Justice Committee on May 27th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

I call the meeting to order.

This is meeting number 26 of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Today is Wednesday, May 27, 2009.

You have your agenda before you. Pursuant to the order of reference of Friday, March 27, 2009, we're considering clause-by-clause on Bill C-15, An Act to Amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts.

We have with us today Paul Saint-Denis, who is here representing the criminal law policy section. Welcome.

We will move to clause-by-clause.

I call clause 1.

Monsieur Ménard.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Could the witness from the Department remind us of the purpose of this clause?

[Paul Saint-Denis, Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice]

Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this clause is to impose minimum sentences for the trafficking of substances listed in Schedules 1 and 2, and when there are aggravating factors such as those listed in the bill.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

I understand.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Monsieur Ménard, you're making that amendment. Is that correct?

I'm sorry, we actually have a list here. I should probably go in order of the motions as we have them. You have the package before you. The first amendment is actually NDP-1.

Ms. Davies, are you making that amendment?

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Yes. This is NDP-1.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

I've consulted our legislative clerk, and I'm going to be ruling the amendment out of order, the reason being that Bill C-15 amends the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to provide for minimum penalties for serious drug offences. The amendment would have, as a consequence, that persons possessing for the purpose of trafficking a substance included in schedule II would no longer be guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice states on page 654: “An amendment to a bill that was referred to committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill”.

In the opinion of the chair, this amendment is a new concept that is beyond the scope of Bill C-15, and it is therefore inadmissible.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

I'd like to respond to your ruling and challenge it.

I don't know how many of my amendments are going to have such a ruling, but seeing as we're dealing with the first one, this particular amendment is basically a rationale to remove the schedule II drugs, which is basically marijuana. I actually cannot understand your ruling that this is somehow beyond the scope of the bill. This is within the bill. We're just saying that one of the particular schedules it deals with, in terms of the Controlled Drug and Substances Act, we believe should be removed from the parameters of this bill.

It's not beyond the bill. It's just removing something. It's not trying to go further. We are stating in this amendment that we don't think these provisions in the bill before us should apply to what is in schedule II, which is marijuana. I don't understand how you can say that it's beyond the scope of the bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Ms. Davies, I want to assure you that I've had extensive consultations with the legislative clerk. I assume that you don't take this lightly. Many of your amendments are actually going to be ruled in order, but there are some that will be ruled inadmissible.

As I understand it, you're challenging the ruling of the chair. Is that correct?

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

I am.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Then the question for the committee is whether the chair's ruling will be sustained.

(Ruling of the chair sustained)

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

We move on to the Bloc amendment. Are you making that amendment, Monsieur Ménard?

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Chairman, this amendment relates to the factors that give rise to a sentence that can be no less than one year in length—namely, committing an offence for the benefit of a criminal organization, resorting to violence, using a firearm, committing a repeat offence and committing an offence in places frequented by young people. So, we are suggesting a couple of amendments. The logic is the same in each case. I will explain it now.

The idea is to turn the eight factors currently listed in the bill into aggravating factors. As we all know, this provision already exists under section 718 of the Criminal Code. It allows the judge to set the tone in handing down a sentence, because the factors set out in the bill can give rise to a tougher sentence. However, you are all aware of our impeccable rigour when it comes to minimum sentences. We are not in favour of them. So, we will be suggesting a number of amendments aimed at changing the factors mentioned in clause 1 into aggravating factors. I do hope my colleagues will accept that logic, which has already proven its worth.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you, Monsieur Ménard.

As with the first amendment, I also have a ruling on that, as I have consulted with our legislative clerk.

Bill C-15, as I mentioned, amends the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. The amendment you have put forward proposes to remove the minimum penalties provided for in this clause and replace it with a provision that gives the court the authority to impose a sentence while considering certain aggravating factors.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice states on page 654, An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.

In the opinion of the chair, the introduction of the amendment is contrary to the principle of Bill C-15 as agreed to at second reading and is therefore inadmissible.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I must admit that you have caught me a little off guard. Having held consultations, we were convinced that this amendment was in order. I am sure you are aware that, by rendering this decision, you are interfering with my rights because, as a parliamentarian, it is my prerogative to work to amend a bill which is definitely perfectible.

This is an excessively conservative interpretation of the Standing Orders. I cannot blame you entirely for that, but I can certainly tell you that I am disappointed. Under the circumstances, there are two options: either you suspend the Committee meeting and we appeal your ruling to the Speaker of the House of Commons, or I appeal your ruling. For this particular amendment, I will be appealing your ruling here in the Committee, but I cannot give you any guarantees as to what will happen in future.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Monsieur Ménard, as I mentioned on the first amendment, I certainly don't take this lightly. Even though this is my first time moving through clause-by-clause to this extent, I have consulted with our legislative clerk.

I am not preventing any amendments from coming forward. What I'm doing is ruling in accordance with House of Commons Procedure and Practice, and that's my role as chair. I think you understand that.

It's certainly open to you to challenge the chair. Is that what you wish to do?

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Yes, I am definitely challenging your ruling.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Could I just ask a procedural question?

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Yes, please.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Before you deal with the challenge to the chair, I have actually proposed to move a subamendment, and it may well be that the subamendment is in order. If we vote on this now, will you still allow me to put the subamendment or would you like to hear it now?

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

No. First of all, as I am advised by the clerk, a challenge to the chair is actually not debatable. So we have to determine whether the chair's ruling is sustained.

I will ask the question: shall the chair's ruling be sustained?

(Ruling of the chair sustained)

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

On that same clause, then, beginning on line 10, I would like to delete the words, “or in or near any other public place”--

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

No, Ms. Davies, we're proceeding with the amendments as submitted. I've already ruled that this Bloc amendment is out of order, so there is nothing to amend at this point in time.

As we continue through, you'll notice many of your amendments are actually acceptable.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

I know. Could I explain, though?

In actual fact, we had planned to get in a written amendment on this one, and for some reason it ended up just not getting there. I had always planned to have a written amendment. When I realized today that it had not gone in, I saw that the Bloc had an amendment covering a much larger extent, so I thought I would move a subamendment.

Even though you ruled their whole amendment out of order and have been upheld on that, I would argue that it doesn't prevent a further amendment, even if it's right on the floor. There are many committees.... I mean, obviously we would prefer them in writing, but this is very straightforward, so I would ask the committee if they would be willing to entertain this as an amendment that I will just give verbally. It's a matter of deleting two and a half lines, and I can explain why. I believe it will be in order, because it doesn't deal with the breadth of what you just ruled on. It deals with one small aspect, with being near a school or, if you remember, in a public place.

I believe it's in order and that I have the right to be able to put forward an amendment, even though it did not go in as a written amendment. Most committees operate that way.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Ms. Davies, out of courtesy to the other members who have actually submitted written amendments and the process that I believe is going to work well for us, could I ask you to put that amendment in writing sometime during the period of this discussion and review, and at the end.... Oh, you do have it in writing?