Justice Committee on May 27th, 2009

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Chair, I agree with you that we should move on right away, but I would also ask that those studies just mentioned be tabled for the committee's information later on, because they would be useful for other bills.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Could you do that, Mr. Saint-Denis? Thank you.

Ms. Davies.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Because the question was asked, I would like to point out that when we were first hearing witnesses, it was made clear there was a 2002 study from the Department of Justice. The quote we've been using from that is that mandatory minimum sentences “do not appear to influence drug consumption or drug-related crime in any measurable way”. There was a second study from the department in 2005, where they said, “There is some indication that minimum sentences are not an effective sentencing tool”.

I would also point out that no witness, including the Minister of Justice, could provide any evidence to show that mandatory minimums worked; they couldn't produce the other side.

We did also get from the John Howard Society—because we asked them for this—the summaries of 17 studies from the U.S. and the U.K. on mandatory minimum sentencing, which came to the same conclusion, that they're ineffective.

So we actually have had information on this as a committee, but we've never had anything showing they worked—and we asked for it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

I've made the ruling. Do you wish to challenge the ruling, Mr. Ménard?

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Yes, Mr. Chairman; I have no choice.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

All right.

Shall the ruling be sustained?

(Ruling of the chair sustained)

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

We now move on to NDP-10.

Ms. Davies.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Before you rule on it, because I know you will, this is actually similar to the previous amendment, but it's making it clear that the term should not be more than seven years, as opposed to what's listed here, at 14 years. Again, this would be returning it to what the sentence now is in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

All right, thank you.

I rule it out of order. Do you wish to challenge the ruling?

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Yes, I do.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Shall the ruling of the chair be sustained?

(Ruling of the chair sustained)

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

We move on to amendment NDP-11, which is in order.

Ms. Davies.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

This amendment basically removes from Bill C-15 the sentencing for the production of less than 200 plants for the purpose of trafficking. A mandatory minimum sentence of six months for the production of one pot plant, we believe, doesn't belong in a bill that talks about being tough on organized crime.

Already, as I mentioned previously, the current sentence in the act is up to seven years. This is where we get into the detailed sentencing for the number of plants you have. We believe that nailing people by having a minimum mandatory of six months for, in effect, having one plant is absolutely absurd and completely contrary to what we've heard about this bill. It's going to have a huge effect on young people, so we'd like to see this ruled out of the bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Monsieur Lemay.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I put a question to Mr. Yost when he appeared before the Committee, but I still have not received an answer. I suppose that if things continue to proceed in the same manner, I will receive an answer once that clause has already been disposed of. However, I would very much like to get the answer before that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Monsieur Lemay, I believe Monsieur Saint-Denis may be able to answer your question.

[Paul Saint-Denis]

Mr. Lemay, my colleague, Greg Yost, made me aware of your question. As I recall, you had asked whether an individual found trafficking one or two plants of marijuana would receive a minimum sentence.

The answer is no, because he would be trafficking a quantity of marijuana that is less than three kilos, unless they are absolutely gigantic plants.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

No, you misunderstand. Let us go to Schedule V. This is not a question; it's a comment. I suggest that you listen. We are currently talking about what happens under Schedule I. But, let's go now to Schedule V. That was what my question was about.

Schedule VII relates to sections 5 and 60. So, it has nothing to do with section 7, and here we are talking about section 7. So, the three-kilo standard does not apply.

[Paul Saint-Denis]

Could I interject?

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Yes, of course you can, because this is the central issue of the debate.

[Paul Saint-Denis]

In the example I have here, and having read the transcript, it seems that the offence we are talking about concerns a young person engaged in trafficking.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

No, I will stop you right there.

My question had nothing to do with a person who is young or old, an ancestor, or who is poor or rich. This was my question. Supposing the government's proposal passes; if someone—any one—were to give a pot plant, whatever its size—to someone else, would that person be subject to a minimum six-month sentence right off the bat?

[Paul Saint-Denis]

The problem is that giving a plant to someone is considered to be trafficking, under the definition of “trafficking”. And, if we are talking about trafficking, we are talking about quantities, volume and weight. Whether there is one plant or five plants, the important thing is that the weight be less than three kilos. When trafficking is involved, we are referring to section 4 and not section 7. So, Schedule VII is the relevant schedule and it talks about a weight of less than three kilos.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

That is correct if I am charged under section 5. However, if I am charged under section 7… Do you follow me?

[Paul Saint-Denis]

Yes, I follow you.