[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, October 19, 1995
.1535 
[English]
The Chairman: Order.
Colleagues, to convene this meeting of the subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Health to deal with Bill C-7, An Act respecting the control of certain drugs, their precursors and other substances, we're going to proceed as we discussed at our last meeting.
We again have with us officials: Mr. Rowsell and Mr. Langlois from Health Canada; and Mr. Normand and Mr. St. Denis from Justice Canada.
Before we proceed with clause-by-clause, I would simply turn the floor over to Mr. de Savoye concerning the status of amendments and any information he would care to share with members.
[Translation]
M. de Savoye (Portneuf): As we indicated last Tuesday, the Bloc québécois is ready to proceed today with the study of certain clauses in the bill. As I expected and as departmental officials pointed out to us, many of our concerns were addressed in the amendments tabled.
However, we would still like to propose a few amendments to the committee. We will probably be able to submit most of them to the Clerk tomorrow afternoon and, as for the remaining ones - unfortunately, our legislative adviser is ill - we will draft them ourselves, if the adviser cannot assist us, for next Tuesday.
Therefore, in principle, we can begin today and take all the time we need on Tuesday to complete the clause-by-clause study.
I would like to point out that the similarity of the bill's format to that of the former Bill C-85 doesn't help the process. However, everything is fine.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. de Savoye.
[English]
For the officials, before we proceed, at the last meeting you presented an overview of some of the amendments and the rationale for certain amendments to be coming forward. Is there anything further you wish to add before we proceed?
Mr. Gérard Normand (Counsel, National Security Group, Criminal Law Branch, Department of Justice): No.
The Chairman: Do members have any questions they wanted to ask of the officials, for clarification, etc., prior to proceeding with clause by clause?
Then let's proceed.
Clause 1 allowed to stand
On clause 2 - Definitions
The Chairman: We have five amendments being proposed for clause 2. They are G-1, G-2, G-3, G-4 and G-5.
Ms Fry (Vancouver Centre): I so move amendment G-1.
The Chairman: Is there any discussion?
[Translation]
Mr. de Savoye: I would like our experts to clear up one point. When an apartment or house rented to a third party is a crack house, how is this matter handled?
.1540
Mr. Normand: According to the definition proposed here, modifications would have had to have been made to the building's structure. The amendment refers to property built or significantly modified for the purpose of facilitating the commission of offences.
In our view, crack houses would not normally be covered by this provision. This amendment would apply to property which has been fortified to prevent police officers or persons responsible for enforcing the law from entering the premises quickly in order that any evidence on these premises can be destroyed.
Again, the definition applies to the entire building, not just to one component. From the outset, a decision was made to exclude real property from the definition of "offence-related property", because this could include an apartment in a real estate complex without a separate legal standing, such as a condominium.
In this case, the reference is clearly to a building. The evidence would have to show that the entire building had been modified or designed for this purpose.
Mr. de Savoye: Thank you.
[English]
The Chairman: Are there questions or comments on G-1?
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: May I have a motion for G-2? Are there any questions?
[Translation]
Mr. de Savoye: We know that social workers and nurses come into contact with controlled substances in the course of their work. I understand that they could be covered by the regulations.
I would like the department's experts to tell us today if the real intent is to include them in the regulations.
[English]
Mr. L. Bruce Rowsell (Director, Bureau of Dangerous Drugs, Department of Health): The intent here for the word ``practitioner'' will be that the provincial authorities will designate who may have certain authorities. They are the ones who will regulate the actions of health professionals within their jurisdiction. So we would allow here in the regulations for other persons to be identified to carry out those with the concurrence of the provincial jurisdiction.
[Translation]
Mr. Normand: Mr. de Savoye, aside from practitioners, other people such as nurses are already covered by the regulations. The Department of Health has already indicated that it intends to maintain the status quo insofar as the present regulations are concerned. That is what will happen. I believe there are plans to amend the regulations within the next two years, but the Department of Health has undertaken to consult broadly with all those who could be affected. Therefore, in the short and medium terms, those covered from a medical standpoint level would also be covered under the regulations.
