Debates of May 27th, 2003

Supply

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Chair, in recent months, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human RIghts has had the opportunity to address the problem of suspended sentences.

As the minister is no doubt aware, a number of parties, including provincial justice ministers, raised the possibility of ensuring that violent crimes would not be treated the same way as offences where suspended sentences are allowed. If memory serves, the provincial ministers were unanimous on this.

How does the federal justice Minister intend to respond to these oft-repeated requests not to allow suspended sentences for violent crimes?

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Chair, this was touched on briefly at the start of the debate. We are very much aware that it is something that keeps cropping up regularly.

The sentencing mechanism to which our colleague is referring has four years of practical application behind it. We are reviewing it at present. The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights is dealing with it and the issue has also been raised at meetings with colleagues on the federal, provincial and territorial levels.

That said, I will be waiting to see what the committee's recommendations will be, since they have the mandate to review application of this sentencing mechanism.

I must also point out that the Supreme Court has also addressed the matter and discussed it at great length. As well, it must be acknowledged that this sentence must be applied and used in a context in which the individual, while displaying criminal tendencies, does not pose a threat to society. This has been repeated numerous times.

Time being short, I will simply say that the issue is before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and I await its recommendations.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Chair, even though I did not want to see the minister pre-empt the committee's work, I would have liked him to comment on this. I would have liked to know what he thinks about this.

Of course, the Minister of Justice knows that the Quebec Superior Court, the Divisional Court of Ontario, and the British Columbia Court of Appeal have all ruled that same sex marriages should be allowed in Canada. He also knows that three rulings in that direction give us a good idea of the future orientation of Canadian case law.

Has the minister decided if he will file an appeal against the British Columbia Court of Appeal's May 1 decision authorizing same sex marriages? If I remember correctly, he has until the end of June to decide. So has he made a decision yet?

The federal government is filing an appeal against the Divisional Court of Ontario's decision on this issue; can the minister tell the House how much the appeal before the Ontario Court of Appeal will cost the federal government? Does he know how much it could cost to file an appeal before the Supreme Court against the decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal?

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as far as costs are concerned, for a major portion of these applications, this is essentially a matter of speculation. Thus, it is a hypothetical question.

But for costs already incurred, if my colleague wants this information, I can have this looked into and give him an answer.

The question I was asked is important in terms of social development. Last summer, when facing some court decisions, we decided to mandate the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to look into this. If we look at the situation we are facing now, it no doubt involves the courts, but also parliamentarians as a whole, because, as I mentioned, it is an extremely important social issue.

After receiving its mandate, the justice committee proceeded to carry out extended consultations. It also heard many witnesses. I am told that these consultations are now over and that the committee is expected to table its report very soon.

Of course, you will understand that I will wait to see the committee's report and recommendations, because I have a lot of respect for its work. I believe that, before taking a stand, it is important to wait for its recommendations.

As my colleague mentioned, a number of decisions have been handed down in Quebec and in Ontario, and also recently in British Columbia, where the Court of Appeal has essentially declared that the existing definition of marriage is invalid and illegal under section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We are certainly analyzing all these decisions.

As my colleague also mentioned, a decision will have to be made soon about the possibility of going to the Supreme Court. But before doing so, we will carefully analyze all the decisions, as well as the report and the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Chair, in view of the fact that the minister has recognized that he has great respect for the work that has been done by the committee, work that was done very professionally, will the minister feel bound by the recommendations the committee will be making very shortly in the report, which will hopefully be available before mid-June, giving him a few days to decide whether or not to appeal to the Supreme Court.

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Chair, I will leave it up to the parliamentary process and all that it means, that is that the committee is doing its work. In this case, to reiterate what my colleague said, I know that the committee has done a great job and consulted many people. It also travelled extensively across Canada. It really went to great lengths to meet individuals and groups.

There will be recommendations, but the minister of Justice is not bound by the recommendations made by a committee. In view of all the work that has already been done, the package of recommendations will undoubtedly be analyzed thoroughly. In fact, the report will be a very important part of the process and will undoubtedly have a significant impact on the government's decision. But other elements will also have to be taken into account.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Chair, still on the issue of the work done by committees, I would just like to make a correction. I did not ask the minister whether he would be bound, but whether he would feel bound by the work done by the Standing Committee on Justice.

There is also another committee that does excellent work, namely the Special Committee on Non-Medical Use of Drugs. The announcement made by the minister today on the changes to the government approach with regard to marijuana obviously raises several questions.

The first question is this. The minister went to Washington on May 13 to inform the American government of the decision and the direction that the Canadian government was taking on this issue. It was noticed, in the bill that was distributed to us today, that it was printed and finalized on May 14, which is the day after the visit to Washington.

Can the minister tell us what the input of the American government was on this issue and why was the bill not introduced in the House before being discussed in Washington?

