Health Committee on Sept. 20th, 2016

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

—“, probation, furlough, or parole relating to a drug offence,” and then I think the rest of the paragraph can continue.

I'll speak to that briefly, colleagues. We've all heard the evidence, so I won't belabour the point, but Mr. McKinnon's very laudable goal in this is to save lives, and we want to remove impediments to people at the scene calling 911.

We've heard directly from the witnesses. In fact, I think we've heard that being charged with possession is one factor, but it actually may not even be the main factor for people at a drug scene not calling 911. I believe that if we're going to make a dent in this, we should actually be evidence-based. The evidence that we've heard before this committee makes it very clear that those are the reasons people are not calling 911, and we want to do everything we can to encourage doing so.

I think it's an easy amendment. If we're going to be giving immunity to people for having possession of heroin, then a breach of probation for being in possession of heroin should also be a factor. Many people come out of jail. Just about every single person who comes out of jail on probation has a condition that they have to stay away from drugs and alcohol. Very often those people are drug addicts.

In fact, the public safety committee several years ago did a study and found that 80% of offenders inside our federal corrections system suffer from an addiction. It's epidemic. They come out of jail. Very many of them, not having access to treatment, start using drugs again. If they're shooting drugs in Vancouver or Ottawa or Toronto and are in breach of their probation for being in possession of them and can be arrested for the breach of probation, then this bill is not going to do anything. It's not going to encourage that person to call the police.

Now I'll—

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Chair, I'm wondering if we should call the vote.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

You can't. I have the floor right now, Mr. Oliver. I'm speaking. You can't interrupt to call the vote.

I'm speaking to my amendment. The reason that this is particularly important is that if we pass this bill and, as the evidence suggested, people are only immune from possession, and then it turns out that we give people a false sense of immunity and they then are arrested for these other offences, we may run the risk of spreading among drug users the idea that they shouldn't call police. That's counterproductive to what I believe Mr. McKinnon's objective is.

We have an opportunity to act on this right now. For people who say this will cause delay, it won't cause delay. We can vote on this right now and get the law right, right now. I can't think of a principled reason for anybody's being opposed to broadening this to include the suite of reasons for which people don't call 911, when the evidence before us is that this is why they don't.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Mr. Davies, we're running out of time here; in fact, we're out of time.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Those are my submissions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

I think that everybody probably agrees with you in principle—I can't say that for sure—but I'm advised that your amendment does not fit within the scope of the bill and is not admissible, so I can't accept the amendment. Even though I might agree with it, I can't accept it.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I find that preposterous. The title of the bill is the “good Samaritan drug overdose act”. The purpose of the bill is to give immunity to people from criminal prosecution for a drug offence. Broadening that to include another type of drug offence has to be within the scope of the bill. How could that possibly not be within the scope of the bill?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Well, I'm advised that it's not within the scope of the bill, and we're out of time—

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Can I get an explanation of why it's not within the scope of the bill?

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Chair, we're out of time. Could we call the vote, because we're out of time, and maybe explanations could happen after the committee's....

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Can we call a vote on an amendment that is not admissible?

[A voice]

No.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

We can't call a vote on a motion that's not admissible.

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Can we call the vote on the original motion?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Yes, we can call....

I think the rule—

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

May I say just one thing?

We have been quite loose in procedure, but there are a few things that are not working well in this committee.

First, people are talking when they're not recognized, and second, we keep going out of order. We have an order of business on the floor. I appreciate that Mr. Oliver may not like what we're dealing with here and may want to rush to the vote, but we have business that precedes that on the floor. We can't just dispense with it because we want to get to the end.

I have put forward an amendment, and apparently we have advice from the clerk that this is not within the scope of the bill. I challenge that. I'd like to hear an explanation of why this is outside the scope of the bill, given what I've just said.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

I'm going to ask the clerk to speak to it.

[Philippe Méla]

The bill looks at exempting from prosecution somebody who calls 911 or calls for help, if they are in possession of drugs. As you pointed out, you broaden the scope. Just by saying “broaden the scope”, you're going beyond the scope of what was adopted at second reading, which was to limit the scope to that possession. If you go over by adding trafficking, or other suggestions that you made, you are broadening the scope, and therefore going over what was adopted by the House at second reading. That's the reason.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Yes.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Chairman, first of all, “broaden the scope” as a term of art describing what you can amend at committee is not the same as my use of the vernacular “broaden the scope of the bill”. What my amendment does is it adds other examples of immunity; it does not broaden the scope of the bill. The scope of the bill is to grant immunity from prosecution. It simply adds other examples, so I would challenge that ruling, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Look, I'm going to rule the motion inadmissible, and I'm going to call the vote on the original bill.

All right, I'm going to call the vote—

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Chair, I challenge your ruling that the—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

You can appeal the ruling—

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I can't appeal it. I'm challenging your ruling, and I would call for a recorded vote on my challenge that my amendment is outside the scope of the bill.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

The motion is now that the Chair's call that the amendment is not admissible be sustained. The vote is to support my decision or not, and it is a recorded vote.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 6; nays 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Thank you very much.

I'm sorry that this worked out that way, but those are the rules.

We have to go back now to clause-by-clause study.

Shall clause 2 carry?

Shall the bill carry?