Mr. de Savoye: Thank you.
[English]
The Chairman: Are there any questions?
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: Prior to proceeding, colleagues, I will dispense with the reading of the amendments since you have them in detail in front of you unless you specifically ask me to read them for the record.
Can I have a motion for amendment G-3? Are there any questions or do you have anything for discussion?
[Translation]
Mr. de Savoye: Mr. Chairman, I would like a simple confirmation that Schedule I includes Schedule I.1. Moreover, some adjustments have been made in the proposed amendments. Where initially we had I, II and III, we also had I, I.1, II and III. This is no longer the case. Is this an oversight or has I.1 been struck from the bill? It's a question of agreement and style.
.1545
Mr. Normand: That's an excellent question, Mr. de Savoye. At one point, we listed them in English as well as in French, but the use of the word "à" or "to" is inclusive. This provision covers Schedules I to V, including I.1.
Mr. de Savoye: I'm satisfied with the explanation. The minutes of proceedings of this meeting will reflect the legislator's intent.
[English]
The Chairman: I see no other colleagues wishing to speak. Shall G-3 carry?
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: Can I have a motion for amendment G-4? Are there any questions or comments? Shall G-4 carry?
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: May I have a motion for amendment G-5? I'll give you a moment to turn to that. Are there any questions or comments?
Mr. Hill (McLeod): Do all these copies have the number G-5 on them? If we have more of these, it will make it easier for us.
The Chairman: They should have. I see no other colleagues wishing to speak. Shall G-5 carry?
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: That completes the proposed amendments to clause 2. Are there any further amendments?
[Translation]
Mr. de Savoye: Mr. Chairman, next Tuesday, I would like to move an amendment to the definition of "inspector". For this reason, I would like clause 2 to stand.
[English]
The Chairman: Do I have the consent of the committee to stand clause 2 as amended?
Clause 2 allowed to stand
[Translation]
Mr. de Savoye: I assume that when I make a similar request to have certain clauses stand so that I can move an amendment next Tuesday, the committee's consent will be forthcoming, as was agreed to last Tuesday.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[English]
On clause 3 - Interpretation
The Chairman: Colleagues, there is an amendment on clause 3. It is amendment G-6.
Can I have a motion for amendment G-6? Are there any questions or comments?
Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: That's the only amendment we have for clause 3. So we'll turn now to clause 3, as amended. I'll give you an opportunity to do so.
Clause 3 as amended agreed to on division
On clause 4 - Non-application of Act
The Chairman: Colleagues, you recall our discussion at the last meeting. The intent here is not to have an amendment; rather, the indication was that the preference was to defeat the motion to carry it, which has the same effect.
.1550
Ms Fry: Delete.
The Chairman: No, defeat the motion to carry it, which has the same effect.
Ms Fry: I'd like to move that we vote down clause 4.
The Chairman: No, you can't.
Clause 4 negatived
On clause 5 - Possession of substance
The Chairman: Clause 5 has one amendment proposed at this time, G-7.
[Translation]
Mr. de Savoye: Part I concerns offences and punishment. It is fairly difficult to determine what happens exactly in the case of possession, trafficking or cultivation for a first or second offence. Therefore, I am drawing up a nice chart for myself to get a clear idea of the various punishments imposed for the different offences.
I would ask that the study of each clause in Part I be deferred until next Tuesday. I do not foresee any major problems insofar as most of the clauses are concerned. However, because these clauses are scattered throughout the bill and because I feel that I still may be missing something and therefore may want to move an amendment, I request that Part I in its entirety be allowed to stand. Each clause is distinct. Perhaps we should group similar clauses together. In short, if you have no objections...
[English]
The Chairman: We are dealing now with clause 5, and Mr. de Savoye has requested that we stand clause 5 until he can prepare a table that would show the changes more clearly, which would assist him. He's asked the committee to agree to standing clause 5.
