Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Issue No. 27 - Evidence - April 12, 2017
OTTAWA, Wednesday, April 12, 2017
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, to which was referred Bill C-37, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to make related amendments to other Acts, met this day at 4:18 p.m. to give clause-by-clause consideration to the bill.
Senator Bob Runciman (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Today we're dealing with clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-37, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to make related amendments to other Acts.
I want to draw a couple of points to the committee's attention. We will not have pages available. They may show up in a few minutes as the Senate has just adjourned, but for the time being they will be unavailable.
We have officials from Health Canada who are at the back of the room. If there are questions of a technical nature that we wish to pose, they can come forward. We have Kirsten Mattison, Director of Controlled Substances Directorate, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch; and Miriam Brouillet, Legal Counsel, Health Canada Legal Services.
If agreed, members, what we like to do in situations like this is group clauses. Do we have agreement?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you.
Is it agreed that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-37, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to make related amendments to other Acts?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the preamble stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clauses 1 through 10 carry?
Senator Batters: No.
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Do you want to do a motion on division, Senator Batters? I'll cede the floor to you. Do you have some comments to make?
Senator Batters: I don't have any comments, but I'm thinking maybe we should have a recorded vote.
The Chair: A recorded vote on each group?
We have a request for a recorded vote on clauses 1 through 10.
Jessica Richardson, Clerk of the Committee: You have to vote first, chair, if you want to vote.
The Chair: No, I won't vote.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Baker, P.C.?
Senator Baker: Yes.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Batters?
Senator Batters: No.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Boisvenu?
Senator Boisvenu: No.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Dagenais?
Senator Dagenais: No.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Dupuis?
Senator Dupuis: Yes.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Jaffer?
Senator Jaffer: Yes.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator McIntyre?
Senator McIntyre: No.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Pate?
Senator Pate: Yes.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Pratte?
Senator Pratte: Yes.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator White?
Senator White: Yes.
Ms. Richardson: Six for; four against. The motion carries.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clauses 11 through 20 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Yes.
Senator Batters: No.
The Chair: Senator Batters, the floor is yours.
Senator Batters: I'd like to have a recorded vote again.
The Chair: There is a request for a record vote, Madam Clerk.
Ms. Richardson: On the question of whether clauses 11 through 20 shall carry.
Am I to assume you don't want to vote again?
The Chair: No, I'll start voting. Yes.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Runciman, agreed.
The Honourable Senator Baker, P.C?
Senator Baker: Yes.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Batters?
Senator Batters: No.
[Translation]
Mrs. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Boisvenu?
Senator Boisvenu: No.
Mrs. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Dagenais?
Senator Dagenais: No.
Mrs. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Dupuis?
Senator Dupuis: Yes.
[English]
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Jaffer?
Senator Jaffer: Yes.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator McIntyre?
Senator McIntyre: No.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Pate?
Senator Pate: Yes.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Pratte?
Senator Pratte: Yes.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator White?
Senator White: Yes.
Ms. Richardson: Seven for; four against.
The Chair: Clauses 11 through 20 carry.
Shall clauses 21 through 30 carry?
Senator Batters: No.
The Chair: Senator Batters.
Senator Batters: Could I have a recorded vote, please?
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Runciman?
Senator Runciman: No vote.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Baker, P.C.?
Senator Baker: Yes.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Batters?
Senator Batters: No.
[Translation]
Mrs. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Boisvenu?
Senator Boisvenu: No.
Mrs. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Dagenais?
Senator Dagenais: No.
Mrs. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Dupuis?
Senator Dupuis: Yes.
[English]
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Jaffer?
Senator Jaffer: Yes.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator McIntyre?
Senator McIntyre: No.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Pate?
Senator Pate: Yes.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Pratte?
Senator Pratte: Yes.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator White?
Senator White: Yes.
Ms. Richardson: Six for; four against. The motion carries.
The Chair: Moving on, shall clauses 31 through 41 carry?
Senator Batters: No.
The Chair: Senator Batters.
Senator Batters: Again, I would like a recorded vote, please.
The Chair: There is a request for a recorded vote on clauses 31 through 41.
Ms. Richardson: Do you want to vote?
The Chair: No.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Baker, P.C.?
Senator Baker: Yes.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Batters?
Senator Batters: No.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Boisvenu?
Senator Boisvenu: No.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Dagenais?
Senator Dagenais: No.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Dupuis?
Senator Dupuis: Yes.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Jaffer?
Senator Jaffer: Yes.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator McIntyre?
Senator McIntyre: No.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Pate?
Senator Pate: Yes.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Pratte?
Senator Pratte: Yes.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator White?
Senator White: Yes.
Ms. Richardson: Six for; four against. The motion carries.
The Chair: Shall clause 42 carry?
Senator Batters: No.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: I would like to propose an amendment.
That Bill C-37 be amended, in clause 42, on page 44, by replacing line 20 with the following:
"(e) the expressions of support or opposition of the community, including those of a municipal council, a council of a band as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Indian Act, a police force that is responsible for providing policing services to the municipality in which the site would be located, and the administration of any school or daycare located less than 5 km from the site.''
That is the amendment I am proposing.
[English]
The Chair: Do you wish to expand on the rationale?
