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
Yes. It would be page 7 of your package.
Monsieur Ménard, I take it that you're moving the amendment?
Bloc
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
Yes, Mr. Chairman, I am moving it, because this clause relates to all the substances listed in clause 1 and clause 2. In clause 1, the list of substances is quite lengthy, whereas clause 2 deals mainly with cannabis. At the same time, we are alive to the negative social consequences of trafficking and possession of narcotics.
Based on the logic I explained earlier with respect to section 718 of the Criminal Code, we believe this should be an aggravating factor. My solid legal expertise led me to believe that this amendment was in order. I understand that you decreed the first amendment to be out of order, but you now have an opportunity to correct that error with this one. I am certain you will not want to pass up that chance, Mr. Chairman.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
Thank you, Monsieur Ménard.
Unfortunately, I am going to have to rule it out of order, again after consultations with our legislative clerk, because it does go against the key principle of the bill. Your amendment actually removes the mandatory minimums, and so I have to remain consistent with my earlier ruling, which I believe is correct.
Bloc
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
Mr. Chairman, you cut me to the quick. You will have to live with the consequences, but I certainly intend to appeal your ruling.
Conservative
Bloc
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
Mr. Chairman, that is one of the worst rulings I have seen in my life. Please do not take this personally, but I am challenging it; I do not agree with it.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
All right, thank you for clarifying that for me.
Shall the decision of the chair be sustained?
(Ruling of the chair sustained)
We're going on to amendment NDP-5.
Ms. Davies, I assume you're making the amendment.
NDP
Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC
Yes, I'm making the amendment. Again, this is trying to remove schedule II, which deals with marijuana.
My point here is that when we're dealing with exporting, the fact is it's saying this would apply to any amount of marijuana, even to a person going across the border with one gram and who didn't know they had it in the car or maybe was going to a party. Whether or not we think that's right or wrong, it seems to me this person will be captured under this bill. We've heard that's not what this bill is about; it's not meant to apply to the personal situation of people sharing with friends, particularly young people. But the fact is, if this goes through, they are the ones it will hit.
So we've put in this amendment to deal with that. But I have a terrible feeling you're going to rule out of order.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
Unfortunately, Ms. Davies, after consultation with the legislative clerk, I am going to rule you out of order, as removal of schedule II is clearly outside of the scope of this bill.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
The ruling of the chair has been challenged, so the question is, shall the ruling of the chair be sustained?
(Ruling of the chair sustained)
We're moving on to NDP amendment 6.
NDP
Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC
Given that amendment 5 didn't go very far, NDP amendment 6 is an amendment to say that by replacing line 45 on page 2 with the following:
or in Schedule II in an amount that is greater than the amount set out for that substance in Schedule VII is guilty of an indictable offence
Basically what this is doing is saying that at least we would make sure that the provisions of this bill apply only to three kilograms or more, which is what was set out in schedule VII. What we're trying to do is sort of mitigate the worst effects of the bill, given that the previous amendment was not allowed, and at least make it clear that this would apply only to larger amounts. That's the intent.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
This amendment is in order. Is there any further discussion?
Monsieur Ménard.
Bloc
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
Mr. Chairman, I am generally in agreement with Ms. Davies, alongside whom I have fought some major battles. My admiration for her is tempered but real. However, I do want to be sure that I understand what our colleague is proposing. I believe the suggestion is to decriminalize and therefore not affect the export and import of the substance in quantities of less than 3 kilos. In the Bloc Québécois, we are quite open-minded, as you know. In our view, this could mean that there would be relatively few restrictions regarding the import and export of quantities of less than 3 kilos. However, that is more than just a small joint that someone might smoke after taking an exam, as I am sure you will agree. Can you give us any reassurances in that regard or are you saying that this is a measure essentially aimed at substantial decriminalization?
NDP
NDP
Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC
--we think that the bill as it's written goes much too far in its scope in terms of what it captures. By putting in the three kilograms or more that's already in schedule VII, it seems to us that it's at least making it clearer that it's targeting the larger amounts.
That doesn't mean to say that enforcement doesn't already exist under the existing Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. I think we sometimes forget that. I think there's an attempt here to make out that somehow this bill is all we have and that this is the enforcement we have. We already have a whole regime under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act around enforcement. We believe that's adequate; many of them already carry sentences of life imprisonment.
I don't know if that answers the question, but we believe the existing act is sufficient for under three kilograms.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
Thank you.
Does anybody else have a comment? Hearing no one, I will call the question.
(Amendment negatived)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
We're moving on to government amendment 1 and, I believe, the only government amendment.
Mr. Moore.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
Thank you, Chair.
What this amendment would do is add to another aggravating factor, which is specifically targeted towards the problem of importation and exportation of drugs by organized crime groups. It would involve those who have access to secured areas like airport facilities, for example. It specifically mentions that if the person had access to an area that is restricted to authorized persons and used that access to commit the offence, that would be an aggravating factor, which would trigger the one-year minimum sentence.
