http://openparliament.ca/committees/justice/41-1/15/kyle-seeback-1/
Kyle Seeback
Hill Office
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario
Canada
K1A 0A6
Telephone: 613-995-5381
Fax: 613-995-6796
Mail may be sent postage-free to any Member of Parliament.
Constituency Office(s)
160 Main Street South (Main Office)
Unit 29
Brampton, Ontario
L6W 2E1
Telephone: 905-846-0076
Fax: 905-846-3901.png)
strong oppose
****
November 23rd, 2011 / 8:05 p.m.
Conservative
Kyle Seeback
Brampton West, ON
"....
Section 5 of the
Controlled Drugs and Substances Act deals with trafficking. Subsection
5(1) starts out by saying, “No persons shall traffic in a substance
included in Schedule I, II, III or IV”. So when they're seeking to amend
that section, they're trying to take out schedule II from trafficking.
Schedule II, if we look through it, deals with marijuana and marijuana
derivatives.
What the NDP are
proposing to say is that there should not be mandatory minimum penalties
for people who are trafficking in marijuana. I think everyone should
understand that, because in my estimation that is an extreme position.
I'm going to go through a few things to explain why I believe that is such an extreme and unsupportable position.
I'll start with a quote
that we have right here. This is from Chief Superintendent Fraser McRae
from the RCMP Operational Intelligence Centre in Surrey, where he states
“...what can't be debated is that cannabis is a currency for organized
crime.”
So organized crime
traffics in marijuana and the NDP is saying that we should remove that
so there's not a mandatory minimum penalty.
I've noticed that only
today on the news we hear of a large drug bust that was going on in
Quebec that dealt with the Hells Angels, and of course they seized large
amounts of marijuana. Again, simply to reiterate, the trafficking of
marijuana is the lifeblood of organized crime, so when we are including
that in this legislation it's to target things like that, trafficking in
marijuana.
What we also know is that
the argument that is being put forth on the other side is that somehow
this legislation is a little too difficult. What about the poor person
who is only growing six, seven, or eight plants in their basement? They
might be affected by this legislation.
In my discussions with
police officers, and in a little research I've done, a marijuana plant
can produce between 500 and 1,000 joints, depending on how large it
grows. So if you're looking at someone who has six plants of marijuana,
this is a person who could be producing 6,000 joints. This is not the
poor misguided person who wants to have some personal use. This is
somebody who is growing marijuana for the purpose of trafficking. That's
exactly why this section needs to stay in the legislation.
When we talk about some
of the comments that I just heard from Madame Boivin, saying that this
legislation does not do anything to support victims, that is strange to
me, because as I sat on this committee I watched victim group after
victim group come forward and stand here and say strongly, “We need this
legislation. We want this legislation.” The reason why they talk about
it is because—and my colleague commented on this—this legislation
changes so many sections of the Criminal Code to give a sentence that
fits the crime, and it restores faith in the justice system.
...
"
No comments:
Post a Comment