Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 16 - 30 of 128
View Rob Moore Profile
CPC (NB)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
In many of our ridings, and indeed across Canada, there is a serious crisis when it comes to drugs. Much has been said about Bill C-5, about so-called simple possession. Again, in the same vein as the mandatory minimums, simple possession of drugs is not what is contemplated in this piece of legislation. In fact, it deals with importing, exporting, trafficking and the production of schedule I and schedule II drugs, which include heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine, etc.
These are, first, serious drugs, and second, serious crimes. They have absolutely nothing to do with simple possession. Bill C-5 eliminates the mandatory minimum penalty for trafficking, importing, exporting and distribution. Our amendment, CPC-12, maintains a six-month mandatory minimum penalty for importing and exporting illegal substances. As has been the case with many of the Conservative amendments, there is an attempt to bridge the divide between us and the government, which is seeking to eliminate many mandatory minimum penalties. We feel there is a place for them when we are talking about taking drugs off our streets and going after the people who are causing this scourge in our society.
This would maintain a six-month mandatory minimum for importing and exporting illegal substances.
View Rob Moore Profile
CPC (NB)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Because we're on a new clause, I'll say that this is production of a substance. Those substances include crystal meth, or methamphetamine. Schedule I and schedule II include cocaine and heroin. I haven't heard any of this in the discussion led by the government.
In the House of Commons and in their press conferences, you will hear them say that this is about simple possession. That conjures up an image of somebody walking down the street with a joint. It does not conjure up an image of a trafficker outside of a school, someone with a facility that produces crystal meth or someone importing drugs across our border into Canada to devastate lives.
I think Mr. Brock mentioned that he did a Google search. Every day in our local newspapers wherever you live.... I live in a suburban area. Whether you're rural, suburban or urban, this is happening all over Canada. I think it sends a terrible message that this Parliament, certainly without the support of the Conservative Party, would say for production of a schedule I or schedule II drug for importing, exporting and possession for the purposes of exporting, trafficking.... People know what that means.
I think Canadians, when this comes out, and it will.... Everyone is busy in their day-to-day lives. They're very aware of the opioid crisis and other crises involving drugs in our community. I think the more Canadians see of this, the more upsetting it's going to be, because these are the people who are preying on children, all of our children. These are the people who are causing death, destruction, suicide and bankruptcy. We see it all over this country. If this passes, we're saying that, if you produce methamphetamine, if you produce crystal meth, you won't necessarily receive any time if you're convicted of that offence.
That's what we're saying here. I know most of you are probably aware of that, but I think it needs to be said. I think it needs to be very clear, before we cast our vote, that we're saying to our constituents that we think someone who is producing crystal meth, someone who takes that crystal meth and sells it outside of a school to children, we're saying as a Parliament that the person will not necessarily serve any jail time. There will be no mandatory minimum penalty, a mandatory minimum penalty that has existed for years within our Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.
We're all aware of it. I think this is very timely in the same way that gun crime is in the news every day. It's in the news because we're dealing with it. The opioid crisis is front and centre. It's an absolute crisis causing devastation.
I don't think it's overstating it to say that this is going to cause incredible damage. When we send the message that we're going soft on traffickers, importers, exporters and producers of crystal meth, methamphetamine, cocaine, heroin, etc....
I will be strongly voting against this clause.
View Rob Moore Profile
CPC (NB)
On a point of order, I'm just wondering if the parliamentary secretary is going to make that clarification before every clause we vote on. We're all experienced parliamentarians here. When you say we're voting on clause 17, it means we're voting on clause 17. Then when you say we're voting on clause 18, it means we're voting on clause 18. I don't think we need that clarification before every vote.
View Rob Moore Profile
CPC (NB)
Mr. Chair, this was recommended to me by one of the provincial attorneys general. Their concern is under “Warnings and referrals”. It would remove the word “consent” to not allow individuals to refuse to go for a referral for addictions treatment, but it would allow them to refuse once they have the referral.
This is to make sure that individuals who are referred to addictions treatment and then consent to addictions treatment would be able to get the help they need.
View Rob Moore Profile
CPC (NB)
Mr. Chair, on a point of order, it's a Friday heading into the long weekend. This meeting is scheduled to go from one to three, your time. It's currently four o'clock, so we're an hour over. There was no motion to extend the meeting. I think we've all been operating in good faith, but now we're seeing amendments.
I remember the clerk asking for amendments, through you, Chair. You asked for amendments last week, which the Conservative Party provided. Now we're seeing amendments that have just been recently tabled and we're continuing to see amendments.