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Yes. Mr. Chair, I am proposing an amendment that is intended to safeguard certain aspects of the consultation mechanism that Bill C-37 eliminates. The Supreme Court requires that the community be consulted, and the word "community'' is open to a good deal of interpretation. Unfortunately, the bill eliminates all reference to police officers and schools. We must ensure that the consultations consider the concerns of the police and of school authorities, and that the safety of children is not compromised.
That is why I propose adding a passage about the various stakeholders who will be consulted, as I mentioned previously. I am going to repeat the amendment, the intent of which is that the various stakeholders be consulted. They are:
. . . a municipal council, a council of a band a police force that is responsible for providing policing services to the municipality in which the site would be located, and the administration of any school or daycare located less than 5 km from the site.''
Those are my arguments, Mr. Chair.
[English]
The Chair: Debate, Senator Jaffer?
Senator Jaffer: Senator Dagenais, clause 42 on page 44, you're amending (e), right?
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: I want to amend line 22 in the English version. It is line 22, on page 44, clause 42. I am adding municipal councils, band councils, police forces, schools and daycares.
[English]
Senator Baker: Is it clause 42?
Senator Dagenais: Yes. I'm not sure the English version is the same line. Replacing line 20 in the English version; the page is the same, page 44, and line 20 in the English version.
Senator Dupuis: It's clause 42, paragraph (2)(e).
The Chair: Senator Jaffer has the floor.
Senator Jaffer: Senator, I think I heard you say it's not enough consultation, but it does say, "expressions of community support or opposition.'' If I'm wrong, please correct me.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Of course. Certain aspects in the consultation mechanism must be preserved. In my opinion, Bill C-37 eliminates those aspects. The Supreme Court clearly said that the community must be consulted. What does the word "community'' mean? There are a number of interpretations. I am trying to be more precise. The Supreme Court decision eliminated police forces and schools. When we talk about a site in the middle of a community, what exactly are we referring to? In the community, there are police officers, schools, daycares, band councils and municipal councils. I would like it to be more precise. In the bill, the interpretation of "community'' is too broad.
[English]
Senator Jaffer: Senator, from what you were saying, I thought that is covered by 2(b), where it says, "local conditions indicating a need for the site.'' That would cover the things that you have said. I think that "expressions of community support'' covers all of the community, and the things you were raising are already covered in (b). That's my humble suggestion.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: I am specifying by mentioning band councils and municipal councils. . . In fact, as Mr. Stamatakis mentioned the other day — and he has patrolled the Downtown East Side in Vancouver — when you open a supervised injection site, it is important for the police to be involved, especially to prevent drug dealers or criminal organizations from being around the site. When a supervised injection site is opened, the municipal council must absolutely be aware. You have to be vigilant. If you decide to open a supervised injection site, it should have to be more than five kilometres from a school or a daycare. That is why I am introducing an amendment to the text. I want it to be more specific because the expression "local community'' is extremely broad. I want to make sure that the public is protected.
Senator Pratte: Senator Dagenais, some details in your amendment are not clear. Clearly, the police service in the municipality where the site is to be established will be consulted, and schools and daycares have to be located five kilometres from the site. You talk about municipal and band councils, but which ones exactly? That is not clear at all, especially in French, where it says "conseils municipaux'' in the plural.
[English]
The English version talks about a municipal council or a council or a band. So in English it's singular and in French it's plural.
[Translation]
It does not specify which municipal councils we are talking about. If you don't mind me saying so, the text of the amendment lacks precision and leads to confusion.
Senator Dagenais: The best example I can give you is Montreal. The municipal council and the mayor, Mr. Coderre, have authorized three supervised injection sites. From that, I conclude that the municipal council was consulted. In some communities, the band council acts as a municipal council. If, for any reason at all, someone wanted to open a supervised injection site on a reserve, on Aboriginal territory, I imagine that the band council should at least be consulted, should it not?
Senator Pratte: Perhaps you are right, Senator Dagenais, but the text of your amendment as currently drafted is not clear. It does not specify which municipal council or which band council should be consulted. It is clear which police service and which daycare should be consulted, but the text does not indicate which municipal council should be consulted. In Montreal's case, it does not say whether it is the community council, the local council, or the city council. The amendment does not say. I could not vote for this amendment, even if I agreed with your intent, because it does not clearly state which municipal council should have the right to be consulted.
[English]
Senator White: Thank you very much. Just for my clarity, under 2(b), the phrase "local conditions indicating a need'' has nothing to do with the police service. A need has to do with a medical requirement, from my perspective. I don't think it does talk about the community need; it talks about the medical need.
Having been the police chief of two large municipalities, I do believe in the necessity of engaging both the municipality, who ultimately ends up funding policing, and the police service. I know from experience that they dramatically increased the number of police officers in east Vancouver when they opened the supervised injection site. I'm not questioning the value of it; I'm saying I believe the people who have to pay the bills should be involved in consultation. I think that's really all that is being asked for here: engagement and consultation with the communities where these facilities will be approved, because the City of Ottawa won't be applying for this. It will be an independent group that will apply for it. You couldn't open a bar without consultation. I certainly think a supervised injection site would be important.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Omidvar: Senator Dagenais, I wonder about defining "community'' in this way, because once define it this way, exclusions appear and are apparent to me. For instance, what about local health authorities? What about local NGOs or local community groups?
