want me to do Liberal-20 at this point as well?

10:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie

Yes, please.

10:20 p.m.

Liberal

Irwin Cotler Liberal Mount Royal, QC

Here in clause 41 it should be amended by deleting lines 5 and 6 on page 25.

In other words, proposed paragraph 7(3)(a) should be amended to remove the aggravating factor of using real property belonging to a third party. Otherwise we will find ourselves in the anomalous situation where all tenants would be subject to more severe sentences than homeowners.

Again, the purpose here is to clarify and rationalize the principle.

10:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie

Thank you.

Seeing no further discussion, we're at clause 41, dealing with NDP-12.

(Amendment negatived)

NDP-13.

(Amendment negatived)

NDP-14 is outside the scope. NDP-15 was withdrawn.

NDP-16.

(Amendment negatived)

Liberal-18.

(Amendment negatived)

NDP-17, 18, 19, and 20 were all withdrawn.

G-1.

(Amendment agreed to)

Liberal-19.

(Amendment negatived)

10:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie

Liberal-20.

(Amendment negatived)

(Clause 41 as amended agreed to on division)

10:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie

Mr. Goguen, you have another motion, G-2.