Justice Committee on May 27th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

We're going to reconvene.

The vote that was taken is a decision of this committee. It's not a ruling in the normal course of events, so it's not challengeable. It stands as a decision of this committee. If it were otherwise, obviously I would allow it to be challenged, but it's not a challengeable ruling of the chair, so the vote will remain.

Here's what I would suggest we do, though. The concerns that have been raised are legitimate. I'm going to ask the parliamentary secretary to take it up with the minister. I think Monsieur Saint-Denis has clarified it a little bit more than it was before today's meeting.

Could I ask you to do that?

Monsieur Ménard.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I understand that you are acting in good faith, but we are at a stage where we are called upon to vote. Could the legislative clerk tell me whether it would be acceptable, for example, to table amendments on the floor of the House? If you discuss this with the Minister and this is passed into law, it would be a little late then to realize that this bill contains an aberration. Does that mean that one of us could table an amendment on the floor of the House at third reading?

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

All right. What I'll say is this.

It's my understanding that at report stage the Speaker can, in exceptional circumstances, accept amendments. That's at report stage. It will be the Speaker's decision as to whether amendments will be permitted, but our legislative clerk says that from time to time the Speaker actually does allow it, and this can be invoked, presumably, as an exceptional circumstance.

Ms. Jennings.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

You're quite correct. The Speaker does have the discretion to allow amendments at report stage. He generally does not allow them if the amendment has already been dealt with in committee in clause-by-clause, in which case I would suggest that this committee, because we're presuming good faith when the chair asks the parliamentary secretary....

Now that there has been clarification that production of one plant would come under the minimum mandatories, everyone appears to be convinced that this was not the intention even of the government, although we could be mistaken about that. This committee may wish, in its wisdom, to instruct the chair to send a letter to the Speaker saying that while this amendment was voted against, the committee, should a similar amendment be tabled at report stage, would be more than happy to have or would welcome a decision that the Speaker rule it in order and allow it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Let me read to you the relevant section of the Standing Orders. This is under Standing Order 76.1(5):

“A motion, previously defeated in committee”--which will be this one--“will only be selected if the Speaker judges it to be of such exceptional significance as to warrant a further consideration at the report stage.” That's what the Standing Orders say.

I'm not sure whether Mr. Moore is prepared to make that commitment to actually.... I think you're requesting that a formal motion be forwarded or a letter be sent by the committee.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

I would propose a motion to the effect that this committee request that the Speaker of the House, should a similar amendment that was defeated in committee be tabled in the House, rule such an amendment admissible. And you can give reasons for doing that, including the discussion here, as well as the fact, I believe, that the parliamentary secretary has in fact undertaken to take the concerns of this committee back to the government to clarify whether indeed the government's intention was that producing one marijuana plant should be subject to the minimum mandatory--

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Mr. Saint-Denis, is that what you said, that production of one marijuana plant, even if it's under three kilograms, would result in a mandatory minimum sentence, or does it require trafficking?

[Paul Saint-Denis]

No.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

It has to require trafficking.

Mr. Saint-Denis.

[Paul Saint-Denis]

What I said was that the production of one plant, if the production was the purpose of trafficking, was caught.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Right.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Thank you.

So I will clarify: that the production of one single marijuana plant with the intent of trafficking be liable to a minimum mandatory sentence of six months. We're asking for clarification from the government, through the parliamentary secretary, as to whether or not that is the express intention of this government. If it is not, then we're requesting that the government bring its own amendment at the report stage to make the changes; and if it's not its express intention, should the government not bring its own amendment at report stage, that the Speaker look favourably and rule favourably on such an amendment coming from any other party at report stage.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Okay. I'm going to ask you to hold that thought, because we have all these other amendments we have to deal with. I'd like to walk through those. This may give you an opportunity to put whatever it is you're requesting in writing.

Mr. Moore has stated that he will take it up with the minister. I'm comfortable with that, but if you want to take it beyond that and get something in writing, we'll deal with it after we've gotten to the end of this.

Mr. Bagnell, on a point of clarification.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

So that means we won't pass the bill today if he takes that up?

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

It's my understanding that we're all committed to having it passed today.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

I have another question. We have not approved this clause. We've just defeated one amendment on this clause.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

That's right. We have to approve the clause.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

So we could make other amendments on this clause?

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Yes, there are other amendments along the way. So let's just walk through the remaining amendments we have on this clause, if we might.

We're moving to amendment NDP-12.

Ms. Davies.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much.

Similar to the last one, what we're trying to do with this amendment is basically minimize what we see as the very substantive and harmful impacts of this bill and of this particular clause. We're dealing with the same clause, that is, a minimum mandatory sentence of “six months if the number of plants produced is less than 201 and the production is for the purpose of trafficking”. As I've already pointed out, transport includes trafficking.

This particular amendment from us would read:

is less than 201 and more than five, and the production is for the

The effect of this amendment is to increase the minimum plant amount from zero to five, so up to five would be exempted.

I think this really addresses our concern if it's correct that this bill is not aimed at the small growers who might be sharing with a friend, transporting, and could be hit for the purposes of trafficking. The way the bill is characterized, they would get hit with a minimum sentence. With this, at least they would be exempt until they get to the five plants. I think that's pretty clear.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Okay.

Monsieur Ménard.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I would like to move a sub-amendment which, I believe, will achieve consensus. It would read as follows: “if the number of plants produced is less than 201 and more than 199,”. I am prepared to pass that sub-amendment on to the clerk, as required. It is a sub-amendment that reflects the intent of the mover.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

It actually didn't really come through.

[A voice]

It's the translation.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

They just said 2,001.