I wonder if, by seeking to define what you mean by "community,'' we would open up a veritable can of worms, because then we have to define every stakeholder that would be involved.
The Chair: Do you wish to respond, senator?
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Previously, "community'' had a very broad meaning and was not defined. Now we are making the effort to specify groups. Clearly, I cannot list the names of all the municipal councils in Canada. We have to be more specific to make sure that, when a supervised injection site is established in a community, responsible groups will be consulted — whether that be a municipal council, a police service, or schools and daycares located near the injection site. I think that we have already taken a major step forward. The goal of supervised injection sites is to help people struggling with drug problems. Supervised injection sites must not be established in communities where the residents involved are not consulted. I think that is already a step forward.
[English]
Senator Omidvar: By making it clearer, I think you're also making it more exclusive, and this is law. That's my problem with it, in a way. I don't disagree with defining the scope of "community,'' but there's a problem with definitions that are limiting in one way and exclusive in another way. That's not a question; it's just a statement.
[Translation]
Senator Dupuis: Senator Dagenais, my question is about the wording you have chosen. If I understand correctly, you want to specify the term "community'' because the definition is too broad.
Senator Dagenais: Let me give you an example. Someone wants to set up a supervised injection site and they decide to go and consult the community. Who makes up the community? Who runs the community?
Senator Dupuis: I am asking the question because I want to make sure that I really understand. You want to define the term "community'' because you find it too broad. Is that what I am to understand?
Senator Dagenais: There you go. Exactly.
Senator Dupuis: Do you agree with the possibility that, if you want to specify who makes up the community, you can include a certain number of agencies. There are the municipal authorities, the police, and other agencies because the community as a whole is not just the municipal council and the police; other agencies are involved.
Can daycares be expressed more broadly? I ask the question because I wonder whether early childhood centres are included in the definition of daycare. That's a debate we don't want to get into, but we do want to specify that, if you are providing services to parents, to the public, you will be included in the consultation. You will be included as a service provider, either in health care or in the services you provide to the public, to parents who want their children looked after.
With the expression "community, including. . .'', it is clear that any subsequent interpretation will be made in terms of the list. My concern is to not reduce the examples to the point where a judge would be forced to interpret this passage solely in terms of the examples provided, daycares, schools, municipal councils or the police, because all the rest is excluded.
[English]
The Chair: Senator, I will ask you to ask the question, please. I think you've made your point.
[Translation]
Senator Dupuis: That's the question I am asking him.
Senator Dagenais: Senator Dupuis, first, I have to tell you that the terms used in my amendment are those used in the current legislation. Bill C-37 removes those terms. I am proposing a compromise.
The best example I can give you is when you set up shop in a community. The first thing you do is to go to the municipal council to see about municipal taxes. Second, you check whether you have access to police services, and then you register your children in school or daycare.
I wanted to propose specific terms, but I cannot include the pharmacist or the parish priest, because I feel that would be too much. We have to be logical. It seems to me that, if you are setting up a supervised injection site, the first people you must consult are the elected municipal officials and the municipal council in that location. Normally, in a municipality, there are police services, daycares and schools. That's what you do when you build a community.
I cannot include everyone involved. I don't think that, by specifying the organizations that play a key role in the community, we are excluding others. When you arrive with your children and your family, you pay your taxes at city hall, you have a police service to turn to if you are in trouble, and you send your children to school or daycare.
With a supervised injection site, people like that have to be advised because they are the community's first responders. Unfortunately, Bill C-37 does not mention them. I wanted to come up with a compromise, and I believe that this compromise works in broad terms. At least a "community'' is a little better defined.
[English]
The Chair: We're running over the same ground here. We have five amendments and we are having recorded votes on all. We would like to get through this today. I'm afraid I have to move on.
Senator White, I will give you as much time as I can.
Senator White: I'm good.
The Chair: Very quickly, Senator Dupuis, rather than this back and forth, is there something new?
[Translation]
Senator Dupuis: Yes, certainly. Are associations and service centres for those with no fixed address excluded from your amendment?
Senator Dagenais: Normally, the municipal council has to take care of any services for those with no fixed address. But, as I said, this is a compromise; otherwise it would be never-ending. My amendment introduces some details, but I would not go so far as to say that the homeless, the pharmacist and the doctor have to be advised. Look, do we have to tell the medical clinic as well?
[English]
The Chair: I think the points have been made with respect to the concern and the responses.
Senator Sinclair: I have a couple of comments to indicate why I'm not prepared to support the amendment.
Senator, it appears that you're taking a broad term and trying to narrow it down. In doing so, you may be unintentionally excluding groups. I have a concern the same as Senator Pratte has raised, which is in English you are using the singular to refer to municipal councils, and in French you're using the plural. In the English version, there is no need to consult with more than one municipal council.
I want to indicate that there is a basic rule of interpretation in law, which is by putting in a list, if you don't add anything to the list, or if there's nothing in the list, then it's excluded by implication. Therefore, all of the other possibilities of people wanting to have some input into the location of these centres in the area would be excluded.
