Justice committee  Then yes, certainly.

Justice committee  There is trafficking. Are we discussing three kilograms of marijuana?

Justice committee  In the case of marijuana, he would have to offer him three kilograms to trigger the process for minimum sentences. If he gave him one plant, it would be different. Whether it was grown for the purposes of trafficking would then have to be established.

Justice committee  He would be found guilty of trafficking and not of production of marijuana.

Justice committee  No, we do not agree on that, Mr. Ménard. Plants are another story. People do not really traffic in plants. They grow them. In the case of the trafficking of marijuana, we are talking about joints, as we say in English.

Justice committee  They will start to apply at three kilograms. This is found in schedule VII.

Justice committee  When we were carrying out our study on the decriminalization of marijuana—which you may recall—the Americans were of the opinion that one plant equalled 100 grams. As a result, according to the American system, it would be approximately 30 plants. I had done some research on the Internet.

Justice committee  No. The plants are another story altogether. When we talk about plants, we are talking about production. The mandatory minimums apply fully, even in the case of a single plant, if it is for the purpose of trafficking.

Justice committee  You're talking about a single plant for their own use?

Justice committee  If there's trafficking, yes, but the intent to traffic must be proven.

Justice committee  I really have no opening statement. It was my understanding there were some technical questions about how the bill worked, and particularly whether a person who traffics in one joint to a friend is subject to the minimums. The answer to that, quite shortly, is no, because that particular section, which is the amendment to the new paragraph 5(3)(a) begins with, “subject to paragraph (a.1),” and (a.1) goes on to state: “if the subject matter of the offence is a substance included in Schedule II”--obviously cannabis--“in an amount that is not more than the amount set out for that substance in Schedule VII,”--which is three kilograms--“is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years less a day”.

Public Safety committee  Those are very rough calculations, I would point out. In fact, they're based on the current designated offence list, and if we went to the same as on arrest, it would be all indictable offences. So the number would be higher, but we'd have a lot of people who were recidivists, etc.

Public Safety committee  It does, very significantly. Under the primary designated offences, the court is not required to make the order if it is satisfied that the person has established that the impact of such an order on their privacy and security of the person would be grossly disproportionate to the public interests and the protection of society and the proper administration of justice, whereas if you are in the secondaries, it says: In deciding whether to make the order...the court shall consider the person’s criminal record, whether they were previously found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for a designated offence, the nature of the offence, the circumstances surrounding its commission and the impact such an order would have on the person’s privacy and security of the person There is much more to be considered, but the really significant difference is that the crown must apply for the secondary, whereas a judge shall make the order for primary “unless...”.

Public Safety committee  It may seem surprising, but when I read this question, I did not know what study they were referring to. I did not even know that the Department of Justice was researching effectiveness. We have had discussions, but it's not something we've done to date. I cannot speak for Public Safety Canada.

Public Safety committee  I'm not sure the word “routinely” is there. There have been appeals. One of the things that's happened with Bill C-13 and Bill C-18 is that we've provided for a 90-day window, when people forget to make the application. It's my understanding, through an ad hoc federal-provincial group of prosecutors we consult with as to how it's going, that most provinces have developed standard procedures.