Health Committee on Oct. 3rd, 2017

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Thank you.

Ms. Gladu.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

I want to provide some comfort to my colleague Mr. Davies. Although I don't support the changes that he's proposed here, in clause 45 you'll find that no summary conviction “may be commenced after the expiry of one year after the day on which the subject-matter of the proceedings arose”.

Right now the situation is that, because the Justice minister has not put in place adequate judges, we have court cases that are waiting 18 months to three years, and by Jordan's principle, murderers and sex offenders are going free. The likelihood of anybody getting to court in time to get any conviction is less. I just wanted to comfort him with that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Mr. Davies, are you comforted?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you for pointing that out because it leads to another potential problem. We're dealing with clause 44 now, but Ms. Gladu is quite right to refer to clause 45, which reads that:

No summary conviction proceedings in respect of an offence under section 44 may be commenced after the expiry of one year after the day on which the subject-matter of the proceedings arose.

This leads to the potential situation where, after one year, if a prosecutor is prohibited from proceeding by way of summary conviction, they will be forced to proceed by way of indictment or else have no offence whatsoever. I think it's important to point out that flaw in the bill.

Thanks, Ms. Gladu.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Seeing no further speakers, I'm going to call for a vote on NDP-23.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Could I have a recorded vote, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Certainly.

(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Now we go to NDP-24.

Mr. Davies.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

In short, this is a second attempt to try to amend the penalty provisions of the miscellaneous provisions of this act. This amendment would remove the indictable offence provision and leave the offence provisions that relate to summary conviction.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

I see no further speakers. I call for a vote on NDP-24.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I'd like a recorded vote, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

We're going to have a recorded vote this time.

(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 44 agreed to)

There are no amendments proposed from clause 45 to clause 50. Shall clauses 45 to 50 inclusive carry?

(Clauses 45 to 50 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 51)

For clause 51, we have PV-16.

Ms. Gladu.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

I know Ms. May is not here to speak to her motion, but you can see she's looking to add something where a peace officer has to have regard to what would be in the best interests of justice, with particular attention given to whether the individual is a member of a disadvantaged community.

While I am quite a supporter of ticketed offences to get rid of the criminalization that Mr. Davies has pointed out is so prevalent in this flawed bill, I really think this is very vague wording, so I won't be supporting it. I don't think there's enough definition.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Seeing no further comments, I'm going to call for a vote on PV-16.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Now we have NDP-25.

Mr. Davies.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I think this is probably moot. Earlier, my colleagues will remember that I attempted to eliminate the 30-gram possession limit. Had that occurred, this would be the companion to that. It would have removed the 30-gram possession limit from the list of items that could be ticketable offences, but since we've kept the 30-gram limit, it's probably academic at this point. I think it could stay in as is.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

We're not clear. Do you want to withdraw it?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Yes, I think it should be withdrawn.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

I don't think anybody will argue with that.

(Amendment withdrawn)

Now we'll go to LIB-6. This is consequential to LIB-3.

I'm sorry. It's adopted already because of an earlier vote.

NDP-26 cannot be moved because of the same thing.

Now we go to LIB-7.

Does anybody want to speak on LIB-7?

Mr. Eyolfson, you moved this.

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

This is technical in nature. It corrects some omissions made in the drafting with regard to information: any use of judicial records in a summons and information portions of a ticket. It would be consistent with other parts of the bill, so that the judicial record from a ticket would be kept separate from other judicial records and not be used for any purpose that would identify the accused.

The purpose of this is that we do know that there may be some consequences to being legally identified for cannabis-related offences. Even today, admitting to or having a record at the United States border can result in a lifetime ban. So, if you have received a ticket, this would not be in the judicial record and be available to customs officials and that sort of thing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Thank you.

Ms. Gladu.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

I agree that it will be very important. I live in a border community, so people are being asked at the border if they have ever smoked pot and not being allowed over if they admit that they have. It would be certainly important to make sure you can't identify them.

That said, there is no detail provided as to how the government will keep these records separate and what kind of restrictions will be put in place to restrict access to this confidential information, with 271 days left to go.

Dr. Eyolfson, could you provide some detail as to how the government intends to do that?

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

I'm not privy to the technical nature of how these records are kept, so I don't know the answer to that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Seeing no further speakers, I call for a vote on LIB-7.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We are on NDP-27.

Mr. Davies, do you want to explain that to us?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I think this may be academic at this point. This is a corresponding amendment as a companion to remove the 30-gram and 100-centimetre limits from ticketable offences. I guess it would be moot with respect to the 30 grams, but still applicable with respect to the 100-centimetre limits because 30 grams has remained a prohibited level but the 100-centimetre limit has not. I don't know if the legislative counsel can give me any advice in that regard.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Did you have a question for our legislative assistant?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Yes, what this does is it says for an offence referred to in any of the paragraphs, and then it's got “2(a) to (h), $200 plus a victim surcharge”. This is the ticketable offence provisions. I guess my amendment was meant if the 30-gram limit had been removed, then you would have to remove one of the references to the sections there, but that's now academic. I guess it now is probably still appropriate insofar as it may relate to the 100-centimetre limit.