Public Safety Committee on Nov. 5th, 2014

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

That's correct.

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

Okay. I move the motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

So moved. The chair will not repeat his ruling.

That will pass by the wayside now. We will go to amendment NDP-5.

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

Mr. Chair, it's my pleasure to move the amendment, and I'll turn it over to Ms. Davies for an explanation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

My understanding is that they don't have to be moved though, do they?

Okay, they still have to be moved. Carry on then.

Ms. Davies.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

We're speaking just briefly to this amendment. We think this is a key amendment because, as you can see in the sections that follow, Bill C-2 speaks repeatedly to the opinions of various officials. Originally we were thinking that each one should be amended, but what we came up with was an amendment that says:

For the purpose of this section, any opinion must be evidence-based.

This is certainly a very strong underpinning of the whole debate we're having. I don't think we should be interested in people's opinions. Certainly, public consultation concerns people's opinions, but when we're talking about public health officials, police, provincial authorities, and so on, we believe very strongly that we should be focusing on evidence as opposed to someone's “opinion”.

What does that mean? This particular amendment, if it were approved, would make it clear that in the following clauses where the bill speaks about opinions, we're saying that the definition would be “opinion [that] must be evidence-based”. It's really a clarification.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Falk.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Chairman, we'll be opposing this for the following reason: letters of opinion would be sought from, for example, provincial ministers of health and public safety, heads of the local police, and heads and lead health professionals of the government of the province. They've been given these positions because they're qualified for them and have an opinion on these matters based on their qualifications and their professional capacity.

Given the responsibilities that are entrusted to them as holders of these positions, we value their opinions. I think it's appropriate to leave that in there.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

Mrs. Fry.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

I support this motion, and I would like to add that this does not preclude somebody giving an opinion. It is just that the opinion must be evidence-based.

Also, I beg to differ. The people who are actually ministers of health are not necessarily experts who have the evidence-based background in much of these things. You need to get these from a strong evidence base, and I don't believe that we should be going around saying that because somebody has a particular position, they automatically have the expertise to be able to deliver an opinion that is scientific and is evidence based.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

Is there any further discussion?

(Amendment negatived)

We will now go to amendment NDP-6.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am pleased to move the amendment as submitted and turn the floor over to Ms. Davies.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Chairman, this particular amendment omits the words “other than this section”. This clause says that “the Minister may, on any terms and conditions” consider an exemption from “the application of any or all of the provisions of this Act” other than the section below, and basically that's the section where we get into the a to z that we've debated a lot with witnesses.

Our amendment would make it clear that, in effect, taking out “other than this section” would allow the minister the discretion to act quickly and to more easily set up consumption sites if the minister were of the belief, based on the information before her, that it was in the public interest and was medically necessary to do so. It's really allowing the minister discretion to do that. The amendment also adds “otherwise in the public interest” for inclusion in the language. Again, this is to ensure that there's a broader application by saying that the minister can consider what that “public interest” is.

That's the purpose of this amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

Is there further discussion?

Ms. James.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

We will not be supporting it. We've stated reasons similar to this on another amendment put forward. The bill is designed to create two separate exemption regimes, one for licit substances and one for illicit substances. Exemption applications would still be considered for activities falling under three categories with regard to licit substances: medical, scientific, and public interest. The public interest is well served through this regime. For activities involving illicit substances, the categories under which an application would be considered would be medical, law enforcement, and prescribed purpose. These categories have been chosen given the risks associated with the use of these types of substances, so we will not be supporting this amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

I see no further debate on the issue.

(Amendment negatived)

Mr. Garrison, go ahead.

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

I'd like to move an amendment from the floor, which we have submitted to the committee in advance. It amends clause 5 by replacing line 3 with the following:medical, law enforcement or prescribed purpose or is otherwise in the public interest

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

Members, we will just take a second while that amendment is being distributed for your perusal. Since this is off the floor, we'll just give you a couple of minutes to peruse it.

Do you need any more time?

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Chair, which subsection is this seeking to amend?

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

We are dealing with an amendment off the floor—

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Yes, it's clause 5—

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

It's replacing lines 3 to 8.

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

I see that, but I'm not sure where line 3....

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Do you need more time?

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

I can't square the circle. It says page 8, in clause 5—I want to make sure I understand what's going on here.