Justice Committee on Jan. 29th, 2008

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

What I want to clarify is that the amendment before us--there's only one amendment--is basically changing everything in the bill from line 7 on. The bill as originally written by the member is now gone by this amendment that is being put forward.

This says “lines 7 to 13”, and there are only 13 lines. Presumably lines 1 to 7 are fine, but everything after that has been replaced by this amendment. Is that correct?

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

It does change maybe the specific lines, but the content and words are still referred to in both, from the original even to the amendment--for instance, “produce, possess or sell”--but in this case, there's an added word, “import”. As well, “trafficking” is in the original, and that's certainly reflected in the amendment.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Let me ask another way then. Does that mean that proposed paragraphs 7.1(a) and (b) in the bill as originally presented by the member are still there?

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

No, (a) and (b) are actually replaced by new proposed subsection 7.1(1).

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Right. That's what I thought.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Mr. Yost, I wonder if you could come to the table. I don't want to see you leave before we finish this discussion.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

This whole bill has been changed by what was a government amendment, and that is now not a government amendment, put forward by a committee member. I think that is rather unusual.

We're told it was the member's original intent, but it wasn't in the bill in terms of trafficking, in terms of the penalty. So I do find it rather unusual. The whole bill is changed.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

No, it's not. The member put forward a bill with certain intentions. It's a very short bill, as you can see. It's on one page. Obviously any amendment to the bill would also be very short.

The amendment I've moved just puts this into proper language to reflect the intent of the bill and to actually address some of the concerns with the wording in this very short bill, which was only proposed paragraphs 7.1(a) and (b). In this very short bill, there were some concerns addressed. So of course when an amendment is moved, the amendment, if it replaces anything, is going to replace most of the words. But all of the intent of the bill is left intact. The change in the language reflects the concerns that were raised.

So I don't see anything too alarming here. I'd be alarmed if the amendment went on for 12 pages, but this simply replaces words that would not have accomplished the intent appropriately with words that will accomplish that intent.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Mr. Yost.

[Greg Yost]

One day I'm going to ask Paul Saint-Denis how he gets to be in Bali when this comes up and I have to substitute.

This is not a government motion, obviously. It is, however, not unusual, I would imagine, for a government and the minister responsible to ask, if this thing becomes law, are there weaknesses that should be addressed in committee, and if so, what are they and how might they be fixed? And that's this process here.

The standing committee can certainly do with the amendment as it wills. Among the issues that were identified within the Department of Justice, a simple one, which was already talked about, concerns being too tight with methamphetamine; you'd want to have every salt and derivative. The legislation as it stands now has sections dealing with production, import-export, trafficking, etc., and import had been missed. That was something that seemed to be missing in the bill. Then there was the question of the penalty, and what penalty would fit in more with the structure. I addressed that earlier in response to some questions. The current penalty for schedule 3 trafficking, production, etc., is ten years max, and therefore, if you're putting everything together with the intention to do it, it would seem to be an appropriate level.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Yost.

Madam Davies.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

I actually don't think I'm wrong. If you look at the original bill, the only thing that is the same is that no person “shall possess, produce, sell”. Everything after that, other than referring to controlled drugs and substances, is changed.

In the original bill, it talked about “any substance or any equipment”--remember, we had a lot of debate about equipment and what that is--“or other material that is intended for use in the production of methamphetamine”. That's all gone. Now it says “or import”--so it's adding a new concept--“anything knowing that it will be used to produce or traffic”. That is being introduced as well.

So in effect we have completely different wording from the original bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Personally, I have a problem understanding where you see the difficulty when it comes to the intent. For instance, in the production of methamphetamine-

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Then why wasn't that in the bill in the first place?

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Pardon?

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

We have a private member's bill that went through the House and now comes to committee. There clearly was an intention of what it was about. If it's now changed, why wasn't that in the bill originally--in terms of importation, for example, or referring to item 18 of schedule 1?

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Mr. Yost.

