Evidence of meeting #26 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 ruling.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:40 p.m.
NDP
Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC
I do have it. It's not translated because it didn't go in, but I do have it.
3:40 p.m.
NDP
Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC
Yes. What it would do is replace lines 9 to 12 on page 2 with the following:
or near a school, or on or near school grounds
In effect, if my amendment passed, it would take out “or in or near any other public place usually frequented by persons under the age of 18 years”.
You'll remember that when we heard the witnesses, there was a fair amount of testimony from witnesses who believed including this idea of a public place, which could be a mall, a cinema, or any kind of public place, would really incorporate any area where young people may be involved with other younger people who are passing a joint. We heard quite a lot of testimony that to include “any other public place” without having any definition of it was very problematic and would absolutely broaden the scope of the net in terms of capturing people, which I think would be very contrary to what we heard from many of the Conservative members in terms of their understanding of who this bill is aimed at.
That's why I've made this amendment. I hope that's clear for people.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
Ms. Davies, you have three other amendments on that clause, and this one sequentially would fall as the fourth amendment. Could we deal with it after we've dealt with the other three?
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
All right. Thank you, and could you provide the clerk with the written copy you have there, just to make sure we're all clear?
We're moving on to the second NDP amendment under clause 1. That amendment is in order.
Ms. Davies, do you want to move that amendment?
3:40 p.m.
NDP
Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC
Thank you very much. I will move the amendment.
Basically this amendment is deleting lines 1 to 5 on page 2 of the bill. The purpose of this amendment is to remove item 1(1)(a)(i)(D) from subclause 1(1) so that previous convictions are not considered an aggravating factor that would result in a more serious mandatory sentence.
I would point out to members that this doesn't mean that a previous conviction wouldn't be considered, because under section 10 of the existing Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, prior conviction is already an element that is included in the existing bill. In fact, the current sentence is up to life imprisonment.
We're very concerned that including this particular clause will mean that the bill will be very much broadening the net to go after people with convictions or sentences in the last 10 years. It will only serve to recriminalize drug addicts, users, and people with mental health problems, including street-level traffickers who are often users themselves. We actually see this as a very problematic clause and think that the current act is completely adequate in taking into account prior convictions. We see no need to go further in terms of what Bill C-15 is doing. We put it forward on that basis.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
Thank you.
Is there any further discussion on this amendment?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Moving on to amendment NDP-3, you'll note we're again dealing with line 5 on page 2 of the bill.
Ms. Davies, are you moving the amendment?
3:45 p.m.
NDP
Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC
What this amendment would do, because the last one failed, is reduce the aggravating factor for someone from having a previous record of ten years to one of two years. Along the lines I've just said, we're just trying to minimize what we see as the damaging effect of the bill before us. So the amendment is changing it from ten years to two years.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
We'll move on to amendment NDP-4, which is also in order.
Ms. Davies, are you moving that?
3:45 p.m.
NDP
Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC
Yes, I'm moving NDP-4.
This particular amendment is replacing line 7 on page 2. The word is actually split, but the amendment replaces “imprisonment for a term of two years” with the following:
imprisonment for a term of two years if any of the factors set out in subparagraph (a)(i) apply and if
The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the aggravating factors that are laid out would only apply if they could be connected to organized crime, or violence, or the use or threatened use of a weapon. These are actually aggravating factors already set out in proposed items 5(3)(a)(i)(A) and (B) and (C), and they're already within the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. So we believe this is already adequately covered, and to impose a mandatory minimum of two years is something that goes beyond where it should go.
That's the reason we put forward this amendment. We want to make sure it's only to be connected to organized crime or violence, because we heard from government members that this was the intent of the bill. But the actual implementation of this bill, we believe, will go far beyond that. We want to be very clear that if that's what the target is, let's then be very specific about it in this clause of the bill.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
Thank you.
You've heard the amendment. Is there any further debate?
(Amendment negatived)
The next one, Ms. Davies, we'll refer to as NDP-4.1, which is the one you just tabled a few moments ago.
Would you like to reintroduce it, or move it formally again?
3:45 p.m.
NDP
Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC
Basically what this amendment is doing is removing the lines, “or in or near any other public place usually frequented by persons under the age of 18 years”.
So it would still contain “or near a school, or on or near school grounds”. It's just removing something that we see as so broad that there is no definition of what it would mean.
We think it would have a very negative consequence and impact, particularly on young people. I don't believe it should be in this bill. We heard quite a lot of testimony on this point. I hope members will consider supporting it.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
3:45 p.m.
Bloc
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
Along the same lines as what Ms. Davies was saying, I would remind you, Mr. Chairman, that Ms. Davies and I have both sat on a sub-committee in the past. That sub-committee was struck following the tabling of a motion by a former Conservative member of Parliament, Randy White, about whom some less charitable individuals said that he represented the « Flintstone » wing of the Conservative Party. However, I very much enjoyed working with him.
That sub-committee made a certain number of recommendations, but never recommended as broad and as imprecise a definition as « public place ». Of course, the witnesses we heard did express some concerns with respect to the schools, which I fully understand. You may also remember that Ms. Beauchesne and the Réseau juridique du Québec appeared before the Committee to explain that having such an imprecise concept in the legislation could be dangerous.
That prompts me to put a question to Mr. Saint-Denis who, in fact, has appeared before the Committee a number of times since the year 2000. I hope that brings back some happy memories for him. I can assure him that, seen from afar, he would appear to be very well preserved. In the clause, why is reference made to as broad a concept as « in or near any other public place usually frequented by persons under the age of 18 years »? What is the rationale for that? Do you have legal expertise that would help us to better understand this concept?
3:50 p.m.
Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Thank you for the compliments, Mr. Ménard.
The concept found in this provision is already in the legislation at the present time. Subparagraph 10.2(iii) already talks about places usually frequented by young people.
As for potential legal considerations in that regard, in my opinion, the question has never come up.
3:50 p.m.
Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Because there are places more usually frequented by young people—for example, shopping centres and parks. In some regions of the country, we know there is drug trafficking occurring. The idea was to target those activities in such places.
In terms of the imprecision of the wording, it will be up to the judge to determine whether the place in question falls within the parameters of that provision.
3:50 p.m.
Bloc
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
That can be determined by the judge or by the always informed judgment of parliamentarians with more than a decade of experience at the House of Commons.
3:50 p.m.
Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
As well, yes.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
Thank you.
Do we have any further discussion?
Hearing none, I will call the question on NDP amendment 4.1.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 1 agreed to on division)
(On clause 2)
On clause 2, we first have the Bloc amendment.