HESA Committee Meeting
Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.
For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
Minutes of Proceedings
The Committee resumed its clause-by-clause study of the Bill.
Paul Saint-Denis, Dianne Labelle, John Clare and Carole Morency answered questions.
On Clause 11,
Don Davies moved, — That Bill C-45, in Clause 11, be amended(a) by replacing lines 20 and 21 on page 11 with the following:
“(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to a fine of not more than $300,000 or imprisonment for a term of not more than two years less a day, or to both; or”
(b) by replacing lines 24 to 26 on page 11 with the following:
“(i) in the case of an individual, for a first offence, to a fine of not more than $3,000 and, for any subsequent offence, to a fine of not more than $50,000, or”
Debate arose thereon.
The question was put on the amendment of Don Davies and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Don Davies — 1;
NAYS: Ramez Ayoub, Doug Eyolfson, Marilyn Gladu, Ron McKinnon, John Oliver, Sonia Sidhu, Dave Van Kesteren, Len Webber — 8.
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Monday, May 2, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-45, in Clause 11, be amended by replacing line 21 on page 11 with the following:
“prisonment for a term of not more than five years; or”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Don Davies — 1;
NAYS: Ramez Ayoub, Doug Eyolfson, Marilyn Gladu, Ron McKinnon, John Oliver, Sonia Sidhu, Dave Van Kesteren, Len Webber — 8.
“prisonment for a term of not more than two years less a day; or”
Debate arose thereon.
The question was put on the amendment of Don Davies and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Don Davies — 1;
NAYS: Ramez Ayoub, Doug Eyolfson, Marilyn Gladu, Ron McKinnon, John Oliver, Sonia Sidhu, Dave Van Kesteren, Len Webber — 8.
“prisonment for a term of not more than 9 years; or”
Debate arose thereon.
The question was put on the amendment of Don Davies and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Don Davies — 1;
NAYS: Ramez Ayoub, Doug Eyolfson, Marilyn Gladu, Ron McKinnon, John Oliver, Sonia Sidhu, Dave Van Kesteren, Len Webber — 8.
Clause 11 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 4.
On Clause 12,
Ramez Ayoub moved, — That Bill C-45, in Clause 12, be amended by replacing, in the French version, lines 37 to 39 on page 11 with the following:“quelque méthode que ce soit, notamment par la fabrication ou la synthèse ou par l’altération, par tout moyen, de ses propriétés physiques ou chimiques;”
Debate arose thereon.
The question was put on the amendment of Ramez Ayoub and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 0.
Debate arose thereon.
The question was put on the amendment of Don Davies and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Don Davies — 1;
NAYS: Ramez Ayoub, Doug Eyolfson, Marilyn Gladu, Ron McKinnon, John Oliver, Sonia Sidhu, Dave Van Kesteren, Len Webber — 8.
(a) replacing lines 29 to 33 on page 12 with the following:
“(a) to cultivate, propagate or harvest any cannabis”
(b) replacing line 1 on page 13 with the following:
“(b) to cultivate, propagate or harvest any living thing,”
The question was put on the amendment of John Oliver and it was agreed to on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Ramez Ayoub, Don Davies, Doug Eyolfson, Ron McKinnon, John Oliver, Sonia Sidhu — 6;
NAYS: Marilyn Gladu, Dave Van Kesteren, Len Webber — 3.
The Chair ruled that the following amendment was consequential to the previous amendment and therefore it was also adopted:
That Bill C-45, in Clause 51, be amended by replacing lines 3 to 9 on page 29 with the following:“or two cannabis plants; and
(i) proceedings in respect of an offence arising out of”
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Monday, May 2, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-45, in Clause 12, be amended by deleting lines 22 and 23 on page 13.
The question was put on the amendment and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 0; NAYS: 8.
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Monday, May 2, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-45, in Clause 12, be amended by replacing line 23 on page 13 with the following:
“term of imprisonment of not more than five years; or”
The question was put on the amendment and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 0; NAYS: 8.
