Evidence of meeting #164 for Public Safety and National Security in the 42nd 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.
5:10 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh! (laughter)
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Pierre Paul-Hus
Okay. We'll proceed with a recorded division.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 8; nays 0. [See Minutes of Proceedings])
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Pierre Paul-Hus
The chair would like to express great satisfaction with the committee's work.
Thank you, everyone.
(Clause 8 as amended agreed to on division)
(Clause 9)
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Pierre Paul-Hus
That's fine.
Let's move on to clause 9.
(Clause 9 agreed to on division)
(Schedule)
Let's move on to the next point concerning the schedule, or annexe in French. Mr. Spengermann has proposed the LIB-7 amendment.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Sven Spengemann Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Amendment Liberal-7 does the same thing in two subclauses, which is to exclude the application of the act to synthetic preparations of cannabis that remain illicit. The act was never intended to apply to these substances.
The only exception to the exception is if they are identical to the plant-based cannabis. In those cases, it could be by happenstance or by some other design, but then—
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Sven Spengemann Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
That's what the language captures. If they are identical to the plant-based, then they fall under it. If they're synthetic in any other respect, they are excluded.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Pierre Paul-Hus
Thank you.
Would you like to discuss it?
Mr. Eglinski, you have the floor.
May 27th, 2019 / 5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Jim Eglinski Conservative Yellowhead, AB
My concern is how we would know unless a trial was held and evidence was prepared at that time. Are you asking these guys to go as far back as the trial and the evidence to determine...?
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Sven Spengemann Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
Maybe the officials can comment, but presumably the trial record would capture whether a synthetic substance was involved and it would not be a schedule 3 substance.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Maybe the officials can weigh in on this. If you're looking just at the record itself, it would indicate minor possession of whatever substance it is. If it's a synthetic cannabinoid, I don't know if the record would ever indicate the schedule that it's from. I don't know if it is. I'm curious to know whether—
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
5:15 p.m.
Manager, Civil Fingerprint Screening Services and Legislative Conformity, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
In many cases we wouldn't know. That would be in court documentation perhaps, but on the record itself, we likely would not know that.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Just for clarity's sake then, it would be up to the Parole Board to go and seek the file specifically on that application. How would you know to do that? The record doesn't indicate it.
5:15 p.m.
Manager, Civil Fingerprint Screening Services and Legislative Conformity, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
I can't answer that.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
5:15 p.m.
Acting Director General, Policy and Operations, Parole Board of Canada
Under the Bill C-93, as drafted and with the amendment, if an applicant is seeking a record suspension, they would be providing supporting documents including the court document if it were necessary to ascertain the nature of the convictions. If the court document outlines that this was an offence that involved a synthetic cannabinoid, then that would be found in the court document.