Mr. de Savoye: It goes a little further. It's the whole of part I, because all those are the offences and punishment and they are disbursed for the same offence sometimes in several clauses. It all goes together.
I'm making myself a chart of this. As far as I can see, I'm agreeing with almost everything. But I'm still looking for some information. Maybe I've misread the thing. It's rather dense. There is heavy modification on this too.
If you will allow me to wait until next Tuesday, I'll be ready and probably there won't be much of a problem. I'll come with maybe one or two modifications to propose to the committee and I will know why. At this time it's difficult for me to do otherwise. We can do that clause by clause or for the whole part. It's up to the chair to decide.
The Chairman: At this point the question was with regard to clause 5. I understand you want to stay right up to and including page 12 of the bill. It would be inclusive of clause 11.
Mr. de Savoye: Yes, clause 5 through clause 11.
The Chairman: To expedite our business, the committee can consider that. They've heard the rationale. Mr. de Savoye has asked us to stay clause 5 to clause 11 pending his review of the changes that will be made and of course there have been some changes. I think I understand the reason.
Clauses 5 to 11 inclusive allowed to stand
On clause 12 - Information for search warrant
The Chairman: On clause 12 there are two proposed amendments, G-13 and G-14. I have a motion for amendment G-13.
.1555
Ms Fry: I so move.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: We are on amendment G-14 to clause 12.
Ms Fry: I so move.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 12 as amended agreed to
Clause 13 agreed to
On clause 14 - Sections 289.1 and 490 of the Criminal Code applicable
The Chairman: We have three amendments, G-15, G-16 and G-17. We will deal first with amendment G-15.
Mr. Scott (Fredericton - York - Sunbury): I so move.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: Next we have amendment G-16.
Mrs. Ur (Lambton - Middlesex): I so move.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: Finally, we have amendment G-17.
Ms Fry: I so move.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
.1600
[Translation]
Mr. de Savoye: We will probably wish to move an amendment to clause 14 next Tuesday. Therefore, I ask that clause 14 be allowed to stand.
[English]
The Chairman: Is there any specific area of concern or interest that the committee might want to be aware of?
[Translation]
Mr. de Savoye: We are concerned about the search provisions, but at this time, it is to early for me to say anything more.
[English]
The Chairman: Colleagues, does Mr. de Savoye have your concurrence to stand clause 14 as amended?
Clause 14 as amended allowed to stand
The Chairman: We now move to amendment G-18, which is a new clause for the bill. This would be new clause 14.1. Of course, should that pass, all other items would be renumbered to conform. For our purposes here, it would be clause 14.1.
Mr. Scott: I so move amendment G-18.
[Translation]
Mr. de Savoye: This clause refers to the Minister of Supply and Services. I believe that the new designation is «Public Works and Government Services». Am I not right?
Mr. Normand: When we met with the legal drafters, who are normally up on such matters, they decided to retain this name. We could check into this again to ensure that this is indeed the correct designation. Perhaps the new name appears in a law. If that were the case, we would amend the provision.
Mr. de Savoye: This doesn't change the substance of the provision.
[English]
The Chairman: Is it appropriate to stand it down until we check that reference?
Mr. Normand: I believe there is a reference only in new subclause 14.1(4). I don't know if you want to....
The Chairman: I'm advised by the clerk that we could deal with this amendment now. Should we subsequently learn that an amendment to that title would be required, the committee could open up the clause again.
To keep our lists as short as possible, why don't we deal with G-18, being new clause 14.1? Are there further questions or comments?
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clauses 15 and 16 agreed to
.1605
On clause 17 - Voidable transfers
The Chairman: There is a proposed amendment, G-19, on page 48 of your package.
Ms Fry: I so move.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 17 as amended agreed to
Clauses 18 to 21 inclusive agreed to
On clause 22 - Application of sections 462.3 and 462.32 to 462.5 of the Criminal Code respecting proceeds
The Chairman: There is a proposed amendment, G-20.