(a) by replacing line 23 on page 13 with the following:
“fine of not more than $300,000 or imprisonment for a term of not more than two years less a day, or to both; or”
(b) by replacing lines 26 to 28 on page 13 with the following:
“(i) in the case of an individual, for a first offence, to a fine of not more than $3,000 and, for any subsequent offence, to a fine of not more than $50,000, or”
The question was put on the amendment of Don Davies and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Don Davies — 1;
NAYS: Ramez Ayoub, Doug Eyolfson, Marilyn Gladu, Ron McKinnon, John Oliver, Sonia Sidhu, Dave Van Kesteren, Len Webber — 8.
“term of imprisonment of not more than two years less a day; or”
Debate arose thereon.
The question was put on the amendment of Don Davies and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Don Davies — 1;
NAYS: Ramez Ayoub, Doug Eyolfson, Marilyn Gladu, Ron McKinnon, John Oliver, Sonia Sidhu, Dave Van Kesteren, Len Webber — 8.
“term of imprisonment of not more than 9 years; or”
Debate arose thereon.
The question was put on the amendment of Don Davies and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Don Davies — 1;
NAYS: Ramez Ayoub, Doug Eyolfson, Marilyn Gladu, Ron McKinnon, John Oliver, Sonia Sidhu, Dave Van Kesteren, Len Webber — 8.
Clause 12, as amended, carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 4.
On Clause 13,
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Monday, May 2, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-45, in Clause 13, be amended by deleting lines 5 to 7 on page 14.
The question was put on the amendment and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 0; NAYS: 8.
Debate arose thereon.
The question was put on the amendment of Don Davies and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Don Davies — 1;
NAYS: Ramez Ayoub, Doug Eyolfson, Marilyn Gladu, Ron McKinnon, John Oliver, Sonia Sidhu, Dave Van Kesteren, Len Webber — 8.
(a) by replacing lines 5 to 7 on page 14 with the following:
“(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to a fine of not more than $300,000 or imprisonment for a term of not more than two years less a day, or to both; or”
(b) by replacing lines 10 to 12 on page 14 with the following:
“(i) in the case of an individual, for a first offence, to a fine of not more than $3,000 and, for any subsequent offence, to a fine of not more than $50,000, or”
Debate arose thereon.
The question was put on the amendment of Don Davies and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Don Davies — 1;
NAYS: Ramez Ayoub, Doug Eyolfson, Marilyn Gladu, Ron McKinnon, John Oliver, Sonia Sidhu, Dave Van Kesteren, Len Webber — 8.
Clause 13 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 3.
On Clause 14,
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Monday, May 2, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-45, in Clause 14, be amended by deleting lines 20 and 21 on page 14.
The question was put on the amendment and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 0; NAYS: 8.
(a) by replacing lines 20 and 21 on page 14 with the following:
“(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to a fine of not more than $300,000 or imprisonment for a term of not more than two years less a day, or to both; or”
(b) by replacing lines 24 to 26 on page 14 with the following:
“(i) in the case of an individual, for a first offence, to a fine of not more than $3,000 and, for any subsequent offence, to a fine of not more than $50,000, or”
Debate arose thereon.
The question was put on the amendment of Don Davies and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Don Davies — 1;
NAYS: Ramez Ayoub, Doug Eyolfson, Marilyn Gladu, Ron McKinnon, John Oliver, Sonia Sidhu, Dave Van Kesteren, Len Webber — 8.
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Monday, May 2, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-45, in Clause 14, be amended by replacing line 21 on page 14 with the following:
“prisonment for a term of not more than five years; or”
The question was put on the amendment and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 0; NAYS: 7.
“prisonment for a term of not more than two years less a day; or”
Debate arose thereon.
The question was put on the amendment of Don Davies and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Don Davies — 1;
NAYS: Ramez Ayoub, Doug Eyolfson, Marilyn Gladu, Ron McKinnon, John Oliver, Sonia Sidhu, Dave Van Kesteren, Len Webber — 8.
“prisonment for a term of not more than 9 years; or”
Debate arose thereon.
The question was put on the amendment of Don Davies and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Don Davies — 1;
NAYS: Ramez Ayoub, Doug Eyolfson, Marilyn Gladu, Ron McKinnon, John Oliver, Sonia Sidhu, Dave Van Kesteren, Len Webber — 8.
Clause 14 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 4.
By unanimous consent, Clauses 15 to 20 inclusive carried severally, by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 3.
