Health Committee on Oct. 2nd, 2017

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Yes, surely.

(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Now we go to PV-4.

Is there any discussion on PV-4?

Mr. Davies.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Chairman, I thought Ms. May would be here to speak to her motion. It would be helpful if someone could characterize what the motion was on this one.

Can we ask the clerk or one of the analysts to describe briefly what the amendment is? Is that in order?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Does anybody want to volunteer?

It's hard to speak on behalf of Ms. May because we don't know what she was thinking. It's unfortunate that she's not here. I'm sure she feels strongly about these, and we all know the work she puts into it, but we have to carry on.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We're now on NDP-5. If NDP-5 is adopted, PV-5, NDP-6, and NDP-7, cannot be moved.

Mr. Davies, would you like to comment?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This amendment deals with the punishment sections over the distribution offences that are in clause 9. Clause 9 states that it is prohibited for an individual who is 18 years of age or older to distribute cannabis of more than 30 grams, to distribute cannabis to an organization, or to distribute cannabis that they know is illicit cannabis. It's also an offence for a young person to distribute more than five grams of dried cannabis, for an individual to distribute one or more cannabis plants that are budding or flowering, or to distribute more than four cannabis plants that are not budding or flowering.

The section I'm going to propose we amend has to do with the punishment for the violation of those. I have so far consistently replaced the criminal penalties with monetary fines, or at least put in limited criminal sanctions to narrow circumstances and to make the maximum penalty no more than two years less a day. As we all know, two years less a day subjects a person to incarceration in a provincial institution and not a federal one. Basically, the rationale that I would have for this is similar to what I've already expressed, so I won't belabour the point.

Again, I would point out that making it a criminal offence for, say, a 19-year-old to distribute cannabis to a 17-year-old, or, in the case of a young person who has more than five grams, to subject them to criminal provisions under the Youth Criminal Justice Act maintains a criminalized approach to cannabis that we know doesn't work and that we know will cause more harm than the cannabis itself.

This amendment would replace lines 20 and 21 with “a fine of not more than $300,000 or imprisonment for a term of not more than two years less a day, or to both”. That's for the most serious repetitive crime.

Then, for the most common offences and infractions, we'd see, “for a first offence, to a fine of not more than $3,000 and, for any subsequent offence, to a fine of not more than $50,000”.

Then we'd have the same approach for lines 9 to 12, “a first offence, to a of a fine of $3,000 and, for any subsequent offence, to a fine of not more than $50,000”, so that there's no criminal penalty or jailing of people for offending these except in the most serious or repetitive case.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Mr. Van Kesteren.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Mr. Chair, could we ask the officials if they could give us...? Currently, what is the punishment for selling? Well, I guess it wouldn't be in place. I want to compare this to what we currently have on the books for possession and what we currently have on the books for selling to a minor. I don't know whether there is even any legislation that would follow that. A lot of this looks pretty extreme.

Is this in line with what the current laws have on the books, Mr. Saint-Denis?

[Paul Saint-Denis, Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice]

I think I may be able to assist you on this.

Currently, there is no breakdown or distinction made between distribution and selling. In the CDSA, we have a generic trafficking offence, which includes distribution and selling. Those penalties are high: life, maximum, for amounts over three kilograms. For three kilograms or less, the penalty is five years less a day. This is presently the range of penalties that are available for trafficking in cannabis.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Mr. Oliver, go ahead.

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

I want to thank my colleague for his comments. While I am somewhat sympathetic to it, I do have to come back to the stated purpose of the bill, which is to deter criminal activity by imposing serious criminal penalties. I think these amendments actually thwart the purpose of the bill. They restrict the court's ability to deal more appropriately with cases involving individuals who distribute, or possess for purposes of distribution, serious quantities of cannabis.

I think this allows the courts to then act accordingly, so I wouldn't support the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Seeing no further speakers, I am going to call for a vote.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Chair, could we have a recorded vote, please?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Certainly.

(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Now we go to PV-5, another amendment proposed by Ms. May.

Is there any debate on PV-5?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Now we go to NDP-6. My notes here say that if it is adopted, NDP-7 cannot be moved.

Are there any comments or debate on NPD-6?

