Justice Committee on April 22nd, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

I call the meeting to order.

This is meeting number 14 of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. For the record, today is Thursday, April 22, 2010.

You have before you the agenda for today. We're continuing our review of Bill C-475, an act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act for methamphetamine and ecstasy.

We have with us Paul Saint-Denis, senior counsel, criminal law policy section of the Department of Justice. Thank you for appearing before us today.

You don't have a presentation, I understand. There were a number of questions that members of the committee wanted to ask about the bill before we go to clause-by-clause.

Members of the committee, we'll go around and ask for questions. We'll start on the Liberal side.

Ms. Mendes, do you have any questions you wanted to ask Mr. Saint-Denis?

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Can we give Mr. Petit's two amendments to Mr. Saint-Denis? Do you not have them in front of you, Mr. Saint-Denis?

[Paul Saint-Denis, Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice]

No.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

I would like to have your opinion on the first amendment. The bill provides for the penalty to be 10 years less a day. The amendment proposes to make it 10 years exactly. We are talking about one day, but also about a principle.

What would the legal implications of this amendment be?

[Paul Saint-Denis]

The amendment, the effect of which is to bring the penalty in the bill to ten years exactly, would make the penalty similar to those found elsewhere in the Criminal Code or other federal legislation. If passed, the penalty of ten years less a day would be the only one of its kind. If I understand correctly, the idea is simply to bring the penalty into line with others.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Do you mean in line with others, or does the judge have an obligation to impose a penalty of ten years exactly?

[Paul Saint-Denis]

No. From what I have seen, the amendment keeps the offence as a major one, but establishes a penalty of 10 years rather than 10 years less a day.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Okay. You are telling us that other penalties are always...

[Paul Saint-Denis]

Generally, in the code, or in other legislation, including the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the penalty is a fixed period, a round number, such as 5, 7,10 or 14 years, for example.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

So this does not change the nature of the act.

Thank you, I have no other questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Mr. Bagnell.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

You say it's unprecedented, but there are many penalties for offences in Canada that are two years less a day. Having an act that has a number of years less a day is not unusual in Canada.

[Paul Saint-Denis]

The practice of “less a day” itself is not unusual. In fact, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act has an offence of five years less a day. It's an indictable offence; it's five years less a day.

What is unusual—in fact, it would be precedent-setting—is a ten-year less a day term. The motion would, for all intents and purposes, eliminate that precedent-setting type of penalty.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

That would probably be a good precedent, actually.

Did the Department of Justice come up with this amendment?

[Paul Saint-Denis]

As I understand it, the motion is put forward by the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice, and certainly the idea was discussed in the Department of Justice.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

We'll move on to Monsieur Ménard.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

If I am not mistaken, Mr. Saint-Denis, some of our acts stipulate a fixed term less a day. Generally, this is because that one day makes a difference in the way the act or the penalty are applied. Is that not so?

[Paul Saint-Denis]

Yes. Take the example of a penalty of five years less a day. There is an impact on the access to a trial by jury.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Indeed there is.

[Paul Saint-Denis]

But, to my knowledge, with a penalty of 10 years less a day, no impact of that kind is intended. Perhaps the author of the bill had some reason to stipulate ten years less a day. But I have not found one myself.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

In bills that have been introduced and that will be introduced, the ten-year barrier is very significant for suspended sentences and conditional sentences. For example, you have surely noticed that the idea of five years less a day has started to come into our legislation since the Charter, which enshrined the principle of...

Before the Charter, since there was no principle that required a trial to be held before a jury when the maximum penalty was five years, there was no reason to stipulate five years less a day. Future bills might specify that there can be no suspended sentences if the penalty is ten years or that there can be no conditional sentences if the penalty is ten years. In that case, the ten-year limit takes on a significance that it did not have before.

[Paul Saint-Denis]

I thought that might be the case. If the committee chooses to take that approach, the committee may certainly do so. Up to now, there is no precedent for a penalty of ten years less a day. Given that there are bills containing aspects that may have an impact on a maximum sentence of ten years, there is perhaps a reason to want to consider different sentences.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

So you agree with me that every precedent is unprecedented.

[Paul Saint-Denis]

I do.