If I thought there was a chance it would pass, I would move a motion to adjourn, but I suspect that the NDP would support the Liberals in keeping this meeting going into the evening, as they did last time. I'm just a little concerned as to how many more amendments we are going to see.
To do this job properly, as I think Mr. Fortin had said, we need to see and study these amendments. Unless it's an emergency, we don't drop amendments as we're dealing with the clause. That's just asking for delays. This meeting has already been delayed for over an hour.
I fear that we're going to have more unnecessary delays if we continue to table-drop technical amendments that have an impact but that have not in any way, shape or form been explained to us. I would ask for an explanation of these amendments and subamendments and then an undertaking for, in the future, when we have government legislation....
Remember, this is government legislation and now we're talking about government amendments. We need to get them in on time.
View Rob Moore Profile
CPC (NB)
On amendment 15, this would require—and this exists in a lot of Criminal Code legislation—a review of the legislation on the third anniversary of the day on which it comes into force. This would allow us as parliamentarians to have an understanding of the impact on our communities of the passage of Bill C-5, should it pass.
View Rob Moore Profile
CPC (NB)
Mr. Chair, I'm getting a major echo back. I don't know if the rest of you are.
I could accept the subamendment as a friendly amendment.
View Rob Moore Profile
CPC (NB)
No, it's good now.
View Rob Moore Profile
CPC (NB)
Some of these clauses are similar, but I'm just wondering if the department can give us a brief description of the effect if we choose as a committee to adopt clause 1.
View Rob Moore Profile
CPC (NB)
Mr. Chair, I want to just flesh this out a little bit because, frankly, in the context of the committee meetings we've had.... We haven't had a ton of them. I think we had seven where we heard witnesses, and today's meeting is our eighth. Just for clarification, when we talk about the mandatory minimum penalties in these sections, this is on someone who has already been convicted of the same offence, so now they've been convicted twice of, for example, weapons trafficking or possession for the purpose of weapons trafficking.
Frankly, a lot of the discussion that happened and witness testimony at committee were couched in the terms that this was someone who got caught up in an unfortunate incident or someone who had a few drinks and shot the side of a barn. For this section, are we talking about, for sections 85, 95, 99, 100 and 103, someone who has this as their second offence? Is there a minimum on their first offence? Do any of these...? This says, “second or subsequent”.
I guess I'm a bit familiar. In a previous government, when there was a mandatory minimum penalty of four years for certain gun crimes and because of the issue of recidivism, which is basically the same person committing the same types of crimes over and over, we brought in a change to the law that meant that, on your subsequent offence, it would be five years and then after that, seven. I think that's where it kind of landed. I think originally it was four, seven and 10, or something like that, but eventually it landed at four, five and seven, I think.
I just want the committee to be 100% clear, because I don't think it ever came up in our witness testimony. Are we only talking in this clause about someone who's already been convicted of a prior offence in the same section of the Criminal Code?
View Rob Moore Profile
CPC (NB)
I should be asking these through you, Chair, but I want to flesh out a couple of things here.
The list of offences that are subsequent is broader than the list of offences that predicate the triggering of the mandatory minimum. On those offences, for the first offence, is there a mandatory minimum attached to each and every one of those first offences? I think there is on some of them, but is there a mandatory minimum penalty at first offence for weapons trafficking and for possession for the purpose of weapons trafficking?
View Rob Moore Profile
CPC (NB)
View Rob Moore Profile
CPC (NB)
This legislation touches on a lot of different offences. There are different offences, different impacts and, I would argue, different levels of seriousness. Obviously, they're all Criminal Code offences, but, no doubt, we as a committee may feel that some of them are more serious than others. Of those five you've been speaking about—85, 95, 99, 100 and 103—is it possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm with ammunition? I remember this case.... Is that the only one of the five that has been challenged and the mandatory minimum found unconstitutional?
To follow up, could you walk us through why this discussion isn't moot? While the mandatory minimum in this narrow case was struck down, it remains a trigger for the escalation for subsequent offences. Is that why this conversation isn't moot, since the court, in that case, struck it down? While we know.... The government's own backgrounder suggested that, I think, mandatory minimums were struck down in 48% of cases, meaning that, in 52% of cases, they were upheld. We acknowledge there are cases where they've been struck down and there are cases where they've been considered and upheld.
Could you walk us through the effect of that one offence being struck down, and why it still matters in the context of this clause?
Results: 16 - 30 of 128 | Page: 2 of 9

|<
<
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data