I'm concerned that you perhaps unintentionally excluded all of the other groups. I prefer the broader version, which requires the minister to consult and allow the community to indicate its support or its opposition, and I think that's clear enough.
The Chair: Senator Batters, you put your hand up earlier. Is that a specific request for a recorded vote?
Senator Batters: Yes.
The Chair: We have an amendment. The three following amendments also deal with the same clause.
It has been moved by Senator Dagenais:
That Bill C-37 be amended, in clause 42, on page 44, by replacing line 20 with the following —
An Hon. Senator: Dispense.
The Chair: All in favour of the amendment moved by Senator Dagenais?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Opposed?
Some Hon. Senators: Nay.
The Chair: In the chair's view, the nays have it.
We'll go through the recorded vote.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Baker, P.C.?
Senator Baker: No.
The Clerk: The Honourable Senator Batters?
Senator Batters: Yes.
[Translation]
Mrs. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Boisvenu?
Senator Boisvenu: Yes.
Mrs. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Dagenais?
Senator Dagenais: Yes.
Mrs. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Dupuis?
Senator Dupuis: No.
[English]
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Jaffer?
Senator Jaffer: No.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator McIntyre?
Senator McIntyre: Yes.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Omidvar?
Senator Omidvar: Yes.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Pate?
Senator Pate: No.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Pratte?
Senator Pratte: No.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Sinclair?
Senator Sinclair: No.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator White?
Senator White: Yes.
Ms. Richardson: Five for; seven against. The motion is defeated.
The Chair: We will move on, then.
Senator McIntyre: I also have an amendment regarding clause 42, on page 44, line 31, which deals with a minimum number of days of consultation. It's a rather straightforward amendment.
That said, I move:
That Bill C-37 be amended in clause 42, on page 44, in line 31, by replacing the words "not to exceed'' with the words "not less than 45 days or more than''.
Colleagues, this amendment relates to the length of consultation before granting an exemption licence for a drug consumption centre. It seeks to correct an important detail in the text of the bill. The current text of the bill says that the public has a period of not more than 90 days to make representations to the minister.
The important thing to underline is that the text of the bill does not specify a minimum period. To me, that's crucial. That's important.
Under the parameters of the bill, a consultation period could be one day or two days. As a matter of fact, there may not be any consultation at all. Based on what we've heard from witnesses, I think it's important to have a set period — in other words a minimum period — for consultation.
I know that the minister is adamant in pushing this bill forward. She wants it set as quickly as possible. I think by putting in a minimum of 45 days, we're making sure that citizens have time to inquire, ask questions and prepare a clear and well-thought position for the minister to consider.
The Chair: On debate, Senator White.
Senator White: Thank you very much. I support this primarily in falling in line with the application process, where we talk about expressions of community support and opposition. I think it's impossible to actually meet that under paragraph (e), which a number of people quoted, without having some level of time requirement. I'm always concerned that, for expediency, something like this would occur without some level of consultation. I think 45 days is an appropriate number.
[Translation]
Senator Dupuis: I would like to ask for clarification. Are you talking about subclause 4 on page 44?
Senator McIntyre: Yes, that's right.
Senator Dupuis: So are you saying that the public has to be able to present its observations to the minister? And you want to make sure that there is a minimum amount of time for the public to do that?
Senator McIntyre: That's exactly it, senator.
Senator Dupuis: So, at least 45 days.
Senator McIntyre: Exactly.
Senator Dupuis: Great. Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Is there any further discussion surrounding this amendment?
Senator McIntyre moves:
That Bill C-37 be amended in clause 42, on page 44, in line 31, by replacing the words "not to exceed'' with the words "not less than 45 days or more than.''
All in favour of the amendment?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
An Hon. Senator: Opposed.
The Chair: The motion carries, on division.
Moving on to the next amendment related to clause 42, Senator Boisvenu?
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Thank you very much. I would like to introduce this amendment. It is actually an addition, not an amendment, to one clause. So, after clause 56.1 of the bill, we would add clause 56.2. So, I propose:
That Bill C-37 be amended, in clause 42, on page 44, by adding after line 36 the following:
"56.2(1) The minister shall establish, for each supervised consumption site, a citizen advisory committee charged with advising those in charge of the site on matters relating to its operation and public concern about the presence of the site in their community, including with respect to public health and safety.
(2) The committee shall consist of 5 to 10 volunteers who live in the immediate vicinity of the site.
— police officers, members of the public, municipal councillors —
(3) The committee shall provide the Minister with a written report on its activities each year, no later than 60 days after the anniversary of the date on which it was established.''
I used the same model that is used for federal penitentiaries; each federal penitentiary has a citizens' committee. Basically, it makes sure that the social environment is on board, so that relations between the centre and the public are harmonious. The main objective is first to eliminate the friction that there may be with a clientele that is often difficult and complex.
The other aspect is to prevent the environment from becoming a ghetto and to create an active life between the centre and the citizens, in order to eliminate the prejudices it would have toward that clientele, much like incarcerated individuals, because there are many prejudices in that respect, and much resistance. This committee would foster transparency in the relationship between the community and the centre so that it is well-integrated into the lives of citizens and people living in the vicinity.
[English]
The Chair: Is there any debate on the proposed amendment?