Mr. Scott: I so move.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 22 as amended agreed to
On clause 23 - Application for return of substance
The Chairman: We now have amendment G-21.
Mrs. Ur: I so move.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 23 as amended agreed to
On clause 24 - Disposal by Minister where no application
The Chairman: There is an amendment, G-22, which is very similar to the one we just dealt with.
Mrs. Ur: I so move.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 24 as amended agreed to
.1610
On clause 25 - Security, health or safety hazard
The Chairman: Amendment G-23 is similar to the two prior motions we dealt with.
Ms Fry: I so move.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 25 as amended agreed to
On clause 26 - Disposal following proceedings
The Chairman: Amendment G-24 is similar to the last three motions.
Ms Fry: I so move.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 26 as amended agreed to
On clause 27 - Disposal with consent
The Chairman: Amendment G-25, again, is a similar change to this last series we've been going through.
Mr. Scott: I so move.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 27 as amended agreed to
On clause 28 - Destruction of plant
The Chairman: This is to be amended by amendment G-26.
Mrs. Ur: I so move.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 28 as amended agreed to
On clause 29 - Designation of inspectors
[Translation]
Mr. de Savoye: I ask that clauses 29, 30 and 31 be allowed to stand until next Tuesday. We intend to move some amendments to bring these provisions in line with our comments to the House following the tabling of the bill and the hearing of testimony from witnesses. Therefore, we ask that clauses 29, 30 and 31 be allowed to stand until Tuesday.
[English]
The Chairman: Does Mr. de Savoye have the concurrence of the members?
Clauses 29 to 31 inclusive allowed to stand
Mr. de Savoye: Thank you.
The Chairman: Colleagues, we have another section here, clauses 32 to 44 inclusive, for which no amendments are being proposed. If it's acceptable to the committee, we'll deal with them as a block - no pun intended.
[Translation]
Mr. de Savoye: I also ask that clause 40 be allowed to stand.
[English]
The Chairman: In that case, colleagues, I would then ask, if it's acceptable to you, if we would deal with clauses 32 to 39 inclusive, for which no amendments are being proposed.
.1615
Mr. Hill: I would like to stand down clause 32. We will have amendments to that.
Clause 32 allowed to stand
Clauses 33 to 39 inclusive agreed to
On clause 40 - Determination by adjudicator
The Chairman: Mr. de Savoye has requested that we stand clause 40. Does the committee concur?
Clause 40 allowed to stand
The Chairman: Clauses 41, 42, 43 and 44 also do not have any amendments at this time.
[Translation]
Mr. de Savoye: I would also ask that clause 43 be allowed to stand.
[English]
The Chairman: Can you elaborate on that for us, the nature of the question or concern?
Mr. de Savoye: Very briefly, it's the criteria the person should meet to occupy this function. We don't at this moment feel comfortable with the actual wording of the clause being submitted by the government. We want to reflect until Tuesday. At that time we will either agree with the clause or we will propose to this committee a modification we feel we will be more comfortable with, and the committee will be able to dispose of it.
The Chairman: Clause 40 has been stood with the committee's concurrence. We shall continue.
Clauses 41 and 42 agreed to
On clause 43 - Designation of analysts
The Chairman: I now would ask for the concurrence of the committee to stand clause 43, as requested by Mr. de Savoye.
Clause 43 allowed to stand
Clause 44 agreed to
On clause 45 - Penalty
Mr. Hill: This is for the experts to guide us on here. We've changed from $2,000 to $1,000 in this proposal. I'm interested in knowing how we arrived at the figure of $1,000.
The Chairman: Procedurally, I should have first introduced amendment G-29 on page 68 of your amendment package. May I have a motion for amendment G-29?
Ms Fry: I so move.
Mr. Hill: Shall I repeat my question?
The Chairman: If you wish.
Mr. Hill: I do not wish.
