Thank you, Chair.
We've been hearing this morning about the concerns that arise from this government's approach to shut down debate and discussion, to limit the debate to five minutes on individual clauses of the bill.
It is important for the public to know what a clause of the bill might be, because if you're saying we'll only be allowed to talk for five minutes about a particular clause of the bill, that means.... For example, clause 39, which deals with the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, has a whole series of provisions in it that provide for minimum punishments in the case of trafficking.
Now, trafficking sounds terrible, and is terrible, if we're talking about the wholesale trafficking of drugs. We have organized crime engaged in this. We have a terrible problem in this country, and in other countries, with Mafia-style operations, and everything that goes with that. But when you take that legislation that's there and start looking at the definition of “trafficking”, the definition of “trafficking” is not organized crime engaged in large-scale, high-profile.... The definition of “trafficking” includes things such as the sharing of a marijuana cigarette by some kid or some young person, passing it from one to the other, or giving your friend one of these marijuana cigarettes. It is treated as trafficking. It fulfills the definition of “trafficking”.
Then you start putting that into the context of the new legislation, which produces minimum mandatory sentences that never existed before for trafficking, a minimum mandatory sentence of one year in certain circumstances, if:
(A) the person committed the offence for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a criminal organization, as defined
That is defined also by two or three people who are working together for a criminal purpose, so any dealer would be caught by that. But the people who are going to be actually caught and given this one-year sentence are the lowest level of people engaged in, I will say, the marijuana trade, because that's the one that gets the most attention, but perhaps it's not the most dangerous. It is all included in this because it refers to the substances in schedule 1 or schedule 2. Schedule 2 has now been put into schedule 1, so all illegal drugs are considered the same for this purpose. And the net is being broadened to the point where the lowest level of offences are included with the highest level of offences, the least dangerous offences with the most dangerous offences and substances, and everything is treated alike.
The evidence that we received from people who understand how this trade works is that this is going to benefit organized crime. It is going to benefit the higher levels of organized crime and it is going to pick up the so-called small fish.
Then we move to the second part about the minimum punishment of two years if the offence of trafficking is committed in or near a school or on or near school grounds. And then the kicker:
in or near any other public place usually frequented by persons under the age of 18 years,
Well, what does that mean? Streets? Public places? Parks? Cemeteries? War memorials? Beaches? We're talking here about a minimum sentence that applies virtually anywhere.
We have five minutes to discuss that today, according to this motion. We're not really going to be given a chance to ask the following. How is this wording actually going to be interpreted by the courts? Is it possible for the courts to interpret this? Are we causing a whole whack of trouble for our court system, for our judges to try to deal with this, and for our prosecutors to try to deal with this? Does this meet any test of certainty? Or is it so vague as to be meaningless?
This is the kind of discussion that should be taking place at this stage of debate on this bill. We have these experts here, and maybe they can tell us what legal opinions have been developed in relation to these matters. Can they do that in five minutes? I don't think so. It's too complicated for that. You could barely read through the clause.
“Clause” sounds like a little phrase, but the clause is actually a page long and deals with these complex matters. It is very precise and technical but has enormous consequences for individuals and for our court system, and may cause, if this gets passed, a whole series of court challenges and cases and appeals.
It's not a simple matter of whether a law is good or bad. The question is whether the law is effective. Does it do what it's intended to do? Will it have the effect of making our streets any safer? Will it in fact deter criminals from criminal activity, or will it have other unintended consequences? What's the collateral damage going to be for legislation of this nature, which is going to have effects in different circumstances?
We've had people come and testify who have some knowledge of how drugs are used in this country. I'm thinking particularly of marijuana, because that's something that gets a lot of attention since we have people able to grow their own sometimes. We have provisions here making that a significant offence, again, if we interpret trafficking in a certain way. Someone who grows a few marijuana plants in their back garden or some place and gives them away is trafficking. Now, if someone wants to say that is trafficking and that's an offence and that person should go to jail for a year, if that's the approach, then we have to ask ourselves whether that makes sense. Is that a way to somehow make our society safer? And what would that do? If you make that even harder to do, then do you open the door to other drugs that people might seek out, which are easier to hide, harder to detect, more dangerous, and more uncertain, drugs that are being used by people who have no idea what's in them?
We have to have a sensible approach towards these things. You can't just say, “Well, it's trafficking, and they're drugs, and therefore A plus B equals C, and there are criminals who should be thrown in jail as a result of that.”
We have this body of opinion that seems, at least on the one hand, to say that we want to be tough on crime. But then we have experts who say that studies and statistics and experience indicate that tough-on-crime policies don't work, that they waste money, and that they often make crime worse.
We have expert evidence of people saying that longer sentences, fuller jails, and tougher treatment of young people don't lead to safer communities, make it harder to achieve rehabilitation, and lead to more crime and more victims. Is that a debate that should take place in five minutes on a particular provision of this legislation? I don't think people think that's reasonable.
I think Canadian citizens expect their legislators to give more thought, debate, and consideration to these provisions, and try to come to some reasonable legislation that will actually protect the public, instead of putting on ideological blinders and saying we're tough on crime and that's going to make our streets safer. If it's not going to have that effect, then we shouldn't be doing it. That's just one clause that needs to have more than five minutes of attention if we're going to consider how to improve this legislation--make it better and more sensible.
That brings me to the whole question of minimum sentences. We have a judicial system in Canada that is not perfect, but that's why we have courts of appeal. We appoint judges and we pay them very well. They have legal training and they're given responsibility for the administration of justice. They have been given responsibility for trying crimes and determining sentences--determining appropriate sentences in particular cases. Now this government is saying we're going to throw that out in a large number of circumstances. We're saying that regardless of the individual circumstances of the offender himself, or the individual circumstances of a particular crime, we're going to say to these highly paid, intelligent, experienced judges that they shall not determine the sentence. That will be laid down in the Criminal Code.
Those of us who have practised law for a long time know many judges. We know many judges who have been doing this work in the courts for their careers. Frankly, they find that this type of legislation of minimum sentences...it is not an insult to them, in the sense that...they take their role seriously; their job is to implement the law.