Evidence of meeting #19 for Justice and Human Rights in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Randeep Sarai
Okay. That's a recorded vote.
(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 10; nays 1)
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Randeep Sarai
We'll go to Green Party amendment 38 on page 54 of your package.
Similarly, I am going to make a ruling that this is out of scope. In the opinion of the chair, it's amending the principles of sentencing in the Criminal Code and goes beyond the scope of the bill. Therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.
On Conservative amendment 11 on page 55 of the package, I am going to also rule that it's beyond the scope. It amends....
I'm sorry. I would ask that a member of the Conservative Party move this motion.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Randeep Sarai
Thank you.
Bill C-5 amends the Criminal Code by repealing certain mandatory minimum penalties. Conservative amendment 11 seeks to amend paragraph 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code, which deals with principles of sentencing.
As the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 770:
An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.
In the opinion of the chair, amendment of the principles of sentencing in the Criminal Code goes beyond the scope of the bill. Therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
Mr. Chair, I wish to appeal your ruling, with argument.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Randeep Sarai
There is no argument when you appeal the chair's decision. It just goes to a vote.
(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 6; nays 5)
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Randeep Sarai
Next, we have Green Party amendment 39 on page 56 of the package. Similarly, I have ruled this out of scope. Therefore, I rule this amendment out of order.
Next we have Liberal amendment 1. Does anybody move Liberal amendment 1?
Since nobody moved it, I guess I don't have to rule on it.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Randeep Sarai
Mr. Fortin, because it's from a member who's not a sitting member of this committee. It has to be moved in order to do it. It came from MP Erskine-Smith.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
I think I misunderstood, Mr. Chair.
You're telling me that the Liberals aren't supporting their own motion.
Is that correct?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Randeep Sarai
Mr. Fortin, it means that nobody in the room—a member of this committee—is moving that forward.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Randeep Sarai
Okay, Mr. Fortin.
If you move Liberal amendment 1, I will deem it out of scope. It's in the opinion of the chair that allowing the court to impose a lesser punishment than any minimum punishment in the Criminal Code goes beyond the scope of the bill. Therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.
Next we have Green Party amendment 40 on page 58.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. This question of members of other parties who aren't members of the committee submitting amendments should probably be dealt with.
My understanding of the motion that was passed in all committees is that independents are allowed to submit motions to committees, and they will be deemed moved. I did not believe that members of other parties—just any member of Parliament—could submit amendments to the committee.
I'd just like to know if that's not a correct interpretation of the the rules of this committee.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Randeep Sarai
I believe that, if it's an independent, it's deemed moved. If it is not an independent, then someone has to move it. In this case, nobody from the Liberal Party moved it, but a member from the Bloc, who is on this committee, did move it forward.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
I understand the difference between deemed moved and moved. My question is whether our rules actually allow the submission by members of other parties who are not members of the committee. I believed that was not the case.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Randeep Sarai
My interpretation from our clerk is that any member of Parliament can submit, but it would have to be moved by a member of this committee. If he or she subbed in, then they're deemed a member at that time.
Thank you, Mr. Garrison.
We're going on to Green Party amendment 40. The chair rules that this is out of scope. In the opinion of the chair, prohibition orders are a type of order not contemplated by Bill C-5 and are, therefore, beyond the scope of the bill. Accordingly, I rule the amendment inadmissible.
(On clause 14)
We have Green Party amendment 41. I believe Mr. Morrice would like to.... No? Okay.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 14 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)
(Clause 15 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)
(On clause 16)
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Randeep Sarai
For clause 16, we have amendment CPC-12.
Mr. Moore, would you like to say anything on it?
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
In many of our ridings, and indeed across Canada, there is a serious crisis when it comes to drugs. Much has been said about Bill C-5, about so-called simple possession. Again, in the same vein as the mandatory minimums, simple possession of drugs is not what is contemplated in this piece of legislation. In fact, it deals with importing, exporting, trafficking and the production of schedule I and schedule II drugs, which include heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine, etc.
These are, first, serious drugs, and second, serious crimes. They have absolutely nothing to do with simple possession. Bill C-5 eliminates the mandatory minimum penalty for trafficking, importing, exporting and distribution. Our amendment, CPC-12, maintains a six-month mandatory minimum penalty for importing and exporting illegal substances. As has been the case with many of the Conservative amendments, there is an attempt to bridge the divide between us and the government, which is seeking to eliminate many mandatory minimum penalties. We feel there is a place for them when we are talking about taking drugs off our streets and going after the people who are causing this scourge in our society.
This would maintain a six-month mandatory minimum for importing and exporting illegal substances.
Conservative
Rob Morrison Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC
I would like to follow-up a bit on Mr. Moore's comments. We're talking in Parliament every day, and we're not only talking about gun offences. The other thing we are talking about is the opioid and drug crisis in Canada. At the same time, we are now talking about taking away mandatory minimum penalties for drug traffickers.
That flies in the face of our trying to get a handle on what the problem really is, which is prevention and people not using drugs. Giving people drugs is not helping people to recover from using drugs. It certainly doesn't stop them from starting. In this case, here is a prime example of a legislative change that is flying in face of a serious problem with opioids and drugs in Canada.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
To pick up on where Mr. Morrison left off, I can't think of a more ill-timed effort to repeal mandatory jail time for what are serious drug trafficking offences with respect to schedule I and schedule II drugs, at a time when we have an opioid crisis.