On Clause 21,
Ramez Ayoub moved, — That Bill C-45, in Clause 21, be amended by replacing lines 13 to 17 on page 19 with the following:“21 It is prohibited to display, refer to or otherwise use any of the following, directly or indirectly in a promotion that is used in the sponsorship of a person, entity, event, activity or facility:
(a) a brand element of cannabis, of a cannabis accessory or of a service related to cannabis; and”
Debate arose thereon.
The question was put on the amendment of Ramez Ayoub and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 3.
Clause 21, as amended, carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 3.
At 10:32 a.m., the sitting was suspended.
At 10:41 a.m., the sitting resumed.
By unanimous consent, Clauses 22 to 33 inclusive carried severally, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 3.
On Clause 34,
Doug Eyolfson moved, — That Bill C-45, in Clause 34, be amended by replacing lines 21 to 24 on page 23 with the following:34 (1) Unless authorized under this Act, it is prohibited to sell any mixture of substances that contains cannabis and any substance that is referred to in column 1 of Schedule 5.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply in respect of a mixture of substances that contains a substance that is referred to in column 1 of Schedule 5 and any cannabis of a class of cannabis that is referred to in column 2 of that Schedule in respect of that substance.
Debate arose thereon.
The question was put on the amendment of Doug Eyolfson and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 3.
The Chair ruled that the following amendment was consequential to the previous amendment and therefore it was also adopted:
That Bill C-45 be amended by replacing Schedule 5 with the following:
“SCHEDULE 5
(Section 34 and subsection 151(4))
Prohibited Substances
Item |
Column 1 | Column 2 |
1 |
nicotine |
|
2 |
caffeine |
|
3 |
ethyl alcohol |
”
Clause 34, as amended, carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 3.
By unanimous consent, Clauses 35 to 43 inclusive carried severally, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 3.
On Clause 44,
Don Davies moved, — That Bill C-45, in Clause 44, be amended by replacing lines 6 to 16 on page 26 with the following:“under section 82, is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and is liable, for a first offence, to a fine of not more than $3,000 and, for any subsequent offence, to a fine of not more than $50,000.”
Debate arose thereon.
The question was put on the amendment of Don Davies and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Don Davies — 1;
NAYS: Ramez Ayoub, Doug Eyolfson, Marilyn Gladu, Ron McKinnon, John Oliver, Sonia Sidhu, Dave Van Kesteren, Len Webber — 8.
Debate arose thereon.
The question was put on the amendment of Don Davies and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Don Davies — 1;
NAYS: Ramez Ayoub, Doug Eyolfson, Marilyn Gladu, Ron McKinnon, John Oliver, Sonia Sidhu, Dave Van Kesteren, Len Webber — 8.
Clause 44 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 4.
By unanimous consent, Clauses 45 to 50 inclusive carried severally, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 4.
On Clause 51,
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Monday, May 2, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-45, in Clause 51, be amended by adding after line 36 on page 27 the following:
“(1.1) In determining whether proceedings against an individual are to be commenced either under the Criminal Code or under subsection (1), the peace officer must have regard to what would be in the best interests of justice, with particular attention given to whether the individual is a member of a disadvantaged community.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 0; NAYS: 8.
“other judicial records and will not be used for any purpose that would identify the accused as a person dealt with under this Act, and”
Debate arose thereon.
The question was put on the amendment of Doug Eyolfson and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 4.
“(2)(a) to (h), $200 plus a victim surcharge, calculated in”
Debate arose thereon.
The question was put on the amendment of Don Davies and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 4.
Clause 51, as amended, carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 4.
Clause 52 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 4.
On Clause 53,
Sonia Sidhu moved, — That Bill C-45, in Clause 53, be amended by(a) replacing line 32 on page 30 with the following:
“cused is liable to a fine of not more than $200, in the case of an offence”
(b) replacing line 36 on page 30 with the following:
“139(1)(z.6), to a fine of not more than the amount specified in”
Debate arose thereon.
The question was put on the amendment of Sonia Sidhu and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 3.
“referred to in any of paragraphs 51(2)(a) to (h) or, in the”
Debate arose thereon.
John Oliver moved, — That the amendment be amended by adding, in the French version, after the word “amende”, the word “maximale”.
The question was put on the subamendment of John Oliver and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 0.
The question was put on the amendment of Don Davies, as amended, and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 3.
“(1.1) If the accused is convicted of the offence, no order is to be made under section 731 of the Criminal Code in respect of that conviction.”
