Public Safety committee  Judges currently have discretionary power with respect to mandatory minimum sentences, which are already part of the Criminal Code. For a first conviction, the penalty is a $1,000 fine. The sentence is 30 days of imprisonment for a second conviction and 120 days for a third convi

Public Safety committee  I will not criticize judges. I won't do that. Over the past two or three years, we have started to see a drop in the number of cases. It's true that a lot of progress was made in the 1980s and 1990s, when records were set in this area. In 2009, the Standing Committee on Justice

Public Safety committee  The random stopping is definitely possible. I think we all know that if an officer indicates to us that we are to stop and pull to the side of the road, then we are obliged to do so, and that's under provincial law. As I said, once you roll down the window, he'll start asking yo

Public Safety committee  I'm not an expert on the Ontario Highway Traffic Act. I do know they run RIDE programs in which they pull everybody over at random. I shouldn't say everybody. They fill it up, and they talk to those people, and then when they're finished with them they bring in some new people. I

Public Safety committee  There are laws for various types of random breath testing. It's hard to be sure in how many countries. I have a document here from the World Health Organization that claims there are 121 countries that have some form of it. I'm dubious of that number. A paper was produced by Prof

Public Safety committee  Again, I would say we would expect a challenge. I would say, however, that the power to stop someone at random flows out of provincial legislation and common law, and it has been upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada on several occasions. What is different here is that instead

Public Safety committee  There will undoubtedly be a constitutional challenge to any higher mandatory minimum penalties. I think it would be fair to say that the bill introduces a higher mandatory minimum penalty for a fourth offence by someone reconvicted of impaired driving. It also introduces higher

Justice committee  Thirty plants could perhaps, in the long term, produce three kilograms.

Justice committee  He could be accused of trafficking because he is doing so by giving the joint to someone else. He could be charged with trafficking, but he would not be subject to a minimum sentence because the joint does not contain three kilograms of marijuana. Certain factors must be establis

Justice committee  For the substances listed in schedule I, that is cocaine and others, it is immediately in effect when we are talking about trafficking. It is not like marijuana, for which there is a caveat under paragraph a.1). In that case, three kilograms is the trigger point when we are talki

Justice committee  We are not dealing with the rules that deal with simple possession. They come under section 4, and there are no minimum sentences.

Justice committee  For trafficking, under section 5, that is where we start to see minimum sentences, if we can establish the seven circumstances mentioned in the legislation. It would be one or two years, if that can be established. However, as far as marijuana is concerned, it must be more than w

Justice committee  It would be from three kilograms.

Justice committee  Again, it's an issue of moving them from schedule III, where the maximums are much lower, to schedule I, where the maximums are higher. It will be like dealing in cocaine, etc. Again, I don't have the experience in the field and I don't know why there wasn't much discussion of th

Justice committee  The first thing, obviously, with respect to methamphetamine is the rescheduling to schedule I from schedule III, which greatly increases the penalties. That's in clause 6. The aggravating factors do aim at the commerce--I guess that's the best way to put it. I use that term becau