Public Safety Committee on Nov. 5th, 2014

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Colleagues, we will call the 37th meeting of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security to order. The meeting will be televised today. Pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, June 19, 2014, we will be dealing with Bill C-2, an act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. We will be doing clause-by-clause consideration today.

Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of the preamble and clause 1, the short title, is postponed. Therefore, we will carry on with our clauses and the subsequent amendments the chair has before him at this time. Of course, there is the possibility, for those who wish, to make an amendment off the floor, and these can and will be accepted in due course.

It's my understanding that the amendments have also been presented to our analysts, so they have an idea of where these would fall in line with the orderly structure of the clauses to be studied. Should there be any doubt as to where they are placed, the chair will suspend briefly until I get clarification from the analysts as to which position these would be in, if they appear to be out of position in your order. But I'm very confident that our analysts are very capable, quite frankly, and have them properly structured.

Mr. Garrison.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

I guess this is a question under a point of order. What you're saying to me is that for those we have already submitted and wish to move from the floor, you will call them at the proper place because we've given you notice.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

That's correct.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Okay, just so we understand that.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

That's helpful.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

That's very helpful. Thank you.

Second, on the question of the five-minutes-per-party rule by clause, I know that we had some discussion at the beginning that the chair should have some discretion here. Given that our clauses vary from nine words to several pages, I'm hoping the chair will have the indulgence of the committee to give some latitude, since there are huge differences between these clauses.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

All I can tell you is that the chair is not going to borrow from Peter to pay Paul. However—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

So we'll get credit for—

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

That's just not going to happen unless, of course, the chair is directed otherwise, but I think there should be a reasonable degree of flexibility, and the chair will be reasonable. That is all I can suggest, but if we appear to be getting a little out of balance, we do want to get these finished, so I would just ask you, then, to respect the chair's comments to try to bring your discussion to a close.

Okay? We're ready?

We shall start off with clause 2. Shall clause 2 carry?

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

On division.

(Clause 2 agreed to on division)

(Clause 3 agreed to on division)

(On clause 4)

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

On clause 4 we have an amendment.

You have a copy of Liberal amendment L-1. Are there any comments?

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Is this Liberal amendment L-1?

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

That's correct.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

I will not be moving that, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much. Is there discussion? Seeing none, all in favour?

Ms. James.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. Are we on amendment L-1 put forward by the Liberals?

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

That's correct. We are at clause 4, Liberal amendment L-1.

For clarification, Mrs. Fry, the chair may have heard you wrong. Are you moving it or are you not?

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

No, I am not moving the amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much. That one is now removed.

We will go to amendment NDP-1.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Chair, I'd like to move the motion. Ms. Davies will comment for us.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you.

Very briefly, Mr. Chair, the reason we put in this amendment is that we believe this new subsection is very problematic because it largely guts the existing discretion of the federal cabinet. Under this bill, basically the only route for an exemption would be under the very restricted measures that are laid out for the minister. We think it's very important to retain the existing provision that was used originally with InSite and that includes discretion from the federal cabinet. That's what this amendment is for. It would preserve that existing provision.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much for the comment.

Are there further comments?

Mrs. James.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

The government side will be opposing this amendment. The purpose of this bill, the proposed act, is designed so that the minister cannot consider an exemption application until such time as all criteria as set out in the act have been addressed. By deleting this section that would no longer be the case, so we are opposing it. We will not support it.