The Chairman: All right, I think they heard you.
.1620
Mr. Paul St. Denis (Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice): There is a similar section in the Food and Drugs Act. The section there speaks to subsequent offences. The way the present legislation is structured, there is a first offence which is punishable, amongst other things, by a fine up to $500 and then subsequent fines up to $1,000. In the present legislation, Bill C-7, the fine had been increased up to $2,000, but in keeping with the general comments about the bill being too severe, we reduced the fine back to $1,000.
Mr. Hill: As we look at fines in a general sense, one complaint I hear a lot is that the fines don't seem to relate to one another. In other words, the fine for possession of a narcotic might be quite different from the fine for holding up a convenience store. Does Justice look at the overall tenor of fines to try to match them with similar offences in other legislation?
Mr. St. Denis: We attempt to ensure that there is proportionality among the various types of maximum penalties. We haven't really made a point of ensuring that the fines in one statute are proportionate to the fines in another statute because frequently the subject-matter is totally different. The case you have is exact in the sense that you're dealing with certain offences in relation to substances like drugs and/or narcotics versus maximum penalties concerning assaults, rapes or robberies.
However, in the Criminal Code there is less emphasis on indicating specific fines per se. There is the general summary conviction maximum fine of $2,000, and so it's generally not indicated. Usually what is indicated is the maximum time of imprisonment. In some instances the fine will be indicated, but frequently it's not.
In terms of indictable offences, there is a provision in the Criminal Code that the court has the discretion to impose a fine whenever there is no mention of a fine in the specific penalty provided for a specific infraction.
So it's hard to draw a direct line between the severity of one type of criminal activity and the severity of another, because the court in some instances has the discretion to impose a fine that it sees fit. There is no maximum involved. In this case, frequently, and especially in Bill C-7, we have indicated maxima, thereby limiting the court's discretion to a certain extent.
Mr. Hill: That answers my question. Thank you.
The Chairman: Mrs. Ur.
Mrs. Ur: In the same vein, I was going to bring this up under clause 5, but perhaps it could fall under this. I've had some direction on this, but not being a lawyer maybe I need a little more clarification. It may be totally different because it's Bill C-7 compared to what I'm comparing it to.
A summary offence was added to the Firearms Act: possessing a long gun without a registration certificate. The offence applies only when the accused is a first-time offender and the firearm is a long gun. The offence is punishable by up to $2,000 and/or six months in prison. With this particular first-time offence for Bill C-7, it's six months and $1,000. Is this usual? Is this carried out throughout all processes, or can they have the fines at any dollars?
Mr. St. Denis: I'm sorry, I'm not sure I quite understand the question.
Mrs. Ur: In Bill C-7 the punishment could be six months and/or, for a first-time offence, $1,000.
Mr. St. Denis: In Bill C-7, because cannabis is a special case, we've provided for an offence of thirty grams or less or one gram or less for two types of substances. That's punishable by six months and/or $1,000. Then for amounts involving other types of cannabis products, such as hash oil, for instance, or amounts greater than thirty grams or one gram, there is a first offence and subsequent offences. There the fines are greater, and the penalties are greater.
.1625
The Chairman: Mr. de Savoye, we have stood clause 5, which also relates to the penalty stuff at least in terms of the parallelism of the reference forward. I would seek input from the committee as to whether or not it might be advisable to stand this clause as well, pending the full discussion on clause 5.
Officials, is it tied in at all, or is this relative to clause 5, which we stood?
Mr. St. Denis: Is clause 45 tied in to clause 5?
Mr. de Savoye: The penalty within.
Mr. St. Denis: No, sir, it's not. If anything, in fact, it's completely disjointed in the sense that clause 45 proposes to deal with offences for which no penalty has been provided. All of the offences under part I have specific penalties provided for them. So they're not related.
Mr. de Savoye: I wouldn't object if anyone wanted to stand this clause; however, I feel comfortable with it.
The Chairman: No further comment from the committee?
