Evidence of meeting #72 for Health in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was cannabis.
A video is available from Parliament.
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bill Casey
Mr. Clerk, we'll have a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We will now go to PV-10.
There's a little note here stating that some of the documents show “eight years” in the last line of the amendment. It should read “five years”.
The amendment should thus read as follows:
prisonment for a term of not more than five years; or
Is there any debate on PV-10?
Mr. Davies.
9:25 a.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I believe this is a Green motion. I regret that Ms. May is not here to speak to her motion, but I will just offer briefly that I think the intent behind this is similar to some of the points I was making about the NDP amendment. That is to say, if we do only one thing about these 14-year provisions, it should be to reduce it to the reasonable amount that the courts of this country are actually giving. I'll once again refer to the testimony of John Conroy, a noted criminal defence lawyer. His testimony was buttressed by the other criminal defence lawyers we heard. They all told us that right now in Canada, the courts are giving out sentences between 18 months and two years for large-scale trafficking.
I'll also mention the very important point about conditional sentencing. Every time we leave one of these sections with the maximum of 14 years, we take away the right of a judge to give a conditional sentence to anybody—anybody—who appears before them. I think that's unwise policy.
I would urge my colleagues to support the reduction of the penalty from 14 years to five years, as per this amendment.
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
Bill Blair Liberal Scarborough Southwest, ON
I have just a point of clarification, if I may.
These are dual procedure offences. If the crown elects to proceed by way of summary conviction, then a conditional sentence would be available to a judge under those circumstances. It's only under those circumstances where the crown elects to proceed by way of indictment that the 14-year penalty would restrict the use of a conditional sentence for the judge.
9:25 a.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
I think that's absolutely false. Perhaps someone from the ministry could correct that.
It's my understanding that the result of legislation by the Conservatives was that any penalty in the Criminal Code for which the maximum penalty is 10 years or more prohibits a judge from consideration of a conditional sentence. It has nothing to do with the way the prosecution decides to proceed by way of indictment. It's the nature of the penalty in the Criminal Code. That's my understanding.
I'm just wondering if anybody from the ministry could clarify that for Mr. Blair and me.
9:25 a.m.
Paul Saint-Denis Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The provisions dealing with conditional sentencing in the code specify that if a charge is dealt with by way of an indictment, then the conditional sentence would not apply if it's more than 10 years. The comment by Mr. Blair is correct in the sense that if the prosecution proceeded by way of a summary conviction, then the judge would have the ability to impose a conditional sentence.
9:30 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bill Casey
Thank you.
Seeing no more speakers on the speakers list, I call for a vote on PV-10.
9:30 a.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
I call for a recorded vote, Mr. Chair.
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
9:30 a.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
I won't speak in a repetitive fashion, other than to explain that this motion would be an alternative to the one I just proposed, which was defeated, to reduce the 14-year provision simply to a jail term of two years less a day as a maximum.
9:30 a.m.
Liberal
Doug Eyolfson Liberal Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB
This goes back to what we said before. We want to take simply a cautious approach in drafting this and want to make sure there are penalties for those trafficking in large amounts.
9:30 a.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
I'll just briefly say I don't disagree with that position. The spirit of this amendment respects that, because it gives a jail sentence of up to two years less a day. I would just point out again that this is what the courts are giving now for large-scale trafficking. That's the evidence we heard from Mr. Conroy. We heard no evidence to the contrary.
Second, the other advantage of this is of course that it would allow the sentence to be served in a provincial institution, not a federal institution.
My final point is going to be that if criminalization and jailing people were an appropriate way to deal with those who deal with cannabis, we would have no problem with cannabis in this country today. That's why the NDP thinks we should really be moving towards a regulated, non-criminal, non-prohibitionist approach to cannabis as a matter of public policy.
It's not that we don't think there should be consequences for violating a regulatory regime. What we're proposing here is to have an appropriate regulatory response, one that actually will be effective. If there's one thing we know in this country, it's that criminalizing cannabis has done nothing but create harm.
9:30 a.m.
Liberal
9:30 a.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Could I request a recorded vote, Mr. Chair?
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1)
9:30 a.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Similarly, this is consistent with our approach. This is our third attempt to amend the penalty provisions of this bill, and it's our least favourite, but it would propose that we reduce the 14 years to nine years.
At this point I would like to take the opportunity to apologize to Mr. Blair for my saying he was false. He was absolutely correct about this.
The point still holds that when you have a criminal provision with a penalty of more than 10 years and, now that we know, the prosecution decides to proceed by way of indictment, it eliminates the possibility of a conditional sentence. For that reason alone, we think the 14 years should be reduced to nine.
I would point out that I don't think anybody is getting 14 years in this country for trafficking marijuana; at least, that's the evidence we heard.
We're picking an arbitrary number. Whether it's 14 or nine or seven or 11, this is just a number that we're picking. It would seem to me that we as parliamentarians should take an evidence-based approach to this and at least choose a number that gives our judges the discretion to give a conditional sentence when they wish to do so.
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bill Casey
Seeing no further speakers on the list, I will call for a vote on amendment NDP-13.
9:35 a.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
May we have a recorded vote, Mr. Chair?
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1)
(Clause 11 agreed to)
(On clause 12)
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bill Casey
Now we'll go to clause 12, beginning with amendment Liberal-2.
Mr. Ayoub.
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
Ramez Ayoub Liberal Thérèse-De Blainville, QC
Mr. Chairman, I would like to change the wording of the bill to harmonize the syntax in the French version.
In clause 12 of the bill, lines 37 to 39 on page 11 of the French version, should read as follows:
quelque méthode que ce soit, notamment par la fabrication ou la synthèse ou par l'altération, par tout moyen, de ses propriétés physiques ou chimiques;
The article “la” was added before the words “fabrication” and “synthèse”, and “l'” was added before “altération”.
It is as simple as that. I do not think there is much to debate, unless I am not aware of some new rules of grammar.