Evidence of meeting #37 for Public Safety and National Security in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was chair.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp

Thank you.

Are there further comments? Seeing none, all in favour of amendment NDP-1?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We will now go to amendment LIB-2.

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC

Mr. Chair, this amendment takes out sections on page 4, going from lines 32 to 35 in clause 4. We're asking to delete those lines. It's going to refer to paragraph 56.1(3)(z.1) later on, which says: “any prescribed information that is submitted in the prescribed manner.”

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp

Thank you very much.

Any further comments? Seeing none—

Mrs. James.

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON

We're opposing this for the same reasons that I stated with regard to the first amendment that was put forward.

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp

Thank you very much.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We will now go to amendment NDP-2.

3:45 p.m.

NDP

Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC

I'd like to move the amendment as submitted, Mr. Chair, and turn it over to Ms. Davies.

3:45 p.m.

NDP

Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC

Thank you very much, Chairperson.

On this particular amendment, again, we believe that the bill before us is so narrow in its interpretation and reference. In the original Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, there was flexibility. There were references to “scientific purpose or...otherwise in the public interest”, and this has been removed. This particular wording would ensure that it is still in the bill.

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp

Thank you very much for that explanation.

Mr. Norlock.

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Rick Norlock Conservative Northumberland—Quinte West, ON

Thank you very much.

I oppose the amendment due to the fact that the bill is designed to create two separate exemption regimes, one for licit substances—that is, substances obtained in a manner authorized by the CDSA and/or its regulations—and the second for illicit substances such as street drugs.

For licit substances, exemption applications would still be considered for the activities falling under three categories, and they are medical, scientific, and public interest. For applications for activities involving illicit substances, the categories under which an application would be considered would be medical, law enforcement, or a prescribed purpose.

The regulation-making authorities proposed in the act reflect the structure of the proposed two separate exemption regimes, and for that reason I oppose the amendment.

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp

Thank you, Mr. Norlock.

Is there further discussion?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 4 agreed to)

(On clause 5)

We will now go to clause 5 and amendment NDP-3.

3:45 p.m.

NDP

Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC

Mr. Chair, once again I'd like to move the amendment as submitted, and I turn it over to Ms. Davies for an explanation.

3:45 p.m.

NDP

Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm being very brief in my comments because I realize we're under a very severe time restraint, so I'm saying not all that needs to be said, but just a sort of shortcut.

We put in this particular amendment because, again, we're very concerned that it's gutting the original intent of the bill. It's about narrowing the discretion of the federal health minister. It really gets to the heart of the Supreme Court of Canada decision, because it limits the safety valve that's offered in the CDSA against a blanket prohibition. The way this is written is very problematic, and we think this amendment will at least preserve some of the flexibility that was already in the CDSA.

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp

Thank you very much.

Mrs. Ablonczy.

November 5th, 2014 / 3:50 p.m.

Conservative

Diane Ablonczy Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB

Mr. Chair, because there are so many complexities around this issue, around the decision that the minister will be asked to make, the act is designed so that changes to what the minister must consider can only be done by Parliament. This amendment would allow just the cabinet to make those changes. As I say, because there's such a public impact, we really believe that it's better for Parliament to be making that decision as a whole.

Although I understand Ms. Davies' rationale, I really think it's a matter for Parliament, so I wouldn't be supportive of moving the discretion back to cabinet.

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp

Thank you very much.

Is there further discussion?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We will go to the Parti Vert and amendment PV-1.

Mr. Garrison.

3:50 p.m.

NDP

Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC

Mr. Chair, if we weren't in the current circumstances where we have such severe time limits, I would be happy to move motions on behalf of Ms. May. Given that she's not here to do the explanations and we have severe time limits, I will not be moving the motion on her behalf.

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp

The chair has been advised that it is deemed moved.

3:50 p.m.

NDP

Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC

It's deemed moved?

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp

Pursuant to the routine motion that was adopted by the committee, once it has been presented, it's deemed to be moved.

Mrs. James.

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON

I have to ask a question on this. Once we get past a certain section or a clause, we have to vote on the overall clause. How can we have a motion before us that we haven't yet voted on? Does that mean we have to leave the clause until the end?

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp

The chair doesn't follow you.

3:50 p.m.

A voice

It's an amendment.

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON

Okay. Sorry.

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp

Mr. Garrison.

3:50 p.m.

NDP

Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC

Not to prolong this, but under our routine motions, I thought—and correct me, I'm probably wrong—the wording was that if they're submitted by a member of the committee, they would be deemed to be moved. Ms. May is not a member of the committee.