Senator Pate: I have a question, Senator Boisvenu, because you used the example of the federal penitentiaries. The Citizen Advisory Committees have no binding power and, in fact, tend not to make any of these kinds of recommendations.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: They have no more power here. It's a watchdog committee, like the ones in Quebec on landfill sites, among other things, that examine the activities of companies that pose risks to health and safety to prevent them from developing prejudices and conflictual relationships. I have seen it in Sherbrooke, where I'm from. At one point, there were citizens asking for changes to the master plan to move a halfway house because there was, in fact, poor communication between the centre and the citizens. We have had to re-establish communications, and this type of committee is really helpful. It is made up of a minimum of people who form a link between the community and the centre. This helps to build harmonious relationships and avoid the prejudices and frictions that could develop.
[English]
The Chair: Does that answer your question, Senator Pate?
Senator Pate: Sort of. My worry is that I don't know what the bureaucracy of the injection sites would be. It's a fairly large bureaucracy in Correctional Service Canada, funded through that system. I'm not sure there would be those kinds of resources to accommodate this within the health system. Have you looked at that in terms of what the implications would be for the site?
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: They are normally volunteers.
Senator Dupuis: I would simply like to understand. Clause 42 of the bill states that section 56.1 of the act is replaced by the following. Therefore, clause 42 is to replace section 56.1, but you're saying that you want to add a section.
Senator Boisvenu: Yes, after "a public decision concerning the establishment of a centre'', a section would be added after that paragraph that would make it possible, once the decision is made, to provide the tool for consultation and dialogue with citizens.
Senator Dupuis: Right. What you just changed is clause 42, to indicate that section 56.1 would be replaced, and section 56.2 would be added. Is that right?
Senator Boisvenu: No.
Senator Dupuis: Section 56.2 is being added somewhere.
Senator Boisvenu: It would be added after "public decision''. Section 56.1 is already there.
Senator Dupuis: On page 44.
Senator Boisvenu: There would be a new section after paragraph 5, "Public decision'', and it would be section 56.2.
Senator Dupuis: So, section 56.2 isn't in the current act.
Senator Boisvenu: Exactly; it's an addition.
Senator Dupuis: We are not just replacing section 56.1; we are adding section 56.2.
Senator Boisvenu: What is changing in section 56.1?
[English]
Ms. Richardson: Nothing.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Nothing is changing in section 56.1. My amendment proposes a new section; nothing is changing in section 56.1.
Senator Dupuis: Excuse me, Mr. Chair, but if we look at clause 42 of Bill C-37 —
[English]
Clause 42 states that "Section 56.1 of the Act is replaced by the following,'' and then you have a number of paragraphs. Here we have an amendment whose objective is to add a different section, which would be this new 56.2, which is not covered under the actual section 42 of Bill C-37.
I'm asking this: What's the intent of this amendment? If this is to add to the actual act, I would suppose that we need somewhere to say that Bill C-37, section 42, should read that the actual 56.1 of the act is replaced by this and modified by adding this new 56.2.
Once this is done, I have a supplementary question on the substance of the proposed amendment.
The Chair: I'm going to turn to our analysts for clarification with respect to what Senator Dupuis is suggesting here.
Maxime Charron-Tousignant, Analyst, Library of Parliament: My understanding is that Senator Dupuis is talking about page 43 of the bill, clause 42, which states: "Section 56.1 of the Act is replaced by the following.'' Because Senator Boisvenu's amendment will add a new section 56.2, does clause 42 need to reflect that? That's my understanding.
Senator Dupuis: That is exactly the question I'm raising, and I'm expecting an answer. Thank you.
Ms. Richardson: I have a short email from the law clerk's office on this point. I can read it out to you, if that's okay.
The Chair: Go ahead.
Ms. Richardson: They said:
That is the way to do the amendment.
Current 56.1 is replaced by a new 56.1 and 56.2. This is one way to do it.
This is from the law clerk's office. That's all they said.
The Chair: For clarification, we don't have to further amend Senator Boisvenu's amendment.
Ms. Richardson: Not according to the law clerk's office.
The Chair: The law clerk says that this is in order?
Ms. Richardson: This is in order the way it's done.
The Chair: Okay.
Senator Pratte?
[Translation]
Senator Pratte: I would like clarification about the role that this advisory committee would play in, for example, public safety and health issues. These centres already have players in the health sector, and police officers in the vicinity who are presumably in contact with the citizens as well. I am trying to understand the added value that this advice would bring to the public safety and health players who are already there and, presumably, already in contact with the citizens of the community.
Senator Boisvenu: They are in contact with citizens, but not officially. Often, they are because of their professional functions, while here we are adding a more formal structure that makes this communication compulsory.
Let me tell you about the experience I have had over several years, especially at the Quebec Ministry of the Environment. When the municipality or the community was allowed to do this consultation or communicate this information, the models developed a little bit and, in some places, it did not happen. At one point, it was necessary to grab the bull by the horns and do something.
Here, a structure is being put in place, and consultation between the community and the centre is mandatory. It requires them to hold a permanent dialogue. Every year, the police can report on the crimes committed, such as acts of vandalism; health professionals can assess the number of patients who have been treated and rehabilitated, and so on. Basically, it is an exchange of information as much on the centre's performance as on the type of clientele. People derive a lot of reassurance when it's done in a structured way.
