Health Committee on Sept. 20th, 2016

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Shall the chair report the bill to the House?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I'm sorry, I would like to move an amendment to one of the clauses, Mr. Chairman, specifically when we get to proposed new subsection 4.1(2).

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

It was already adopted and carried.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

We were moving very quickly. I was expecting that we were going to go through this clause by clause. I did not hear that clause called. It went from short title to the whole bill.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

It is clause 2, and we had called for it to carry, and we received unanimous consent to carry it, and the title and the bill.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I would like to back it up a little bit, Mr. Chair.

I did not understand that. I'm working off a bill where I thought clause 2 was number 2, and I was waiting for numbers 4.1(1) and 4.1(2) to be called.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

We need unanimous consent to go back.

Do we have unanimous consent to go back and review clause 2?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Chair, could I speak to that?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Yes.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I don't know how we're going to operate as colleagues, but this is the very first time we've done clause-by-clause. We obviously moved extremely quickly. I have a right to move amendments, and I was waiting for that.

I would ask my colleagues to not rely on a quick technicality to prevent one of the members at this committee from moving an amendment. You can vote the way you want, but I believe that in this kind of circumstance, to treat a colleague that way is not very collegial. I don't think that's the way this committee should be operating or treating each other.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Do we have any discussion on this?

[Len Webber, Conservative, Calgary Confederation, AB]

Mr. Chair, I think we should allow Mr. Davies to move his amendments, and then we can vote from there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Mr. Eyolfson.

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

I agree.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

The committee as a whole has operated smoothly. As a committee we've done well, so I agree with this.

We will go back and allow Mr. Davies to move his amendments.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you, colleagues. I appreciate that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

I just want to say, too, that I appreciate all the members and the way this committee has worked so far. I appreciate it a lot.

(On clause 2)

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you to all my colleagues.

Essentially what I want to do is propose an amendment to the bill at proposed new subsection 4.1(2).

I'm going to preface my comments by congratulating Mr. McKinnon and thanking him for bringing this important bill to Parliament's attention. As I said before, I will support it in any event.

My amendment would be to broaden the exemption in 4.1(2), to exempt people at the scene of a drug overdose not only from being charged with possession but from being charged for any violation of pretrial release, probation, furlough, or parole related to a drug offence.

As soon as people have internalized that, I'll speak to that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

We need that in writing so we can analyze it.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Amendments don't have to be put in writing at this stage. They can be made from the floor.

[Philippe Méla, Procedural Clerk]

If I may, Mr. Davies, just for my own purpose, it's to look at it in terms of procedural admissibility, to see where it fits in the bill, and then I can advise the chair if it's admissible or not.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I don't have it in writing, so we'll have to fit it in now. I know they don't have to be put in writing, and certainly not in either official language either.

It's kind of awkward, because with 4.1(2), it's hard to see where it actually does exempt from possession.

I would propose, then, that after the words “to be charged” in the third line, adding the words “with any offence concerning a violation of pretrial release, probation,”—tell me if I'm going too fast.

[Philippe Méla]

—“with any offence concerning a violation of pretrial release”—