Evidence of meeting #9 for Justice and Human Rights in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Bloc
Carole Freeman Bloc Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC
I have a question concerning the penalty of 10 years' imprisonment.
Mention is made of this penalty in your proposed amendment. You started to talk about it. Subsection 4(3)(a) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act provides for a term of imprisonment of seven years for simple possession. Where no provision is made for a specific penalty, a fine of $5,000 applies, along with a term of imprisonment of three years.
Why the reference to 10 years' imprisonment? Could you clarify this for me?
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
You are referring to section 4 which concerns possession. However, other sections deal with trafficking or importation.
Bloc
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Yes. The punishment is much more severe.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
You were wondering how...
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
...we decided on a term of 10 years.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
To some extent, every decision made is arbitrary.
Bloc
Carole Freeman Bloc Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC
There is no justification for this punishment. A person convicted of possession is liable to imprisonment for three years or seven years...
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
The penalty is seven years. However, trafficking or production are rather more serious offences.
Bloc
Conservative
NDP
Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC
Okay.
Actually, my question also was about the proposed government amendment that has to do with the penalty.
One of the concerns I have is that we're dealing with a private member's bill that deals with one aspect of the Controlled Drug and Substances Act and one substance, in effect, or with a number of chemicals. So we're going from three years to ten years, and it's not clear to me what the rationale is for pulling that out.
It seems to me that taking one element is sort of a boutique approach. If we're going to change the Criminal Code, we need to have a rationale for whatever changes are being brought forward. I think it needs to be explained, maybe by the member whose bill it is. I would also like the counsel to comment on that, as well.
If it's just arbitrary, well then, it could be anything. There has to be some rationale about why we do these things in a bill and what's behind it. It can't just be political motivation. There has to be a rationale and a basis in law.
I do know that there's a Department of Justice report. I think it's from 2002. For example, I know that minimum mandatory sentencing for drug crimes is not shown to be particularly effective. Now, we're not dealing with that here, but I think there has to be some evidence that increasing the penalty to this extent is actually going to produce something. I wonder if the member has that or has anything from the justice department that would provide us with that information.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
I'll respond to the first part of the question, which is where we got this from. I apologize for suggesting that things are arbitrary. There are categories.
This punishment reflects what you would find under paragraph 5(3)(b) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, which is trafficking in a substance, and then it divides it by schedules. And it says for schedule 1 or 2 substances, you're indictable for life. But it says that where the subject matter of the offence is a substance included in schedule 3, it's an indictable offence liable to a term not exceeding ten years.
So we have the same intention to traffic in this one as is there. That's where the ten years seems—
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Possession is three, trafficking is ten for a schedule 3 drug under paragraph 5(3)(b).
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Yes, because the current bill has nothing. It's section 46, which says that if nothing else is provided, it's three years. So three years is for the intention to traffic. We suggested that ten years better reflects section 5 now.
Conservative
Chris Warkentin Conservative Peace River, AB
My original intent was that it would be in line with trafficking the drug, effectively bringing the components together. What I believe, in fact, is that the creation of the drug is as reprehensible as actually trafficking it and handing it out to young people, because in fact without the manufacturing of it, young people wouldn't be affected by it.
Now, you weren't here for my original statement, and being a new member, this was one of the mistakes I made. I had received some advice from the Library of Parliament that led me to the belief that by not including penalties, I would be falling under the ten years, but in fact it was actually the three years. So it was absolutely my original intent to bring this legislation in line with trafficking. Unfortunately, that was a mistake I made. I'm hoping that through this amendment we can rectify that.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
Thank you, Chair.
Mr. Warkentin, I apologize for not having arrived at the beginning of the meeting. I think you saw my slow progress. It took a little while for me to get from Centre Block to here.
I have read your bill. From the time it was first tabled, I participated actively in discussions with my own caucus on your bill and I'm supportive of your bill, in particular now that the questions that were raised have been addressed with the government amendment.
I have a question, though, and Mr. Yost, you're probably the best person to answer it.
The amendment would capture someone who knowingly possesses, produces, sells, or imports anything knowing that it will be used to produce or traffic in a substance referred to in item 18 of the schedule. Would that capture a company that produces one element that absolutely has to be used in the production of crystal meth and, because they are so lax in their internal controls and security that it is very easy for their employees to steal significant quantities, is then sold to produce? Would that capture a company?