Senator Pratte: Why put this in place when there is currently no indication that these centres are a problem? We know that, as communities currently are, where there is no centre, there is a problem. Perhaps if one centre in particular is established, there may be problems, and the structure will have to be put in place, but why create these committees everywhere when a number of centres will be set up, and there is no indication that there will be problems?
Senator Boisvenu: It is like when there was a landfill site in a given area and at one point it was decided to have one landfill site per RCM. Then we had the "not in my backyard'' principle. To reassure people, they were given information about the sites, explaining that it would be done with great transparency and that they would participate in the exchange of information. The citizens became involved.
The problem now is that we are going to multiply the supervised injection sites, when previously it was on a trial basis. A policy is now in place to set them up. The danger that can be created within the population is a kind of phobia toward this kind of centre. If the phobia spreads, there will be a lot of opposition to these centres being set up. But if a tool of this kind is put in place, the pressure will decrease, the situation will be tempered and the citizens will feel involved in the process.
[English]
Senator Omidvar: On a point of clarification, these Citizen Advisory Committees would come into effect after a supervised consumption site has been approved?
Senator Boisvenu: Yes.
Senator Pate: I've had a fair bit of experience with the corrections model, and I understand that there may be communities who really want this. I just had a side bar with Senator White and understand that Ottawa would want something like this.
Would you be amenable to amending it to say "maybe?'' I know that in some communities there's a great difficulty getting people who want to volunteer. Particularly when you have things like written report requirements, you may have more difficulty. I'm just wondering, to keep with the spirit of what you're intending, to indicate that the minister "may establish,'' because it's after the site. So if there are issues, there could be a group that could assist with the process.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Yes, that could be an amendment. Basically, the tool is offered to citizens. If citizens don't want it, they don't want it. If problems arise, they know that the tool exists and that they can ask for it.
Senator Pratte: The amendment could read "the Minister may establish''.
[English]
Senator Sinclair: I was going to move that amendment, that the word "shall'' be changed to the word "may.'' The proposed amendment would read, "The minister may establish for each supervised consumption site,'' et cetera, and leave the rest the same, turning it from compulsory establishment to permissible establishment.
The Chair: Let's hold that for a while until we finish the discussion, then one of you can make that motion.
Senator White?
Senator White: I have two quick things.
I would suggest it should say, "The minister shall establish where requested'' because if it's "may establish,'' we may have a minister who decides not to, and we'll never have one. I think it's about what the community wants, not necessarily what the minister wants. So my perspective would be: "The minister shall establish where requested for each supervised consumption site.'' That's what I would suggest. It's not my amendment.
Second, I just wanted to reply that our only test bed in Canada is East Hastings. It's not a good test bed for the rest of this country to say what they need or don't need. I was in East Hastings prior to the supervised consumption site. I can't really describe it in comparison to any other part of this country.
I think the perspective in the city of Ottawa is that they want to be engaged if this rolls out. That's the piece. I think that giving them a mechanism by which they can engage is the key for my community, anyway.
[Translation]
Senator Dupuis: Senator Boisvenu, I have a question for you.
When you talk about "establishing'' a committee for each consumption site, I think of a smaller city where there may be only one site in the municipality. What would happen, for example, with the three sites in Montreal? Have you considered the possibility that the community may be a municipal community? I understand the idea behind your amendment, but have you considered that situation? The committee is attached to each site rather than to each municipality or each community that might have one or more sites.
Senator Boisvenu: I know that, in Montreal, the sites aren't in the same neighbourhoods. There are different problems from one neighbourhood to another. I am convinced that there is a geographical distance between the three centres. If they are in the same neighbourhood, a ghetto will be created. I think Montreal has already determined these centres and these neighbourhoods, and I think the idea of a committee, at that time, will be applied to each centre. There will be three different communities and three different neighbourhoods that will have different clienteles.
[English]
The Chair: I go back to either Senator Pate or Senator Sinclair. You've heard a suggestion from Senator White. You're posing a subamendment. Which one would like to proceed?
Senator Sinclair: Since I indicated I would do that, I'll ask that the amendment that is proposed by this particular document in front of us be amended to read, "The minister may establish for each supervised consumption site,'' et cetera, and leave it the same.
I don't want to comment too much on the suggestion of "where requested.'' I have a little difficulty trying to figure out who's going to make the request or how it's going to be requested, so I want to get away from vagueness.
I think that the difference between these sites and the — would it be appropriate to speak to it now, or do you want to wait to see if anybody wants to second it?
The Chair: Move it. There's no seconder required. You have moved the subamendment.
Senator Sinclair: I just want to speak to it, if I can.
The Chair: Please.
Senator Sinclair: The reason I want to suggest that is because I have some familiarity with locating halfway houses, group homes and the like in neighbourhoods. I know that they are established with the best of intentions, but they're almost always opposed by neighbours and almost always resisted not because of good information but because of bad information and because of campaigns by people who are prejudiced or have biases against certain individuals that they anticipate they will encounter. When we're talking about people who have drug addiction issues, I anticipate that the worst is going to come out of the community when it comes to supervised injection sites.