According to the normal legislative process, foreign governments should have been asked for their input on this during the consultation process that will be undertaken by the committee, and not before members of this House had a chance to see and study this bill.

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Chair, the meeting I had with my American colleague is part of a series of annual meetings. Such meetings take place between my colleague Mr. Ashcroft and me, as well as between the solicitor general and Mr. Ashcroft. As you know, there is close cooperation between our two countries.

This cooperation has been longstanding, and it will go on. This cooperation can be found in numerous areas. Those areas have to do with economic development but, in this particular case, they have to do with the fight against crime. Today, crime knows no borders. Good cooperation between countries is important.

That being said, what needs to be understood is that the two countries share exactly the same vision in the fight against crime and more specifically the fight against drug use and also drug dealers. We might use different approaches but, at the end of the day, the goals are exactly the same. Moreover, there is a great deal of mutual respect towards each other's jurisdiction and legislation.

The legislation we have put forward has been written by the Canadian government, for the Canadian people, taking into account our goals and the messages we wish to send as a Canadian government.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Chairman, in the whole debate on decriminalizing marijuana—even though the government seems to be allergic to the word, that is what we are talking about—the House of Commons committee that reviewed the issue came up with the idea of decriminalizing not only simple possession under 30 grams, but also growing marijuana in the same quantity. If I remember correctly it is recommendation 41 or 42 in the committee report.

I have three questions. First, why was that part of the recommendation on cultivation totally ignored?

Second, since the committee had suggested 30 grams, how did the minister come up with 15 grams? What swayed him in favour of this quantity?

Third, does he not see a contradiction between decriminalizing simple possession—of less than 15 grams—and making it illegal to grow marijuana for personal use? In his announcement today he stated that he had created a new growing infraction starting with one to three plants. This would force marijuana consumers to buy on the black market which, for the most part, is run by the underworld as we all know. Does the minister not see a contradiction between his stated desire to stop drug trafficking and the fact that he is forcing people who want to smoke marijuana—which we discourage—to get their supply on the black market when they could very well grow small quantities of marijuana for their own use?

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Chair, the answer is simple. The message we want to send to the Canadian public is that marijuana use and production is strictly illegal. Obviously, when we talk about use, what we have wanted and still want to achieve through our policy is to obtain the necessary tools to get people to stop smoking pot.

If we look at what has happened in the last few years, we see that there has been an increase in use. So there will be a zero tolerance policy. We want people to stop smoking pot. It is a substance which is strictly illegal and which is harmful for society as a whole.

It follows that, if smoking is strictly illegal, growing is also strictly illegal. This is why we have decided to increase the penalties, and to even double them in some cases. Currently, the legislation provides for a maximum of seven years in prison. With the new legislation, people could face up to 14 years in prison.

As for the 30 grams recommended by the committee, this quantity was mentioned because there currently is a special system concerning a quantity of zero to 30 grams. For this quantity, we intend to resort to summary convictions.

Now, as for the quantity that we have chosen, 15 grams, as I have already explained today, that has given rise to much debate. We examined what is being done elsewhere in the world. Some countries have chosen 100 grams, others less. There are countries where there are no limits. What we figured is that when those limits were established, marijuana was a less potent drug. Today, marijuana is a lot more potent. It seemed reasonable for us to set the limit at 15 grams.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Chair, I guess this will be my last question.

The minister, whom I listened to carefully when he was interviewed on television, on Maisonneuve à l'écoute , said earlier that one of the problems he hopes to solve with the new strategy announced today is the lack of consistent law enforcement. Often, in an urban setting, police will turn a blind eye, which is not the case in a rural setting, for instance.

In leaving it up to the police as to whether they want to draw up an official statement, that is, to give a ticket, or to proceed by summary conviction for between 15 and 30 grams, does the minister not see that once again he may not achieve consistent enforcement, which is one of his own objectives and which is one of the objectives raised in the report of the House committee with regard to the non-therapeutic use of drugs?

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Chair, criminal law can seldom be enforced with full consistency across the country, because what we call discretion can always be used. But consistency is certainly possible as far as policy is concerned.

In this case, in reference to the whole body of recommendations, the two reports submitted last year by the two committees deal at length with the issue of disproportionate penalties that are being assessed nowadays. Because some 100,000 people use cannabis, we had to better procedures and a more proportionate penalties. If young people were charged under the current legislation, they would face criminals charges and end up with a criminal record.

The purpose of the new policy is to eliminate criminal records for possession of less than 15 grams. Discretion will be used in giving tickets and non-enforcement, but the objective of the policy that we want to have in place will be met.

[The Chair]

It being 11:55 p.m., all the votes are deemed to have been reported, pursuant to Standing Order 81. The committee will rise, and I will now leave the chair.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 11:55 p.m.)