Irwin Cotler

[Justice, October 26th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows, if he respects the parliamentary process, that the bill with respect to marijuana is right now before Parliament and before committees.

With regard to the issue of mandatory minimums, we indicated, as I have said, that we will be introducing a package which will have new offences, sentence enhancements, protection, and more effective law enforcement.

We are concerned with the very issues with which those members are concerned and we share this with them: the protection of public safety and the protection of all our citizens.

[Justice, October 26th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, as we indicated to the families, all the important issues which they raised are going to be the subject of our agenda at the federal-provincial-territorial meeting of ministers of justice.

We also indicated an approach with respect to specific initiatives regarding the concerns they had, and which we share, which we will begin to introduce tomorrow in the House of Commons.

[Justice, October 25th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, we respond in the way that the community would expect us to respond, which is to protect the safety of the community, to protect the security of citizens, and to have drug treatment courts, which have proven to be a model and are used internationally. We respond by having a law enforcement strategy in cooperation with the provinces and the municipalities, which is a model for federalism and combating drugs.

[Justice, October 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, once again the hon. member is mischaracterizing the legislation, which clearly states that drug use remains illegal even under the decriminalization and which was the unanimous recommendation of members of a parliamentary committee, including members of the party opposite.

We have also put this issue on the subject matter for the meeting of federal, provincial and territorial ministers of justice.

[Justice, October 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, we have engaged in a number of initiatives. We now have a tripartite package of reforms which will be introduced. The first will be amendments to the Criminal Code, the second by way of law enforcement, and the third by way of community and educational and economic initiatives.

[Justice, October 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is mischaracterizing the evidence given before that committee. What was said before that committee was that if we ask for a mandatory minimum of 10 years, then we are running the risk of it being declared unconstitutional, as the Supreme Court itself has indicated.

[Justice, October 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, as I have said on a number of occasions, it almost is counterintuitive to think that mandatory minimum penalties will not work. When I took on this responsibility, I assumed that mandatory minimums would work. They were already in the Criminal Code with regard to gun related offences, among others.

The point is that the evidence that has emerged suggests, and not only suggests but has concluded, that they do not work, with adverse consequences for the criminal justice system, but we are open to taking any initiatives that will help promote public safety.

[Justice, October 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, as the member opposite may not know, the matter is still before the courts because there are trials that have been ordered with regard to the co-accused.

With regard to conditional sentencing, we have said we will be introducing amendments so that no questions of sexual and violent offences will be liable for conditional sentencing.

[Justice, October 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, we did not dither. We acted immediately after a conference to that effect was held. This summer, on August 11, we moved to increase maximum penalties with regard to production and distribution to life imprisonment. We have also acted with regard to the regulation of precursors, so we have acted immediately.

[Justice, October 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have met with representative police associations and with families of crime victims. I went across the country this past summer and said that we were open to any initiative with respect to combating crime in the matter of mandatory minimums.

I have no aversion to mandatory minimums, neither personally nor professionally. I only look at the evidence and the evidence has demonstrated that such mandatory minimums are neither effective nor are they a deterrent.

We are still prepared to look at any initiatives that may assist in that regard.