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 45 as amended agreed to
Clauses 46 to 53 inclusive agreed to
On clause 54 - Regulations
[Translation]
Mr. de Savoye: Regarding clause 54, we plan to move an amendment in committee. In light of the amendment being proposed at this time, I think it would be wise to request that this clause be allowed to stand so that we can take it up again next Tuesday.
[English]
The Chairman: With the committee's concurrence?
Clause 54 allowed to stand
The Chairman: There are no amendments to clauses 55 through 59. With the committee's concurrence, would you wish to deal with them as a group?
Mr. Hill: Clause 55 is another clause that we would like to stand down and deal with later.
The Chairman: With the concurrence of the committee, is there a specific issue you would wish to flag for the committee?
Mr. Hill: With many of these regulations the issue is the very broad nature of the powers. We've taken out of the bill itself a specific clause that had the same basic problem. I want to be on the record very strongly as against broad powers that seem to me to have no really good reason to be that broad.
Clause 55 allowed to stand
The Chairman: With the committee's consent, shall we deal with clauses 56 to 59 inclusive, for which no amendments are being proposed, as a group?
.1630
An hon. member: Clause 59 should be deleted.
The Chairman: There's no documentation in the amendment package in that regard, but pursuant to our last meeting there was an indication that it was a recommendation that clause 59 be defeated.
Mr. Normand: Clause 4, yes.
The Chairman: Thank you for that clarification.
I would then request that we deal with clauses 56, 57 and 58 as a group.
Clauses 56 to 58 inclusive agreed to
On clause 59 - Disqualification where conviction
The Chairman: Just to again remind the committee, the recommendation is that with regard to clause 59, while there's no amendment, the recommendation is that it be deleted. Therefore the motion to carry the motion should be defeated, if that's the will.
Clause 59 negatived
On clause 60 - Schedules
The Chairman: There is a motion to amend, G-33.
Ms Fry: I so move.
Mr. Hill: This is another very broad clause that to me has the same effect. I would like to stand this one down to bring an amendment.
The Chairman: G-33 is making some amendments to the clause itself. We could deal with the amendment but stand the clause as amended and deal with it at the next meeting, if that's acceptable.
Mr. Hill: You bet.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 60 as amended allowed to stand
Clauses 61 to 71 inclusive agreed to
The Chairman: I'll now refer you to amendment G-34, which introduces new clause 71.1.
.1635
Can I have a motion for amendment G-34? It is moved by Mr. Scott.
Mr. Scott: Perhaps this has been covered and I just missed it, but could I get clarification? I think we're moving from one level of court to the other. Am I correct on that?
Mr. Normand: What we are doing here is providing that those two offences will be of absolute jurisdiction. The effect of that is, notwithstanding, on the face of it, the offence will be indictable. It will be before a provincial court judge, so there will not be any preliminary inquiries and no possibility of trial before a jury as well. It streamlines the process for those offences in court.
Mr. Scott: With which charge would you lose the right to have a jury trial?
Mr. Normand: Well, paragraph 5(4)(a) is the simple possession offence and it deals with -
Mr. Scott: Is it simple possession under thirty and one that we're talking about, or the one greater than thirty -
Mr. Normand: No, it deals with all of them, all of the simple possession cases. Then subsection 6(4) is the hybrid trafficking, three kilos or less of marihuana and hashish.
Mr. Scott: And in both cases does that apply? You would lose the opportunity for a jury trial?
Mr. Normand: By going by absolute jurisdiction, yes. It's as if the offence were summary as far as the procedure is concerned.
Mr. Hill: This is just a technical matter. I believe we should be reviewing all the clauses that have been stood and amended before we go to new clauses. I am referring to Beauchesne's, section 691, as my reference for that. It is a technical matter and I think the committee should do this in the proper order so that we don't mess up.
The Chairman: Do you have a citation from Beauchesne's?
Mr. Hill: It is 691, subsection (2), right at the bottom of the page.