Debate arose thereon.
The question was put on the amendment of Sonia Sidhu and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 3.
Clause 53, as amended, carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 3.
On Clause 54,
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Monday, May 2, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-45, in Clause 54, be amended by replacing line 14 on page 31 with the following:
“(d) the accused has 60 days after the day of the convic-”
The question was put on the amendment and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 0; NAYS: 7.
Clause 54 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 4.
On new Clause 54.1,
Don Davies moved, — That Bill C-45 be amended by adding after line 27 on page 31 the following new clause:“54.1 (1) If an accused establishes to the satisfaction of a court that payment of the amount set out in the ticket or of a fine imposed under this Act would cause undue hardship to the accused, the court may, on application of the accused, make an order exempting the accused from the payment of the amount set out in the ticket or that of the fine, or both.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), undue hardship means the accused is unable to pay the amount set out in the ticket or the amount of a fine imposed under this Act because of the accused’s precarious financial circumstances, including because of their unemployment, homelessness, lack of assets or significant financial obligations towards their dependants.
(3) If the accused is convicted of the offence and a Court makes an order under subsection (1), the judicial record of the accused in relation to the offence must be kept separate and apart from other judicial records and it must not be used for any purpose that would identify the accused as a person dealt with under this Act.”
Debate arose thereon.
The question was put on the amendment of Don Davies and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Don Davies — 1;
NAYS: Ramez Ayoub, Doug Eyolfson, Marilyn Gladu, Ron McKinnon, John Oliver, Sonia Sidhu, Dave Van Kesteren, Len Webber — 8.
By unanimous consent, Clauses 55 to 57 inclusive carried severally, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 3.
On Clause 58,
Doug Eyolfson moved, — That Bill C-45, in Clause 58, be amended by replacing line 18 on page 32 with the following:“other judicial records and will not be used for any purpose that would identify the accused as a person dealt with under this Act, and”
Debate arose thereon.
The question was put on the amendment of Doug Eyolfson and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 3.
Clause 58, as amended, carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 4.
By unanimous consent, Clauses 59 to 61 inclusive carried severally, by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 3.
On Clause 62,
Don Davies moved, — That Bill C-45, in Clause 62, be amended by replacing lines 31 to 33 on page 34 with the following:“exportation of cannabis may be issued.”
Debate arose thereon.
At 11:33 a.m., the sitting was suspended.
At 11:37 a.m., the sitting resumed.
“exportation of cannabis may be issued.”
The question was put on the amendment of Don Davies and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Don Davies — 1;
NAYS: Ramez Ayoub, Doug Eyolfson, Marilyn Gladu, Ron McKinnon, John Oliver, Sonia Sidhu, Dave Van Kesteren, Len Webber — 8.
“(a) the issuance, the renewal or the amendment is likely to create a risk to public health or”
Debate arose thereon.
The question was put on the amendment of Doug Eyolfson and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 2.
“lation made under this Act or any of those Acts the contravention of which is punishable by a minimum term of imprisonment of at least two years;”
Debate arose thereon.
The question was put on the amendment of Don Davies and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Don Davies — 1;
NAYS: Ramez Ayoub, Doug Eyolfson, Ron McKinnon, John Oliver, Sonia Sidhu, Dave Van Kesteren, Len Webber — 7.
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Monday, May 2, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-45, in Clause 62, be amended by adding after line 11 on page 36 the following:
“(7.1) Paragraphs (7)(c) and (d) do not apply in respect of a contravention under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, as that Act read from time to time before the day on which this subsection comes into force, if the conduct that constituted the contravention would not constitute a contravention under that Act if it occurred on or after that day.”
The question was put on the amendment and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 0; NAYS: 7.
Clause 62, as amended, carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 3.
At 12:07 p.m., the sitting was suspended.
At 12:37 p.m., the sitting resumed.
By unanimous consent, Clauses 63 to 68 inclusive carried severally, by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 3.
On Clause 69,
Don Davies moved, — That Bill C-45, in Clause 69, be amended(a) by replacing line 4 on page 39 with the following:
“69 (1) A person may produce, possess, sell or distribute cannabis”
(b) by replacing line 16 on page 39 with the following:
“produce cannabis for commercial purposes or that is authorized under a provincial Act to produce cannabis; ”
Debate arose thereon.
