Evidence of meeting #23 for Justice and Human Rights in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was prevention.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
Thank you, Mr. Moore. We're going to go to a round of three minutes each. We have some time left, so Mr. Murphy, you have three minutes.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Brian Murphy Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
I am a little perplexed when I hear the parliamentary secretary say that one of the reasons they brought this legislation in is to fill a void that exists with respect to judicial accountability, which is a question I asked an hour ago. We'll get to what you said earlier, because it's in the blues.
But the thing is, what is the level of judicial accountability? I'll ask the Canadian Bar Association people. You talked about appeals. There is a Canadian Judicial Council as well that regulates bad behaviour, I guess. Is it true that the judiciary should be independent, and that if there's a problem with sentencing or the laws as set out, it is Parliament's job to set the rules for judges to follow? And finally, do you feel there's an image or a reality that judges are not following the laws as written by the Parliament of Canada? There's an image problem here--because that side is right when they say we hear it--but we hear it from uninformed sources with respect to following the law.
If the law isn't followed, there's an appeal process. If a judge is crazy, he is dealt with by the Canadian Judicial Council--or is that a broken system? Give me your opinion, please.
5:10 p.m.
Branch Sector Chair, National Criminal Justice Section, Canadian Bar Association
My response to that is that judges do take guidance from Parliament through, obviously, the legislation that it enacts, but the current legislation that's already in place, both in the Criminal Code and within the CDSA, sets out the aggravating factors that are identified in Bill C-15. Those judges have those aggravating factors brought to their attention, and those factors are factored into the ultimate sentence that is delivered. The judges--
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Brian Murphy Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
With all due respect, my question was quite general.
5:10 p.m.
Branch Sector Chair, National Criminal Justice Section, Canadian Bar Association
But with respect to any review that states that the judge didn't appropriately sentence the person or didn't sentence the person in accordance with the sentencing principles, the appeal mechanisms in place and the other mechanisms that you referred to are available ways through which that discretion can be reviewed. Judges are held accountable.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Brian Murphy Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
Is there something we should be doing to highlight the fact that judges are accountable to the appellate courts and to the CJC, or should we be saying they're not accountable enough? Because you hear it. You hear it on video. You hear it in B.C. You hear it from elected members of Parliament who make legislation. That's what you hear. There's no basis for it. The other side is not being told. Is there enough being done?
5:10 p.m.
Branch Sector Chair, National Criminal Justice Section, Canadian Bar Association
Our response is that judges are being held accountable, and judges do take into account the needs and circumstances of particular communities in delivering their decisions. In that sense, they are accountable back to the communities, to follow up on the question that was posed earlier.
5:10 p.m.
Bloc
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
My question is for Mr. Yost.
I would like you to summarize the bill for me, to the best of your ability—and I know that you have good knowledge of it, regarding minimum sentences.
When we talk for example about trafficking, cultivation of marijuana, could you remind us of when it starts, in the most minimal scenario, just so that we have a common level of understanding?
Following that, you will come back to us with a written response to the question my colleague, Mr. Marc Lemay, asked you.
5:10 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
For the substances listed in schedule I, that is cocaine and others, it is immediately in effect when we are talking about trafficking. It is not like marijuana, for which there is a caveat under paragraph a.1). In that case, three kilograms is the trigger point when we are talking about joints.
There is no minimum as far as importing or exporting for the purposes of trafficking is concerned.
5:10 p.m.
Bloc
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
You seem to be saying that there is no minimum sentence for simple possession of marijuana.
5:10 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
We are not dealing with the rules that deal with simple possession. They come under section 4, and there are no minimum sentences.
5:10 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
For trafficking, under section 5, that is where we start to see minimum sentences, if we can establish the seven circumstances mentioned in the legislation. It would be one or two years, if that can be established. However, as far as marijuana is concerned, it must be more than what is in schedule VII.
But I still must answer the question as to what would happen in the case of someone trafficking a single plant. If I understood your question correctly, we are talking about a young person who has three or four marijuana plants and gives one to a friend? You would like to have the answer to that question, but I cannot provide it immediately.
5:10 p.m.
Bloc
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
There are certain things I would like to understand about trafficking, that being giving away a single joint. As of what quantity would mandatory minimum sentences be imposed for marijuana?
5:10 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
It would be from three kilograms.
5:10 p.m.
Bloc
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
You mentioned three kilograms. We agreed earlier on that that was equal to 30 plants.
5:15 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Thirty plants could perhaps, in the long term, produce three kilograms.
5:15 p.m.
Bloc
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
If two students were sitting across from the University of Ottawa campus and one passed a joint to the other, you say that he could be accused of simple possession, but that under this bill, there would be no minimum sentence that would apply.
5:15 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
He could be accused of trafficking because he is doing so by giving the joint to someone else. He could be charged with trafficking, but he would not be subject to a minimum sentence because the joint does not contain three kilograms of marijuana. Certain factors must be established that do not seem to exist in this case. It does not involve organized crime, the use of a weapon, or anything of that nature.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
5:15 p.m.
NDP
Megan Leslie NDP Halifax, NS
Mr. Chair, before my time starts, could I ask a point of clarification?
5:15 p.m.
NDP
Megan Leslie NDP Halifax, NS
Mr. Rathgeber, I was wondering about the numbers you gave us. What were they? Were they reported incidents of activity? It's just so I'll be clear.