Evidence of meeting #37 for Public Safety and National Security in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was chair.
A video is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
The clarification from the clerk, which I will read, is as follows: suggested amendments filed, pursuant to paragraph (a), at least 48 hours prior to the start of clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill to which the amendments relate shall be deemed to be proposed during the said consideration, provided that the Committee may, by motion, vary this deadline in respect of a given Bill
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
It means that given 48 hours' notice, according to the routine motion we have here, the orders of reference respecting bills.... I'll ask our legislative clerk to give us a fuller explanation other than what the chair has here at his disposal.
Conservative
Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON
We have two sets of motions before us: motions from the members of the committee and motions that are proposed by the independent members. The motions proposed by any member of the committee can be moved by any member of the committee on either side. The motions proposed by the independent members are deemed moved because of the motion that was adopted by the committee at the beginning of the session, so there's no need for anybody to move it because it's deemed moved. All of them are.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
It creates a practical problem for us when we don't have someone here to explain the intent of their motion, so let's just deal with it as quickly as we can.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
I understand. We will still deal with it, then, obviously.
Is there anybody speaking on this motion?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mrs. Ablonczy.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Isn't it wonderful?
That amendment is defeated. We'll now go to amendment LIB-3.
Liberal
Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This will be deleting, in the English version, page 5 lines 29 to 39, page 6 lines 29 to 36, and, in the French version, page 7 lines 1 to 30, and, in the English version, page 7 lines 17 to 26, and page 11 line 36 to page 12 line 36.
We move to do that because we are trying to remove the definitions of “alternate persons in charge”, “key staff members”, and “responsible person in charge”, because we believe that these are intruding into provincial jurisdiction. The province that is going to be—if given an exemption or whatever—delivering the care should be hiring the people who are doing this, and therefore they should be making those decisions. We think this is outside of federal jurisdiction and is really under provincial jurisdiction.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Thank you very much.
Is there any further discussion?
Mr. Carmichael.
Conservative
John Carmichael Conservative Don Valley West, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
With regard to this amendment, these sections of Bill C-2 are consistent with information that is required under regulations currently under the CDSA, for example, the narcotic control regulations or the benzodiazepines and other targeted substances regulations. This type of information is required, given the risks associated with illicit substances. The supervised injection site currently operating with an exemption from the CDSA has provided this information for a number of years. The bill does not preclude a person with a criminal record from working at a supervised consumption site, only from being a responsible person in charge. That being the case, I would oppose the amendment.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Thank you very much.
Is there further discussion?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We will now go to amendment LIB-4 to clause 5.
Liberal
Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC
This asks that clause 5 be amended by deleting line 40 on page 5 to line 25 on page 6 inclusive, thereby deleting the clause related to staff persons with criminal offences. We think if a person has had a criminal offence but gets an okay from the police to work in that place, having completed their criminal activity or criminal offence and having paid their dues, we should not be looking at them as not having that ability.
A good example was a witness who presented here, who actually works at InSite, and who has had criminal offences related to drug charges but has now been clean for 5 years. It is kind of retroactively penalizing people, and we felt that was important.
November 5th, 2014 / 3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Conservative
Diane Ablonczy Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
As I understand it—and somebody can correct me if I'm wrong—a person like that witness can still work at InSite but just can't be in charge. I think that's reasonable just because certain requirements put more responsibility on somebody in charge.
Liberal
Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC
If the person has the requirements through expertise and meets a whole lot of other professional requirements to be able to do this, but once had a criminal charge for which they have paid their dues, I don't think we should—we don't do this in our society for anybody else—retroactively decide to discriminate against them.
Conservative
Diane Ablonczy Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
The argument is that if you have a criminal record and you meet the requirements, I would say no in this case, because it's a very sensitive position.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Thank you very much.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Now, on amendment NDP-4, the chair's ruling is that this is inadmissible.