The question was put on the amendment of Don Davies and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Don Davies — 1;
NAYS: Ramez Ayoub, Doug Eyolfson, Marilyn Gladu, Ron McKinnon, John Oliver, Sonia Sidhu, Dave Van Kesteren, Len Webber — 8.
Clause 69 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 3.
Clause 70 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 3.
On Clause 71,
Doug Eyolfson moved, — That Bill C-45, in Clause 71, be amended by(a) replacing line 10 on page 40 with the following:
“possess, sell, distribute or produce cannabis may do anything that”
(b) replacing line 17 on page 40 with the following:
“son that is authorized under this Act to possess, sell, distribute or”
Debate arose thereon.
The question was put on the amendment of Doug Eyolfson and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 3.
Clause 71, as amended, carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 3.
After debate, by unanimous consent, Clauses 72 to 93 inclusive carried severally, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 3.
On Clause 94,
Doug Eyolfson moved, — That Bill C-45, in Clause 94, be amended by replacing, in the French version, line 34 on page 58 with the following:“tion de cette province et menées par cette dernière ou en”
Debate arose thereon.
The question was put on the amendment of Doug Eyolfson and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 0.
Clause 94, as amended, carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 3.
By unanimous consent, Clauses 95 to 138 inclusive carried severally, by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 3.
On Clause 139,
Ramez Ayoub moved, — That Bill C-45, in Clause 139, be amended by replacing lines 25 to 27 on page 81 with the following:(k) respecting the characteristics, composition, strength, concentration, potency, intended use, sensory attributes — such as appearance and shape — purity, quality or any other property of cannabis or any class of cannabis;
(k.1) respecting the characteristics, composition, design, construction, performance, intended use, sensory attributes — such as appearance and shape — purity, quality or any other property of cannabis accessories;
(k.2) respecting the emissions produced by the consumption of cannabis or the use of cannabis accessories and defining “emission” for the purpose of regulations made under this paragraph;
Debate arose thereon.
The question was put on the amendment of Ramez Ayoub and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 3.
(a) replacing lines 3 and 4 on page 83 with the following:
from the application of all or any of the provisions of this Act or of the regulations;
(b) replacing, in the English version, line 35 on page 84 with the following:
tion of all or any of the provisions of Division 1 of Part 1 or of the
(c) replacing, in the English version, line 2 on page 85 with the following:
plication of all or any of the provisions of this Act or of the regula-
(d) replacing, in the English version, line 37 on page 85 with the following:
tion of all or any of the provisions of Division 1 of Part 1 or of the
(e) replacing, in the English version, line 1 on page 86 with the following:
application of all or any of the provisions of Division 1 of Part 1 or
Debate arose thereon.
The question was put on the amendment of Doug Eyolfson and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 3.
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Monday, May 2, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Rhéal Éloi Fortin for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-45, in Clause 139, be amended by adding after line 25 on page 83 the following:
“(1.1) The Governor in Council may make a regulation under subsection (1) only if the Minister has first laid the proposed regulation before the House of Commons.
(1.2) A proposed regulation that is laid before the House of Commons is deemed to be automatically referred to the appropriate committee of the House, as determined by the rules of the House, and the committee may conduct inquiries or public hearings with respect to the proposed regulation and report its findings to the House.
(1.3) The Governor in Council may make a regulation under subsection (1) only if
(a) the House of Commons has not concurred in any report from a committee respecting the proposed regulation within the 60 sitting days following the day on which the proposed regulation was laid before the House, in which case the regulation may only be made in the form laid; or
(b) the House of Commons has concurred in a report from a committee approving the proposed regulation or an amended version of it, in which case the Governor in Council may only make the regulation in the form concurred in.
(1.4) For the purpose of subsection (1.3), sitting day means a day on which the House of Commons sits.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 8.
Clause 139, as amended, carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 3.
By unanimous consent, Clauses 140 to 151 inclusive carried severally, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 3.
On new Clause 151.1,
Ron McKinnon moved, — That Bill C-45 be amended by adding after line 21 on page 89 the following new clause:“151.1 (1) Three years after this section comes into force, the Minister must cause a review of this Act and its administration and operation to be conducted.
(2) The Minister must cause a report of the review to be laid before each House of Parliament on any of the first fifteen days on which that House is sitting after the review is completed.”