Mr. Davies, go ahead.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you.

Again, this is the mid-level proposal to try to get the criminal sanctions in this bill down to a reasonable, proportional basis. This amendment would reduce the 14 years maximum imprisonment to two years less a day, and for offences that are less than that, to replace all of the proceedings by indictment with summary conviction only.

In my view, this loses the advantage that I just expressed in the previous defeated amendment of using financial penalties instead of criminal sanctions. In lieu of that, it does bring the criminal sanctions down to a reasonable level and in line not only with what the courts are handing out today in terms of sentencing, but also with a similar approach to the regulation of tobacco and alcohol.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Are there any further comments on NDP-6?

All right, I call for a vote on NDP-6.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Could we have a recorded vote, please?

(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Now we go to NDP-7. Is there any debate on NDP-7?

Mr. Davies, go ahead.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Very briefly, Mr. Chair, under current law in Canada, if there's a sentence of over 10 years as a maximum penalty, a judge does not have the discretion to impose a conditional sentence. The proposal here is to reduce the 14-year maximum sentence to nine years for the sole purpose of allowing a judge to give a conditional sentence. This would reduce incarceration rates in this country in appropriate cases, and it would provide for judicial discretion. The Liberals, I believe, voted against the legislation introduced by the previous Conservative government to take away the conditional sentencing options from judges for sentences of 10 years or more. By the way, it's not for sentences over 10 years, it's any section of the Criminal Code where the maximum potential penalty is more than 10; automatically the judge loses the discretion to give a conditional sentence.

Given the shared belief by the Liberals and the New Democrats that judges should have the discretion to impose conditional sentences, then I would imagine that we would want to do that in this clause here. That's the spirit behind my moving this. Fourteen years is arbitrary. Does anybody really expect that anybody gets a 14-year sentence for distributing 50 grams or 100 grams of cannabis to someone else? I doubt it.

By the way, we also heard that nobody is getting nine years for trafficking, anyway. They're getting 18 months and two years, anyway, so why not make this clause under the 10-year limit so we can actually cure that deficiency of the conditional sentencing shackles that are currently placed on judges in this country. I would hope that I get support particularly from my Liberal colleagues to reduce the 14 years to nine years, or at least hear a cogent argument as to why not.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Seeing no speakers, I call for a vote on NDP-7.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Could I have a recorded vote, Mr. Chair, please?

(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 9 agreed to)

(On clause 10)

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Now we go to page 3, with 23 pages to go.

We have PV-6 by Ms. May. Is there any debate or discussion on PV-6?

There is no discussion so I call for a vote on PV-6.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Now we go to PV-7. If this is adopted, NDP-8, PV-8, NDP-9, and NDP-10 cannot be moved.

Is there any debate on PV-7? Seeing no one wanting to debate, we will call for a vote.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We are on NDP-8. Again, if adopted, PV-8, NDP-9, and NDP-10 cannot be moved.

Mr. Davies, on NDP-8.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Chair, I'm not going to repeat most of the arguments I've made already, but this is, again, an attempt by the New Democrats to take out the criminalized approach to cannabis, and replace it with a regulatory system more in keeping with tobacco and alcohol. I would just mention a couple of new points which I haven't mentioned yet.

We heard a lot of evidence before this committee of the very harmful effects of criminalization of cannabis on certain specific groups in this country, notably marginalized groups, racialized groups, indigenous Canadians, and young Canadians. Those are the groups that tend to bear the brunt of a criminalized approach to cannabis.

The second point I want to emphasize is the overwhelming evidence from the sociologists who have studied this issue. They have stated that most of the harm imparted upon Canadians does not come from ingesting cannabis itself, but from the harms associated with the criminalized nature of it.

Those are important points to mention as reasons that should cause parliamentarians to choose a rational, regulatory approach to cannabis, and avoid criminalizing this substance where we can. Just like alcohol and tobacco, we can construct a regulatory regime where Canadians respect the basic rules around these adult use substances that have impacts on people, but without doing it with the heavy hand of the criminal law.

This amendment would replace the criminalized approach with a regulatory, fine-based one.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Thank you very much.

Seeing no further debate, I call for a vote on NDP-8.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Could I please have a recorded vote?