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.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
Monsieur Ménard, it sounded like 2,001, the way the interpretation came through.
4:55 p.m.
Bloc
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
I will read my sub-amendment again: “if the number of plants produced is less than 201 and more than 199,”. That is my amendment, and I believe it reflects the intent of the mover while meeting the concerns of the Committee.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
We have a subamendment to the main amendment.
Is there any further discussion on the subamendment?
I call the question on the subamendment.
(Subamendment negatived)
Now we'll deal with the main amendment.
Monsieur Lemay.
4:55 p.m.
Bloc
Marc Lemay Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
If there is no agreement on 199 as a number, can we make it 12? Based on our experience, when there are more than 12, it becomes serious. So, I would suggest the following wording: “if the number of plants produced is less than 201 and more than 12,”. That is my sub-amendment.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
We have another subamendment. I believe this time we're changing “5” to “12”. Is that correct?
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
Does everyone understand the subamendment? It's Ms. Davies' amendment, but this is changing the number “5” to “12”.
All those in favour of the subamendment?
(Subamendment negatived)
We'll go to the main amendment, which is Ms. Davies' amendment, as written.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The motion is carried, so we have an amendment to clause 3.
Let me ask you a question, Ms. Jennings. Does that dispose of the issue you had?
5 p.m.
Conservative
5 p.m.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
But of course I'm taking it on faith that the government is not going to table an amendment at report stage reinstating their own....
5 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
Ms. Jennings, you know that's not an issue of faith. That's a decision in the sole discretion of the government.
Let's move to amendment NDP-13. Ms. Davies.
5 p.m.
NDP
Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC
Yes, again, this is another amendment that is trying to minimize the impact and scope of the bill for what we believe to be consequences that, by the government's own words, were not intended. This amendment clarifies that “trafficking” is for commercial trafficking and not for personal use or medical use. That's what this amendment is.
5 p.m.
Bloc
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
We understand Ms. Davies' concern. However, I would like to put a question to Mr. Saint-Denis.
It is our sense, as members of the Bloc Québécois, that the concept of commercial trafficking does not exist legally, in the law as we know it now under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. Perhaps you could clarify that.
May 27th, 2009 / 5 p.m.
Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
I am sorry, Mr. Ménard, but I did not understand the last part of your question.
5 p.m.
Bloc
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
If you are not listening to me, I can tell you we are moving closer and closer to a conjugal type of relationship, you and I.
The concept of commercial trafficking does not appear to us to be part of the current Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. Is that correct?
5 p.m.
Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
I believe it is. Where a sale is involved, most of the time, it is for some form of consideration, normally money. So, there is a commercial aspect to it.
5 p.m.
Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
It certainly does exist. However, in the definition of “trafficking”, the possibility of a sale being involved is included, even though consideration per se is not mentioned.
5 p.m.
Bloc
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
If this amendment were to pass, what would the consequences be, in your opinion?
5 p.m.
Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Well, it is a little difficult to say because the definition of “trafficking” includes terms such as “give”, “transfer” and “carry”. Furthermore, if we add commercial trafficking, it is possible we will start to exclude certain activities that are currently included under the definition of “trafficking”. That could be a problem.
5 p.m.
NDP
Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC
Can I just add one little point, Chair? I actually followed this up based on what the minister himself said.
When the minister appeared before the committee, he tried to convince us--I don't think he convinced me, but maybe he did others--that this bill was aimed at these big drug dealers that he talked about and the big commercial grow ops. He went on and on about that. He went to some length to explain that this was not levelled at the street-level people, people who were facing addiction and so on. I think the Conservatives have tried to argue that very strenuously, even though my belief, when you read this bill...and believe me, I've talked to lots of people about this bill who know this issue very well, both from a legal perspective as well as what's actually happening out in the real world. Their opinion is that this bill goes so far, it will hit so many people, that it will clog up our prison system. It will have huge implications on the provincial and territorial systems.
So this amendment is another example of how we're trying to say that if what the minister is saying is correct and this bill isn't that broad, then let's really narrow it down. Let's be clear that it is about commercial trafficking, and we're not talking about personal use, and we're not talking about medical use. That's exactly what this amendment is zeroing in on.