Debate arose thereon.
The question was put on the amendment of Ron McKinnon and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 3.
By unanimous consent, Clauses 152 to 158 inclusive carried severally, by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 3.
On Clause 159,
John Oliver moved, — That Bill C-45, in Clause 159, be amended by replacing lines 37 to 43 on page 95 with the following:(5) Subject to regulations made under subsection 161(1), the following apply in respect of every application for a licence under section 9.2 or 67 of the Narcotic Control Regulations or for a permit under section 10 of those Regulations in respect of which no final decision has been made before the commencement day:
(a) if the application relates solely to cannabis, it is deemed to be an application made under section 62 of this Act; and
(b) if the application relates, directly or indirectly, to cannabis and to any narcotic, as defined in subsection 2(1) of those Regulations, it is deemed, in relation to the cannabis, to be an application made under section 62 of this Act.
Debate arose thereon.
The question was put on the amendment of John Oliver and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 3.
Clause 159, as amended, carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 3.
By unanimous consent, Clauses 160 and 161 carried severally, by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 3.
On Clause 162,
Sonia Sidhu moved, — That Bill C-45, in Clause 162, be amended by adding after line 25 on page 97 the following:“(1.1) The definition work space in subsection 2(1) of the Act is replaced by the following:
work space means any indoor or other enclosed space — or any outdoor space or class of outdoor space designated in the regulations — in which employees perform the duties of their employment, and includes any adjacent corridor, lobby, stairwell, elevator, cafeteria, washroom or other common area — and any outdoor space or class of outdoor space designated in the regulations — that is frequented by employees during the course of their employment. (lieu de travail)”
Debate arose thereon.
The question was put on the amendment of Sonia Sidhu and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 3.
Clause 162, as amended, carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 3.
Clause 163 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 3.
On new Clause 163.1,
Sonia Sidhu moved, — That Bill C-45 be amended by adding after line 13 on page 98 the following new clause:“163.1 Subsection 7(1) of the Act is amended by adding the following after paragraph (b):
(b.1) designating outdoor spaces or classes of outdoor spaces for the purpose of the definition work space;”
Debate arose thereon.
The question was put on the amendment of Sonia Sidhu and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 3.
Clause 164 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 3.
At 1:50 p.m., the sitting was suspended.
At 3:28 p.m., the sitting resumed.
On new Clause 164.1,
Don Davies moved, — That Bill C-45 be amended by adding before line 21 on page 98 the following new clause:“164.1 Section 4 of the Criminal Records Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (1):
(1.1) The periods referred to in subsection (1) do not apply in respect of an offence under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, as that Act read from time to time before the day on which this subsection comes into force, if the conduct that constituted the offence would not constitute an offence under that Act if it occurred on or after that day. The person may apply for a record suspension on the expiration according to law of the sentence imposed for the offence of which he or she was convicted.
(1.2) No fee is payable in respect of the application.
Debate arose thereon.
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it sought to amend sections of the parent Act not amended by the Bill, as provided on page 767 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition.
By unanimous consent, Clauses 165 to 170 inclusive carried severally, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 3.
On Clause 171,
Doug Eyolfson moved, — That Bill C-45, in Clause 171, be amended by(a) replacing lines 13 and 14 on page 100 with the following:
“171 (1) Paragraphs 9.3(4)(c) and (d) of the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act are replaced by the following:
(c) an order for the seizure of offence-related property may be enforced as if it were a warrant issued under subsection 487(1) of the Criminal Code, subsection 11(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act or subsection 87(1) of the Cannabis Act, as the case may be; and
(d) an order for the restraint of offence-related property may be enforced as if it were an order made under subsection 490.8(3) of the Criminal Code, subsection 14(3) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act or subsection 91(3) of the Cannabis Act, as the case may be.
(2) Paragraph 9.4(6)(b) of the Act is replaced”
(b) replacing line 22 on page 100 with the following:
“(3) Subparagraphs 9.4(8)(b)(i) and (ii) of the Act”
(c) replacing line 5 on page 101 with the following:
“(4) Subsection 9.4(9) of the Act is replaced by the”
Debate arose thereon.
The question was put on the amendment of Doug Eyolfson and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 3.
Clause 171, as amended, carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 3.
