Justice Committee on Nov. 23rd, 2011

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

New clause 41.1 is a more substantive amendment, and in 41.1 we're requesting that subsection 7.1(1) of the act be replaced by the following:

7.1(1) No person shall posses, produce, sell or import anything knowing that it will be used to produce or traffic in a substance referred to in item 18 or subitem 19(8) of Schedule I.

This motion is required to take into account the new offence created by private member's bill C-475 in the last session of Parliament. This offence, Mr. Chair, deals with possession, production, selling, or importing of anything knowing that it will be used to produce or traffic in methamphetamine or ecstasy. The new offence references ecstasy, which is found in schedule III of the Controlled Drugs and Substance Act, CDSA; however, bill C-10 transfers ecstasy from schedule III to schedule I.

Without this amendment, a part of the newly created offence in Bill C-475 will be nullified, and the new offence was added to the CDSA and came into force last June.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

I recall an awful lot of motions of ours ruled out of order because they weren't contained in the bill at second reading and they introduced a new matter.

We're talking about something that doesn't relate to anything within Bill C-10 at all. This seems to me to be in the same category of being out of scope with respect to the rest of the bill. We're talking about satisfying some other requirements of other legislation. It seems to me that this is creating, in fact, a whole new offence that has nothing to do with.... It refers to schedules....

I would ask if our legal adviser can give us a ruling, or it's up to you to give a ruling on it, but it seems to me that this is totally unrelated and is a new matter that wasn't part of the bill at second reading.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

We could refer this to the officials for their explanation.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

I understand there's an explanation as to why it would be there.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

But maybe they can.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

I'm not suggesting--

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

I understood your argument.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

I'm not suggesting it is not being put forth in good faith. What I'm suggesting is that our amendments were being put forth in good faith too, but they added new things that weren't contemplated. I can't remember the exact wording of the ruling, but it was made several times, and the gist of it is that new matters that weren't contemplated at second reading then really ought to be, or need to be, the subject of another bill.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

We're actually moving it from one schedule to another.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Okay.

Ms. Boivin.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

I would be surprised if that would be deemed acceptable, because I couldn't change a title and you're bringing in a new offence? I understand the logic behind it and it might make good sense, but you might have to just present a new bill. To the same logic that we couldn't change a title because it was not part of the bill.... I will be very curious as to the decision that will be rendered here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Mr. Cotler.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I think it's unfair to ask the experts, because they deal with the substance of the bill; they're not experts on matters of parliamentary procedure. If we are following precedent and principle in terms of how we dealt with all the other matters that were deemed to be beyond the scope and therefore ruled out of order, it seems to me the same precedent and principle would have to apply here, if we want to be both principled and consistent.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Thank you, Mr. Cotler.

The legislative clerk would like to hear from the officials to get an understanding of what it means.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This motion really introduces a coordinating amendment. The offence that's referred to here already does exist; it was created in Bill C-475. What this motion does is correct a reference in that offence that was created in Bill C-475, the reference to ecstasy as being in schedule III. This bill here moves ecstasy from schedule III to schedule I; therefore, a coordinating amendment is required to reflect the change of the move from schedule III to schedule I for ecstasy. That's all it does. It does not introduce a new offence, because that offence already exists now.

I offer that up for your information, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Thank you.

Just give me a minute.

Go ahead, Mr. Harris.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

I listened with interest to the official's comment, but there's nothing already in section 7 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, which I have a copy of, unless that's a new bill that added 7.1. My copy is the Martin's Criminal Code 2011 edition.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

A point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Go ahead on a point of order.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

It appears to me, Mr. Chair, that if you've made a ruling that this amendment is in order, it is open to the opposition to challenge your ruling.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

I haven't made a ruling.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Mr. Saint-Denis.

[Paul Saint-Denis]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to point out that our version of the 2012 CDSA, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, does have the reference to the offence at section 7.1. Since the offence came into force in mid-2011, it will not have been included in the 2011 Martin's Criminal Code, but in our more recent version of the Criminal Code, which contains a number of statutes, including the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, it is reflected, sir.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Notwithstanding that, Mr. Chairman, the legislation before us here makes no reference to any issue of producing, selling, possessing, or importing anything, knowing that it will be used to produce or traffic in a substance referred to in any schedule of any kind. This is clearly an amendment to a clause of the bill that's not referred to or dealt with. Of course, they are not amending an existing provision. They are amending the entire bill by adding an entirely new provision, proposed new clause 41.1, which doesn't exist in the bill right now. They are inserting it after clause 41 and before clause 42.

If we are talking about consistency here, as Mr. Cotler said, in principle, this clearly is a new item, a new topic, and a new section of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act that they seek to amend. It is an entirely new clause for this bill, on a new subject matter.

I think when Mr. Cotler, for example, moved the addition of a crime prevention board for Canada, it was ruled out of order because it was a new matter not contemplated in the bill. I don't see how this could be any different.