Justice Committee on May 27th, 2009

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Okay.

This amendment, NDP-9, basically replaces lines 35 to 37 on page 3 with:

cannabis (marijuana), except if the production is for a medical purpose, is guilty of an indictable offence

and so on.

Basically, the rationale for this amendment, Chairperson, is that it would exempt medical marijuana in any amount from Bill C-15 in relation to production for the purposes of trafficking; and it would return the maximum sentence for marijuana production back to seven years, which it currently is in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

As I mentioned with the earlier amendment, we're very concerned about the impact on compassion clubs. So this amendment is really trying to take out those circumstances where we are talking about marijuana for medical purposes, which has very strong support in Canadian society. We cannot understand why it should now be covered under the scope of this bill; and without making this differentiation, it will be covered under the scope of this bill for mandatory minimums. We think that's very problematic and it should be taken out.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Because the bill itself increases the maximum penalty and your amendment keeps it unchanged, I have to rule it out of order.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

I would like a recorded vote on my challenge to your ruling, please.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

All right, we'll have a recorded vote.

(Ruling of the chair sustained [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

There's a point of order from Monsieur Ménard.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Would you agree to my chairing the meeting in my capacity as Vice-Chair between now and 5:30 p.m.? I have not had many opportunities to chair a meeting. It seems to me that you are feeling a little lost. You know that I am Vice-Chair of the Committee and I could certainly take the chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Monsieur Ménard, I'm really enjoying my job. I'm not yet prepared to retire.

Mr. Bagnell.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

As a point of information, I wonder if Mr. Saint-Denis could comment on Libby Davies' point on that one. I know it's not relevant, but I think it would good to know.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

All right, briefly.

[Paul Saint-Denis]

Certainly.

The concern about medical marijuana, I believe, is covered by Health Canada's medical marijuana access regulations, where individuals are given a permit to grow it either for themselves or for another individual. So it would appear to me that this particular issue is already covered by existing regulation and law.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Could I respond to that, please?

It is correct that there is a federal program. It is very, very limited, and in fact, the federal government has, on the last three occasions, been unsuccessful in court. We just had a recent court decision where the federal government tried to appeal an earlier Ontario Court of Appeal decision, which in effect said that the medical marijuana program is so narrow that it is really not accessible. And the Supreme Court of Canada threw out the federal government's appeal on that, so the government lost on that.

We know that the federal government has said that someone who has a licence to grow medical marijuana can now grow it for two patients instead of one. If you talk to anybody who is involved in a compassion club, where they may have several hundred members, they will tell you that the program Mr. Saint-Denis is referring to is virtually useless. It is being challenged all the time.

Yes, it does exist, but the reason the compassion clubs exist is that it's so ineffective and so inaccessible. The product itself is quite expensive and the quality has been seriously challenged.

That is to answer Mr. Bagnell's question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

We're going on to the Bloc's amendment BQ-4.

Monsieur Ménard.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that, again, is based on the same logic—in other words, turning the offences relating to Schedules 1 and 2 into aggravating factors. I would remind you that such a provision already exists in our Criminal Code. This would create an obligation, not to impose a minimum sentence, but rather, to consider, for the purposes of sentencing, any aggravating or negative factors that would warrant social reprobation.

With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to put a question to Mr. Saint-Denis. On a number of occasions, the Committee has looked at the relevance of the deterrent effect of minimum sentences. If I challenged you to bring forward some departmental studies in that regard, would you be in a position to provide studies that would reassure us as to whether minimum sentences really act as a deterrent? If they do not, do you not find that rather sad and believe that we would be demonstrating negligence in not acting on this—negligence that would ultimately be tantamount to ideological bias, which is certainly not something you would want to aid and abet?

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Monsieur Ménard, I'm not sure Monsieur Saint-Denis is here for the purpose of delivering studies to the committee. He's here to comment on the specifics of our clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Chairman, that is my prerogative. We took an oath and swore to vote on the basis of meaningful and conclusive data. I consider that it is my prerogative to question Mr. Saint-Denis because this bill is about studies dealing with minimum sentences. If there are no such studies, it seems to me we have a problem. I would appreciate getting an answer to my question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Well, Mr. Saint-Denis has been put at a really serious disadvantage, because he wasn't asked to bring studies here. But I'll leave it up to him to determine whether he's in a position to answer that question.

Mr. Saint-Denis.

[Paul Saint-Denis]

I have brought no studies concerning the effects or impact of minimum penalties as a deterrent, or any other type of impact. So I have nothing here on that.

But I believe Monsieur Ménard's question was whether or not I was aware of such studies. I am aware of a number of studies on minimum penalties, but not—

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I would like to clarify the situation. The Department of Justice is proposing a bill that attaches minimum sentences to current provisions of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. As parliamentarians, we have every right to expect that, if we are asked to consider a bill dealing with minimum sentences, that studies carried out in that regard be made available to us. I believe it would be quite irresponsible to vote on this without seeing those studies. I would be extremely surprised—indeed, disappointed and even shattered, if the Department had not itself carried out such studies. If it has not, Mr. Chairman, we have a problem—a problem that could even prompt us to adjourn our work here in Committee, although I dare say the Department has in fact done such studies.

[Paul Saint-Denis]

The Department of Justice has undertaken some studies on minimum penalties, in 2002 perhaps, and one in 2006. That's the extent of the work I believe the department has undertaken in this area. There may be others, but I'm not aware of them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

In any event, I'm ruling the amendment out of order.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

I am trying to stay calm, but I am somewhat troubled by this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

The interpreter couldn't hear that comment. Could you repeat it.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

What I said, Mr. Chairman, is that I am trying to stay calm, but I am somewhat troubled to hear that there are no studies. I am sure you can understand that it is quite troubling for a parliamentarian to discover that this information is not available.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

All right, I understand.

Mr. Bagnell.