Evidence of meeting #71 for Health in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was criminal.
A video is available from Parliament.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
I have one quick question for our legislative clerk.
I'm just wondering if this is within the scope of this bill, or whether it would be more appropriately handled by an amendment to the good Samaritan legislation. Is this proposed amendment to provide an exemption within the scope of this bill, in your opinion?
Liberal
Liberal
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
Could I have a recorded vote please?
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bill Casey
We have several proposed amendments here.
The first is by Ms. May, PV-2. Is there any debate on PV-2?
Ms. Gladu.
Conservative
Marilyn Gladu Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
Yes, I have the same comment as before. She's trying to change the amount that the young person can have from five grams—which I think needs to be zero—to 30 grams. The other thing I would say is we're going to spend a lot of time discussing proposals from Ms. May, but she did not attend any of the testimony at the committee, which is unfortunate. I just wanted to make that comment.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bill Casey
Are there any other speakers to this amendment?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Is there any debate on PV-3?
Mr. Davies.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
I have this identified as Green amendment 3. Is this to amend subclause 9(3)?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bill Casey
It states, “That Bill C-45, in clause 9, be amended by deleting lines 4 to 15 on page 9.”
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Perhaps I could speak to this. I haven't had the benefit of hearing Ms. May's argument as to why she proposed this amendment, so I'm just left with my speculation.
The current subclause states as follows:
(3) It is not a defence to a charge arising out of the contravention of subparagraph (1)(a)(ii) that the accused believed that the individual referred to in that subparagraph was 18 years of age or older, unless the accused took reasonable steps to ascertain the individual's age.
Now, we're still talking about the distribution section, where it is possible for someone 19 years of age to sell a joint to somebody 17 years of age and be liable to imprisonment of up to 14 years. I will speak to that in a moment, to what I will argue is the complete disproportion of that provision.
Because of that possibility, I'm going to speak in favour of this amendment. What it does is this: it says that it doesn't matter if the accused believed that the person they were selling to was over 18 unless they took reasonable steps to ascertain the individual's age. About the only way you can take a reasonable step to ascertain someone's age, I guess, is to ask for ID. I think it's pretty unrealistic that at some party where young people are, a 19-year-old who wants to sell a joint for five bucks to another person will say, “Can you show me some ID?” I think that's unrealistic.
I think it should be a defence to a charge arising under this section that the accused believed that the person was under 18. I think that question should be left to the discretion of the judge and the courts to determine whether that was reasonable in the circumstances. If the court finds that they didn't think that was reasonable to believe, then they'll convict them. But if they find that someone reasonably believed that somebody was over the age of 18, and maybe didn't take a reasonable step to ascertain that—again, it's beyond me exactly what that would consist of—then they may acquit. But to absolutely strip a defence from someone that they reasonably believed that somebody was over the age of 18 is essentially adjudicating by Parliament, and I think that's too narrow. I think it's enough to say that it's an offence to sell to somebody under 18, and I don't think we should strip a defence from someone.
I would vote in favour of this amendment.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bill Casey
I would like to say, too, that Ms. May intended to be here to help us with this, but she is under the weather and was unable to come.
Mr. McKinnon.
Liberal
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
I'm going to oppose this amendment.
I'd like to respond to Mr. Davies' comments. How can a person reasonably believe that another person is of a given age if he took no reasonable steps to find out? I mean, what is reasonable in the circumstances will depend on the circumstances.
First of all, selling a joint at a party is already illegal. Second, you have to be responsible for what you do. If you're giving drugs to someone at a party, you should have a pretty good idea of how old they are. If you don't, then you shouldn't be doing it.
Liberal
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Thank you.
It's in keeping, I think, with the fact that this committee didn't hear from a single 16- to 24-year-old that.... People our age are discussing what's reasonable or not currently with 19- and 20-year-olds and with 17-year-olds and 18-year-olds who have parties.
It's all well and good, Mr. McKinnon, to take that tough-love, hard-core approach, but here's the reality of parties: they're probably all drinking. You might have a 19-year-old who's had four beers. There may be someone who looks much older than 18 but is 17 and a half and might say, “Come on, I don't have my ID here.” There's peer pressure that goes on. What I'm saying is, do you really want to subject that person in that circumstance to up to 14 years in prison with some sort of hard, moralizing judgment?
I mean, all this amendment does is leave the defence open, and a judge could make that ruling. In other words, I say that it should be a defence that the accused believed someone was over 18 years of age. If they can satisfy a judge of that, then it should be left open to that and the system.
It's a huge gap, in my opinion, in the entire committee study of this bill that we didn't hear from anybody under the age of 30. Maybe if we had.... Certainly, we didn't from the 16- to 24-year-olds. Although there was a heck of a lot of testimony about how important that group was and how important it is that we know how to communicate with them, nobody thought to ask one. Maybe we could have asked those people how reasonable or not it is to have a section like this, where a 19-year-old is dealing with a 17-year-old.
Maybe that would have helped to inform this committee, but from what I can remember of high school.... Hammering a 19-year-old with a jail sentence for distributing marijuana to someone who's 17 and not even allowing them the defence of saying that they believed the person was over 18.... Maybe they had friends around who said they knew the person was over 18. Maybe their best friend vouched for them. There are all sorts of things that could lead to a reasonable belief that a person is over 18. I just don't think that we should take that defence away.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bill Casey
Thank you very much. Now I'm going to call for a vote on PV-3.
Mr. Oliver, are you speaking or voting?
Liberal
John Oliver Liberal Oakville, ON
I have just a quick reaction to that. I think we're missing the fact that the provinces and territories can also step into this space, pass their own laws, and have their own consequences for the age brackets that they decide should not be in possession in terms of that threshold. I think it's possible that we could see provincial charges rather than federal charges. I do think there's some discretion in here that we have yet to see emerge from the provinces and territories.
Again, we're in the early stages of implementation. We don't know yet how the provinces and territories will respond to the legislation. I don't think the worst-case scenario that Mr. Davies paints.... I think we'll see alternatives come to bear to give more discretion to police officers in the future.
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Thank you. I only mean to intervene, Mr. Chair, because, with great respect to my colleague, I don't think that's correct in this case.
The bill does delegate some authority to the provinces to make changes, but not in this clause. The subclause says:
It is not a defence to a charge arising out of the contravention of subparagraph (1)(a)(ii) that the accused believed that the individual referred to in that subparagraph was 18 years of age or older, unless the accused took reasonable steps to ascertain the individual’s age.
I'm sorry, but I don't see how a province can change that in any way whatsoever. Even if the provinces were to make the legal age of consumption 19 or 20, it wouldn't change this. Even if it did, I would say that it makes my argument even stronger, because it wouldn't be a defence to say that you thought they were over 19.
I respect that people may want to vote against this amendment, but I don't think they should vote on the basis that they think a province can fix this clause. I don't think that's the case.
Liberal