Evidence of meeting #26 for Justice and Human Rights in the 40th Parliament, 2nd session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was ruling.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
Thank you.
Is there any further discussion on this amendment? Hearing none, I will call the question.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
That's the last amendment to clause 2, so I will call the question.
(Clause 2 as amended agreed to on division)
(On clause 3)
NDP
Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC
Amendment NDP-7 deletes line 14 on page 3 to line 19 on page 4.
Again, as we've seen in some of the earlier amendments, the purpose of this amendment is to remove schedule II drugs in any amount from the regime of mandatory minimum sentences in Bill C-15.
I do want to speak to some of the testimony that we heard, especially from the United States, and particularly from Mr. Eric Sterling, who was the former counsel to the U.S. House of Representative's Committee on the Judiciary. He spoke extensively of the failed experience in the United States with these mandatory minimums.
So in this particular clause, we are again trying to remove the schedule II drugs, because we don't think, from what we've heard, that this is the real intent of the bill as it's put forward in this committee. It will have a very broad scope, so we put forth this amendment.
Bloc
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
Could I ask Mr. Saint-Denis what the implications of passing this amendment would be, in his view? Our sense is that this could mean there would be no consequences and no mention of offences involving production. It would create a vacuum that worries us. I would just like to be sure that I fully understand the issues here.
Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Mr. Chairman, I believe Mr. Ménard's reading of this is absolutely correct. I have only just seen these amendments. As I understand them, they would eliminate all the current provisions relating to production in the bill. That would basically mean that the current provisions of the legislation would apply.
Bloc
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
I understand. That is a road we are not anxious to go down, any more than we are to preserve what is in the legislation now. We are not prepared to support that, in spite of our openness and commitment to a more liberal society when it comes to the use of drugs. And here, I am not talking about politics; I am talking about drugs. As I say, that is not an avenue we are interested in pursuing, Mr. Chairman.
Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC
I think there's a false impression left here that somehow if this amendment passed, it would mean we would have no enforcement. I would remind the committee that we're actually dealing with the mandatory minimums. That's what we're talking about here, that is, whether or not they would be imposed.
And on this particular amendment, what we're concerned about, just as an example, is how it might hit or be used against compassion clubs. I'm sure people are familiar with the compassion clubs set up across the country. They are involved in production, so they will be hit very much by this bill.
I have later amendments as well dealing more specifically with getting an exemption for that. But if this particular clause goes through, we may well see compassion clubs, which are very well established across the country and have very broad public support.... They're not into enabling or dealing with commercial trafficking. They are there to serve clients and members who use marijuana for medicinal purposes, and they are very well run and very well controlled. This is another example of how this particular part of the bill could hit those organizations, and I think it really contradicts what we've heard from the government on who they claim this bill is aimed at. It has a very wide net, and this is just another example of that. That's why we've put forward the amendment.
It doesn't mean there wouldn't be enforcement. There is enforcement that continues under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. The debate here is whether or not we should be applying a mandatory minimum.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
Just as a note to members, if in fact this amendment were adopted, the next 16 amendments would fall off the table.
Is there any further discussion?
(Amendment negatived)
We are moving on to Bloc amendment BQ-3.
I will just give you a heads up. For the reasons I've already given, I'm inclined to rule the next five amendments out of order, again because they're outside the scope of the bill.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
They are BQ-3, NDP-8, NDP-9, BQ-4, and NDP-10.
On NDP-8 and NDP-9, I can read a formal ruling. The other ones I've already addressed specifically.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
It's very similar, yes. They either go against the principle of the bill or are outside of the scope of the bill. In any event, I will deal with them one by one. I just wanted to give you a heads up.
Monsieur Ménard.
Bloc
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
If I understood you correctly, you are ruling BQ-3859842 and BQ-3860231 out of order. I will not repeat our arguments over again, which are supported by solid legal expertise prompting us to believe these amendments should be in order. However, this time, given what is at stake, I will not only be challenging your ruling but, for reasons of principle, I will be considering the idea that we should have a recorded vote. This is just too egregious.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
That's fine.
Let's deal with BQ-3. I have ruled it out of order.
Shall the chair's ruling be sustained? We will have a recorded vote.
(Ruling of the chair sustained [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We move on to NDP-8.
Ms. Davies, I am ruling it out of order, for the reasons given. Do you wish to challenge the ruling?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
All right.
Shall the ruling of the chair be sustained?
Do you want a recorded vote?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
All right, thank you.
(Ruling of the chair sustained)
The ruling is sustained.
Moving on to amendment NDP-9, again I've ruled that amendment out of order.
Ms. Davies, do you wish to challenge the ruling?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
It's not debatable, I believe.
Actually, for clarity, if you wish to move it and speak to it, I'll allow that.