The Chairman: The clerk's initial understanding is confirmed in Beauchesne's, 691(2). Although that is the recommendation, it says:
- However, this practice is not rigorously followed as the committee is generally guided by what
is most convenient in each particular case.
Simply for expediency, I accept the point - that's right too; we did carry new clause 14.1. I do appreciate the point raised. It's a valid point. With the concurrence of the committee it will be noted, but possibly we could continue.
Mr. Normand, you wanted to comment?
Mr. Normand: I wanted to add to the answer I gave Mr. Scott, after reviewing paragraph 5(4)(a). It deals with the substances found in schedule I.1, which is now the cannabis products only.
The Chairman: Is it acceptable to you, Dr. Hill, that we deal with the -
Mr. Hill: I just want the committee to function so that we don't have a hassle afterwards.
The Chairman: Thank you for the point.
Is there no further comment on amendment G-34?
.1640
Mr. Scott: I just wanted a better explanation. I'm not a lawyer and I'm not familiar with the courts. But I'd like to be assured that there's not a loss of rights here in terms of the ability to appear before a jury. It used to exist, but no longer exists. Would you just offer me that explanation? I apologize for my thickness.
Mr. Normand: I was just saying that paragraph 5(4)(a) deals with schedule I.1 solely. So this is cannabis products only.
Mr. Scott: Yes, I understand that.
Mr. Normand: I say that because previously I mentioned it was the schedule I products. Currently, the offence is hybrid in the sense that if you go by indictment, effectively you could have a preliminary inquiry and a trial before a judge and jury. With the proposal, this possibility for cannabis products will go away in simple possession cases.
The Chairman: Are there any more comments on amendment G-34?
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: Colleagues, the next section is clauses 72 through 94. To my knowledge, no amendments are being proposed. Is it acceptable to the committee to deal with clauses 72 through 94 as a group?
Clauses 72 to 94 inclusive agreed to
The Chairman: We now move to schedule I, commencing on page 53 of the bill. There is an amendment. It's G-35 in your package. This is consequential to creating that separate schedule for cannabis. Can I have a motion for amendment G-35?
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Schedule I as amended agreed to
The Chairman: The next amendment is amendment G-36. This is consequential to the creation of the new schedule for cannabis, schedule I.1. Can I have a motion for amendment G-36?
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: Colleagues, schedules II through VI inclusive have no amendments being proposed, to my knowledge. Is it acceptable to deal with schedules II through VI, as a group?
Schedules II to VI inclusive agreed to
.1645
The Chairman: Amendment G-37 is our next item. It would create new schedule VII.
Ms Fry: I so move.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: I certainly do want to thank all committee members for their attention and hard work on these matters. It's quite unusual to have so many amendments come forward to a bill as a result of the interventions and requests of the members. It's making this a better piece of legislation.
A number of clauses have been stood. Unless there are any questions for further clarification from members as to any necessary information relating to those clauses at this time....
For the record, clause 2 as amended has been stood.
We have stood clauses 5 to 11. We have not dealt yet with the amendments related to those. We will deal with those.
We have also stood clause 14 as amended. We did deal with the three amendments there.
We have stood clause 29, where no amendments were proposed.
Clause 30 has been stood. There are two amendments there. We have not dealt with those.
Clause 31 has been stood. There were no amendments proposed to 31.
We have stood clauses 32, 40 and 43. No amendments were proposed to those clauses.
Clause 54 has been stood. Three amendments there have not yet been addressed.
We have stood clause 55. There were no amendments proposed to that.
Clause 60 as amended by G-33 has been stood.
I believe that is the complete list.
Before we adjourn, are there further matters for the committee? Notice will be coming to members with regard to our meeting for next Tuesday, 3:30 p.m. At that time I believe we will have ample opportunity to address all of the stood clauses and complete our work on Bill C-7.
The amendments from Mr. de Savoye will be circulated to the members as soon as they have been received.
Thank you, all. We're adjourned.