By unanimous consent, Clauses 172 to 193 inclusive carried severally, by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 3.
On new Clause 193.1,
John Oliver moved, — That Bill C-45 be amended by adding after line 26 on page 111 the following new clause:“PART 12.1
Cannabis Act
193.1 Schedule 4 to the Cannabis Act is amended by adding the following in numerical order:
Item |
Class of Cannabis |
6 |
edibles containing cannabis |
7 |
cannabis concentrates |
”
Debate arose thereon.
The question was put on the amendment of John Oliver and it was agreed to on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Ramez Ayoub, Don Davies, Doug Eyolfson, Ron McKinnon, John Oliver, Sonia Sidhu — 6;
NAYS: Marilyn Gladu, Dave Van Kesteren, Len Webber — 3.
By unanimous consent, Clauses 194 and 195 carried severally, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 3.
On new Clause 195.1,
Ron McKinnon moved, — That Bill C-45 be amended by adding after line 2 on page 112 the following new clause:“195.1 Section 4.1 of the Act is replaced by the following:
4.1 (1) For the purposes of this section, medical emergency means a physiological event induced by the introduction of a psychoactive substance into the body of a person that results in a life-threatening situation and in respect of which there are reasonable grounds to believe that the person requires emergency medical or law enforcement assistance.
(2) No person who seeks emergency medical or law enforcement assistance because that person, or another person, is suffering from a medical emergency is to be charged or convicted of an offence under subsection 4(1) if the evidence in support of that offence was obtained or discovered as a result of that person having sought assistance or having remained at the scene.
(3) The exemption under subsection (2) also applies to any person, including the person suffering from the medical emergency, who is at the scene on the arrival of the emergency medical or law enforcement assistance.
(4) No person who seeks emergency medical or law enforcement assistance because that person, or another person, is suffering from a medical emergency, or who is at the scene on the arrival of the assistance, is to be charged with an offence concerning a violation of any condition of a pre-trial release or probation order relating to an offence under subsection 4(1) if the evidence in support of that offence was obtained or discovered as a result of that person having sought assistance or having remained at the scene.
(5) Any condition of a person’s pre-trial release, probation order, conditional sentence or parole relating to an offence under subsection 4(1) that may be violated as a result of the person seeking emergency medical or law enforcement assistance for their, or another person’s, medical emergency, or as a result of having been at the scene on the arrival of the assistance, is deemed not to be violated.”
Debate arose thereon.
The question was put on the amendment of Ron McKinnon and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 3.
By unanimous consent, Clauses 196 to 199 inclusive carried severally, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 3.
On Clause 200,
Don Davies moved, — That Bill C-45, in Clause 200, be amended by replacing lines 13 to 24 on page 113 with the following:“200 Section 46 of the Act is replaced by the following:
46 Every person who contravenes a provision of this Act for which punishment is not otherwise provided, a provision of a regulation or an order made under section 45.1 or 45.2 is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable, for a first offence, to a fine of not more than $3,000 and, for any subsequent offence, to a fine of not more than $50,000.”
Debate arose thereon.
The question was put on the amendment of Don Davies and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Don Davies — 1;
NAYS: Ramez Ayoub, Doug Eyolfson, Marilyn Gladu, Ron McKinnon, John Oliver, Sonia Sidhu, Dave Van Kesteren, Len Webber — 8.
“term not exceeding two years less a day, or to both; or”
Debate arose thereon.
The question was put on the amendment of Don Davies and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Don Davies — 1;
NAYS: Ramez Ayoub, Doug Eyolfson, Marilyn Gladu, Ron McKinnon, John Oliver, Sonia Sidhu, Dave Van Kesteren, Len Webber — 8.
Clause 200 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 4.
By unanimous consent, Clauses 201 to 215 inclusive carried severally, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 4.
On Clause 216,
Don Davies moved, — That Bill C-45, in Clause 216, be amended(a) by replacing line 41 on page 117 with the following:
“is imprisonment for a term of not more than two years less a day:”
(b) by deleting lines 8 and 9 on page 118.
Debate arose thereon.
The question was put on the amendment of Don Davies and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Don Davies — 1;
NAYS: Ramez Ayoub, Doug Eyolfson, Marilyn Gladu, Ron McKinnon, John Oliver, Sonia Sidhu, Dave Van Kesteren, Len Webber — 8.