I appreciate the fact that the communities should be able to have some involvement, but I anticipate that supervised injection sites will likely be established by non-governmental agencies that will be supervised by government in the work they're doing. They will already have some degree of supervision upon them, some degree of regulations that they'll have to comply with, and therefore their operations are going to be closely monitored, I would suspect, and their reporting requirements would be detailed.
The role of committees like this would probably be to allow the community to have input into concerns that the committee has. I don't have any problem with that, but I do have concerns about making the minister establish a committee of local people — because it is intended to be restricted to people in the immediate vicinity — or allowing a committee of local people to in effect try to dictate to the injection site about how to operate. It's going to put the committee and the centre perhaps in further conflict, without there being any more detail than this.
The Citizen Advisory Committees for each institution were established because federal institutions are run by the federal government, and there was no opportunity for local input and involvement in the way those institutions were being run. The intention behind Citizen Advisory Committees for correctional facilities always was to allow the community to have some input into how and what would happen to inmates inside the institution and once they were released from the institution.
Many of the Citizen Advisory Committees that I've encountered that work with the federal penitentiary system are groups of people who are there to assist offenders when they leave the community, to find opportunities for employment, to find places to live, to reconnect with families, to obtain counselling and treatment. The thrust of this particular amendment appears to be to keep a close eye on these centres and make sure they don't step out of line, which is the wrong attitude to begin with, with regard to them.
I'm prepared to think of the possibility that there might be opportune moments when such centres should have committees helping them to engage with the local community to have people who have addiction problems work within the community.
Senator Pratte: I agree with the subamendment, and I would vote in favour of the amended amendment. I appreciate the intention of the amendment, but I was a little uncomfortable with the fact that we would establish those committees or councils for each and every centre without taking into account the situation in each and every centre. There might be places where things would go very well and people would not feel the need for that.
If people in a particular city or area feel the need for having that council, they know that the possibility is there, the structure is there, the principle is in the law, so they will know that they can have that council. If the demand is there, the minister will have little choice but to create that. There will be a political price to pay to resist that demand because the principle will be in the law.
I'm not too concerned that the minister would say, "I have the power to create that council, but I won't because I don't want citizens to be involved.'' I'm pretty confident that the minister would not resist popular demand to have that council created.
I agree with the subamendment and with the amendment as changed by the subamendment.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: I share the fear of my colleague, Senator White, because the word "may'' leaves all the power in the hands of the minister. In the last 20 years, attitudes toward farms have changed significantly within communities. We can think of the problem of the development of pig farms in Quebec and the development of industries. Citizens no longer want this to happen over their heads, in the offices of public servants. They want to be involved. What they are asking for is respect for their environment.
They are willing to accept constraints in their environment, but they want to be respected and informed. It no longer happens like it did 30 years ago, when public servants made decisions in Ottawa, Montreal or Quebec City, and where citizens accepted their decisions.
I am afraid of the word "may'', because it could mean that it won't happen, depending on the decisions or the information provided. I would agree more with the phrase, "At the request of a community, the minister shall establish . . .'' If there is a request, the minister must do so, and without a request, there is no obligation. The responsibility is divided between the two, while the word "may'' gives full responsibility to the minister. What I would say is, "At the request of the community, the minister . . .'' And if there is no demand, there is no obligation.
Then, the municipality or the community is given the responsibility to request it. We aren't just going to put the power and authority in the hands of the minister or the bureaucratic apparatus. I share Senator White's point of view, and I am afraid of the word "may'' in legislation because I have experience in administering it. Often, public servants use it fairly well.
Senator Dupuis: I have a question for you, Senator Boisvenu. I am rather in favour of the subamendment. It is presumed that the ministers are still a little sensitive to re-election and the problems that may arise from opposition within the community. So I would be more in favor of saying "may constitute'', because otherwise it becomes very difficult to specify what the request is, who will make it, and what the criteria will be for it to be approved.
Senator Pratte: With respect to the point that Senator Boisvenu just raised, I don't think there is any substantive difference between the two. If we say "at the request of the community'', to quote Senator Sinclair's argument, how is this concept measured? The reality is that even if it says that the minister "may'', in fact, what will determine the minister's decision is the strength of the community's request. If the community requires that there be such a committee, as you would like, the minister will be very unwise to say no to the community. What will determine the minister's decision is the strength of the community's request.
[English]
Senator White: I feel like there's one hair we're splitting about six ways.
I think the concern a few of us are raising is whether or not it actually happens. If we were all convinced that every minister from here and for the next 20 years will do the right thing, then we wouldn't have a concern. I don't have concerns today, but that doesn't mean I won't be concerned in three years.
I think, realistically, having the words "the minister shall establish when requested by the community'' is a decision by the minister as to what a request looks like. The minister may say, "I've had three people ask; I'm not establishing one,'' or "I've had 500 people ask and I am going to establish one.'' I think it's the minister's weight to then allow it to bear, or not, on the development. That's why, for me, "the minister shall establish, if requested,'' ultimately suggests it's still in their hands to decide what a request looks like.
