Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in today's debate on Bill C-10.
As members are aware, the bill has been criticized on a number of grounds. One of the most frequent criticisms aimed at the bill was the fact that there were several amendments proposing mandatory minimum penalties, MMPs, for serious drug offences under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. No doubt, in part as a result of these criticisms, this part of the bill was subject to the greatest number of motions to amend. As we can see, in the end, that part of the bill was amended only once in committee.
As parliamentarians we have engaged in an impassioned debate on the issue of mandatory minimum penalties. In fact, for many parts of the bill the justice committee has spent 67 days hearing from 363 witnesses over the course of the last four years. That does not include the marathon sessions we spent at clause-by-clause consideration. I believe all members of the committee should be congratulated for their hard work. They put in a lot of hours and they worked very hard on this particular bill.
As I have just indicated, the minimum penalties for serious drug offences were often criticized. Some of the criticism appeared in the media and some was stated by witnesses appearing before the committee. I would like to take a few moments to deal with some of these criticisms.
One of the recurring criticisms of the mandatory minimum penalty provisions is that a person in possession of marijuana would receive a minimum penalty. I have to say that I found this particular criticism the most surprising. This is the fourth time that the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, in relation to provisions of the bill, has been before Parliament.
These provisions have been exhaustively examined by the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs and by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and they are clear. The Minister of Justice has appeared before these committees and he has repeatedly stated that these proposals do not apply to simple possession. He has frequently stated that the proposed mandatory minimum penalties would only apply to the most serious drug offences.
It is difficult to make it clear which offences do not fall under the ambit of these provisions, and yet this particular criticism continues to reappear. At this point I am forced to conclude that anyone who makes this criticism is of bad faith and that the criticism is only being made to suit other purposes.
Another criticism that is directed at the mandatory minimum provisions is the suggestion that someone who simply gives a joint of marijuana to a friend would be at risk of receiving the minimum penalty provided by the new provisions in the bill. The definition of trafficking in the CDSA includes giving a drug. Therefore, as a result, giving a joint would be necessarily caught by these new mandatory minimum provisions.
While it is true that giving a drug is included in the definition of trafficking, the provisions of the bill are clear. In order for the mandatory minimum provisions to apply to the offence of trafficking, there must exist one of the aggravating factors listed in the new provision dealing with trafficking. Here again the Minister of Justice has been clear: The application of mandatory minimum penalties would occur only if one or more of the listed aggravating factors were present during the commission of the offence.
A variation of this criticism has been that if a young adult were to give a marijuana joint to a friend while at school, the person giving the joint would be liable to a minimum penalty of two years' imprisonment. The argument here is that one of the aggravating factors is present, that trafficking has occurred in a school, and therefore the minimum penalty must apply.
Here again, the criticism is misplaced. Clause 39 of the bill at the very outset states that paragraph 5(3)(a) is subject to paragraph (a.1). Paragraph (a.1) provides a penalty of anyone trafficking in cannabis in an amount that is equal to or less than three kilograms. That penalty is a maximum term of imprisonment of up to five years.
The net effect of paragraphs 5(3)(a) and (a.1) taken together is to remove the offence of trafficking in amounts of three kilograms or less from the ambit of the minimum penalties for the offence of trafficking found in paragraph 5(3)(a). Therefore, a young person who gives a joint to a person while at school, were he or she to be prosecuted, would be liable to the ordinary penalty found in paragraph 5(3)(a.1) and not the minimum penalty of two years.
I would also like to say a few words about one of the motions directed at clause 43. This clause proposes a new subsection 10(4) to the CDSA which will allow a court to delay the imposition of the sentence so as to enable the offender to participate in a drug treatment program approved by the Attorney General, or to attend a treatment program under subsection 720(2) of the Criminal Code.
A significant number of individuals applying for admission into drug treatment courts are individuals who have committed prior serious drug offences, most notably trafficking and possession for the purposes of trafficking. These offenders would receive minimum penalties if the proposed mandatory minimum penalty regime is implemented.
Clause 43 creates an exemption from the application of mandatory minimum penalties for offenders who participate in treatment programs. These provisions will enable a judge to delay the application of the penalty while the offender participates in a treatment program, and will allow a judge to impose a penalty other than the minimum penalty if the offender successfully completes the treatment program.
The motion that I wish to comment on proposes adding a paragraph to clause 43. The new paragraph would add that the judge could delay sentencing for the offender convicted of a drug offence so he or she could attend and receive treatment for mental health issues, or attend a mental health treatment program approved by the Attorney General.
While I believe that this motion was well intentioned, I would like to point out that the provision being proposed in clause 43 is not necessarily for the treatment of drug-specific problems at the exclusion of all other problems that a drug offender may have. Indeed in my view, the reference to a treatment program under subsection 720(2) would allow a judge to permit the offender to attend any approved treatment program, including a program for mental health issues, provided of course there are treatment programs available and approved.
Our government recognizes that serious drug crimes, including marijuana grow operations and clandestine methamphetamine labs, continue to pose a threat to the safety of our streets and communities. Bill C-10 contains significant elements forming part of our strategy to address this problem.
The bill proposes amendments to strengthen the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act provisions regarding penalties for serious drug offences by ensuring these types of offences are punished by an imposition of mandatory minimum terms of imprisonment.
With these amendments, we are demonstrating this government's commitment to improving the safety and security of communities across Canada. Canadians want a justice system that has clear and strong laws that denounce and deter serious crimes, including serious drug crimes. They want laws that impose penalties that adequately reflect the serious nature of these crimes.