Clause 216 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 4.
By unanimous consent, Clauses 217 to 223 inclusive carried severally, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 3.
On Clause 224,
Don Davies moved, — That Bill C-45, in Clause 224, be amended by replacing line 3 on page 120 with the following:“imprisonment for a term of not more than two years less a day and that was”
Debate arose thereon.
The question was put on the amendment of Don Davies and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Don Davies — 1;
NAYS: Ramez Ayoub, Doug Eyolfson, Marilyn Gladu, Ron McKinnon, John Oliver, Sonia Sidhu, Dave Van Kesteren, Len Webber — 8.
Clause 224 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 4.
Clause 225 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 4.
On Clause 226,
John Oliver moved, — That Bill C-45, in Clause 226, be amended(a) by replacing lines 1 and 2 on page 121 with the following:
“226 (1) Subject to subsection (2), the provisions of this Act, except sections 161, 188 to 193, 194, 199 to 202, 206 and 225, come into”
(b) by adding after line 4 on page 121 the following:
“2) If section 193.1 does not come into force by order before the first anniversary of the day on which section 33 comes into force, section 193.1 comes into force on the first anniversary of the day on which section 33 comes into force.”
The question was put on the amendment of John Oliver and it was agreed to on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Ramez Ayoub, Don Davies, Doug Eyolfson, Ron McKinnon, John Oliver, Sonia Sidhu — 6;
NAYS: Marilyn Gladu, Dave Van Kesteren, Len Webber — 3.
Clause 226, as amended, carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 3.
Dave Van Kesteren moved, — That the Committee resumed consideration of the motion moved on Monday, October 2, 2017, which read as follows:
That the Committe not proceed further with the Bill.
The debate continued.
The question was put on the motion and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Marilyn Gladu, Dave Van Kesteren, Len Webber — 3;
NAYS: Ramez Ayoub, Don Davies, Doug Eyolfson, Ron McKinnon, John Oliver, Sonia Sidhu — 6.
Schedule 1 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 3.
Schedule 2 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 3.
Schedule 3 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 3.
On Schedule 4,
Don Davies moved, — That Bill C-45, in Schedule 4, be amended by adding after item 5 on page 126 the following:“6 solids containing cannabis
7 non-solids containing cannabis
8 cannabis solid concentrates
9 cannabis non-solid concentrates”
Debate arose thereon.
The question was put on the amendment of Don Davies and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Don Davies — 1;
NAYS: Ramez Ayoub, Doug Eyolfson, Marilyn Gladu, Ron McKinnon, John Oliver, Sonia Sidhu, Dave Van Kesteren, Len Webber — 8.
Schedule 4 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 3.
Schedule 5, as amended, carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 3.
Schedule 6 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 3.
Clause 1, Short Title, carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 3.
The Title carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 3.
The Bill, as amended, carried, by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 3.
ORDERED, — That the Chair report the Bill, as amended, to the House.
ORDERED, — That Bill C-45, as amended, be reprinted for the use of the House at report stage.
Marilyn Gladu moved, — That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Committee immediately undertake a study of no less than four meetings on how the proposed changes to the tax system, outlined in the government’s consultations titled “Tax Planning Using Private Corporations” as publicly released on July 18, 2017, will impact the equality of access to medical services covered under the Canada Health Act across Canada; and that the finding be reported to the House.
The question was put on the motion and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 5.
On motion of John Oliver, it was agreed, — That the letter requested by the Committee on Thursday, September 21, 2017, and summarizing the most credible evidence and best advice the Committee has received concerning several discreet issues it deems important in relation to Bill C-45, An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other Acts, include the need for the federal government to take action with respect to removing and/or forgiving penalties imposed for individuals charged and/or convicted for activities that are currently offences but that will be permitted under the new legislation.
On motion of Ron McKinnon, it was agreed, — That the letter requested by the Committee on Thursday, September 21, 2017, and summarizing the most credible evidence and best advice the Committee has received concerning several discreet issues it deems important in relation to Bill C-45, An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other Acts, also recommend that the Minister of Justice review and revise provisions that prohibit the use of conditional discharges for indictable offences that carry maximum sentences of 14 years’ imprisonment.
At 4:33 p.m., the Committee adjourned to the call of the Chair.