[Greg Yost]

If I may just address what you said, the normal drafting procedures used when you're dealing with a relatively small section--and this is a small section--would be to replace it all and then underline what is new. It makes it a heck of a lot easier to read than to say, “adding, after the ninth word in line seven, these things”, and then deleting some other lines. This makes it possible to read it, see what the new provisions will look like, without any scissors and paste. But the underlining is the new thing.

With respect to the question of why these things were not in the bill originally, it's because it is not a government bill. Clearly the Department of Justice was not consulted with respect to drafting this bill. It was brought forward by a private member. After the bill is tabled, then it's a normal process, when the House shows an interest in adopting a bill, to ask the department whether the bill will actually be as effective in reaching the goal that parliamentarians seem to wish to reach, and if not, what would be the things that would make it better.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Yost.

Mr. Lee.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

I'm going to support the amendment, but I can't pass on this opportunity to ask the chair to rule that the inclusion of the concept of trafficking, the inclusion of the concept of importing, and the addition of new sentencing provisions are all within the scope of the bill.

I know that the chair will want to be very careful, because this, I'm sure, will become a useful precedent for the committee in dealing with private member and government bills in the future.

So I'll leave it in the chair's hands. I'm sure he'll make the right decision and we can get to a vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Lee.

First, when it comes to the issue of trafficking, trafficking is clearly pointed out in the original bill. Even if you were to look under the definition of trafficking, what does that mean? It means transport, it means deliver, it means sell, it means a number of things under the definition of trafficking, and certainly import.

So are we stretching things to a point where we have to define the precise words of what we're faced with in this particular bill? I would have to suggest to the committee that import and trafficking really are part and parcel of the same thing.

When it comes to the sentencing aspect, under the broader section where penalties have been assigned, section 46, sanctions are covered. So yes, there is a specific sanction here, but that is in keeping with section 46 already.

This is my ruling on the particular amendment, that it's acceptable.

Monsieur Ménard.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Fundamentally, Mr. Chairman, I think you did well to rule on the scope of the bill. I also think that we need to be flexible when dealing with a private members' bill. We may have less flexibility when it comes to matters of government policies since clearly, we work from the assumption that a member does not have the same resources at his disposal as the government. However, I must say that one thing bothers me. I say this with all due respect and without any animosity whatsoever, because we do plan to support the bill, and I do think the member has rightly singled out a problem that warrants our attention. I've been an MP for 14 years. I'm coming up on 15 years next year. The Justice Department and drafters of legislation have always enjoyed a very close relationship. That relationship must be safeguarded for the sake of equality. All MPs who are not ministers must benefit from the same equal treatment.

Often, Justice Department officials have given expert testimony on the substance of a bill. Clearly, we are dealing with something different this time around. I'm not saying this to embarrass our witness. Clearly, his objective is to serve the committee well, and nothing more.

I'm tempted to put a question to the government. Mr. Lee is quite right to say that this is not a government amendment. However, at the same time, any member of Parliament can propose an amendment to a private members' bill. That is not a problem. Who is the drafter of the amendment? Is it the Department of Justice or the legislative drafters at the House? I hope it is the latter, because we need to safeguard the principle whereby the government should not be intervening in the drafting of private members' bills. At the same time, all MPs must have access to the same resources. I simply want some assurances that this principle will be safeguarded, and I hope that Mr. Yost and the parliamentary secretary can assure the committee that the amendment was crafted by House legislative drafters. This is an important principle.

As for everything else, Mr. Chairman, I think the Member should be proud of the fine work that he has done.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Before Mr. Yost and Mr. Moore make statements, we'll call upon the crafter of the original bill, Mr. Warkentin, to respond to that particular question.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

I can assure you that in terms of the original drafting of this bill, I worked with the Library of Parliament and my office. We were the constructors of the original bill.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

The proposed amendment originates with the department? Was is drafted by the legislative drafters at the Library of Parliament or by the department?