We have community consultative groups for every RCMP detachment in all 800 communities in Canada, and they must establish them because they want to know how the policing is done in every community. If Sandy Hill gets a petition of 20 people together and says, "We'd like to have a community group,'' I really don't think it's that bad for a minister to make the decision. I think having showed it at least gives them a lever: "You are going to listen to us; whether you establish it or not is up to you.''
I do think we're splitting a hair. I'm just not sure which side of the hair we're going to end up on.
Senator Omidvar: This is not a question. This is just an observation about subsection (3) of your amendment, Senator Boisvenu, which states:
(3) The committee shall provide the Minister with a written report . . . .
Given the communities we're talking about, the communities of interest and the people inherently impacted in this context, I think that an inherent bias is prevalent in the words "written report.'' I'll just make that observation and step back from it.
The Chair: We have a subamendment before us, moved by Senator Sinclair, which essentially removes "shall'' and replaces it with "may.'' The clerk will give you the French translation.
Ms. Richardson: From the Office of the Law Clerk:
[Translation]
The minister may constitute.
[English]
The Chair: All right. All those in favour of the subamendment as moved by Senator Sinclair?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Opposed?
Some Hon. Senators: No.
The Chair: The subamendment carries.
Senator Batters: On division.
The Chair: On division.
Shall the motion in amendment, as amended, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
We have one more amendment related to this clause.
Senator White: I move:
That Bill C-37 be amended, in clause 42, on page 44, by adding after line 36 the following:
"56.2(1) A person who is responsible for the direct supervision, at a supervised consumption site, of the consumption of controlled substances, shall offer a person using the site alternative pharmaceutical therapy before that person consumes a controlled substance that is obtained in a manner not authorized under this Act.
(2) The failure to offer alternative pharmaceutical therapy in subsection (1) does not constitute an offence under this Act or any other Act of Parliament.''.
This would actually become 56.3 now, as a result of the most recent addition.
Under subsection (2), I'm not looking to criminalize medical practitioners who fail to do that. I'm stating it would not be a criminal offence if they fail to do that.
This falls in line with the evidence, including that of the minister, who talked about the importance of pharmaceutical therapy.
Dr. Kerry Jang, the city councillor from Vancouver, recommended that this would be an appropriate amendment should we go forward with this bill, understanding that he is fully supportive of the supervised injection site.
Donald MacPherson, Executive Director of the Canadian Drug Policy Coalition, was fully supportive of the supervised consumption sites, as was Mr. Tom Stamatakis, President of the Canadian Police Association, from whom I have a letter supporting it. We also received the support of Craig Fairbairn, a police constable here in Ottawa, who gave evidence.
As well, this would fit in the Switzerland model, which I think everyone spoke in support of, and, in fact, also moves in line with the Durham Police Service, in the United Kingdom, which has recently received approval to start providing pharmaceutical replacement drug therapy.
The Chair: Discussion?
Hon. Senators: Question!
The Chair: It is moved by Senator White that Bill C-37 be amended, in clause 42, on page 44, by adding after line 36 the following — dispense?
Hon. Senators: Dispense.
The Chair: All in favour of the motion moved by Senator White?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: The amendment carries.
Shall clause 42, as amended, carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed?
Senator Batters: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
Shall clauses 43 and 44 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Batters: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
Shall clause 45 carry? I have an amendment from Senator White before me dealing with clause 45.
Senator White: I move:
That Bill C-37 be amended in clause 45, on page 45, by adding after line 24 the following:
"(3) The minister is under no obligation to publish a proposed order under subsection (1) or (2) in the Canada Gazette or in any other manner.''.
The reason is that we heard that even after precursors, in the legislation last year, were approved under Bill S-224, we still found ourselves with a three-month wait list before those precursors were actually in illegal Canada, and almost 400 people died during that period of time.
The amendment would identify that the minister no longer has to gazette the item. They could make an immediate order, which would become law. They still only have one year for a temporary order, and they would have to apply for an extension or move it to a permanent order. I'm trying to cut that timeline down for gazetting purposes, if possible.
The Chair: Questions? Debate?
Senator Sinclair: I observe that without this amendment, this particular provision in the legislation is in conflict with the regulations act. I think it's a good idea for us to insert this amendment into the legislation because now it's clear that there's no requirement to gazette.
Senator White: I didn't even know that, so there you go.
The Chair: I'm going to ask officials if they have any comments they wish to make with respect to this proposed amendment.
Miriam Brouillet, Legal Counsel, Health Canada Legal Services, Health Canada: Thank you for inviting me to comment on this amendment.
I think that an important section of the Statutory Instruments Act should be brought to the attention of the committee. Section 9 of that act sets out that when a regulation is made, it can come into force immediately if two conditions are met: first, if it is clearly written that it is to come into force immediately upon making and, second, if that instrument is flagged to all of those to whom that regulation will apply.
Therefore, as the Statutory Instruments Act currently applies, it is possible for the minister to make a particular order and have that order apply immediately if it is needed. Therefore, because of that provision, perhaps that particular amendment is not necessary.
I would add that the Statutory Instruments Act requires that regulations be published because in order for individuals to be subject to the law, individuals must be informed of the law. The Canada Gazette has exactly that purpose, which is to inform the individuals that are subject to the applicable law. Given the interaction of that principle with section 9 of the Statutory Instruments Act, I think this amendment should be further considered.
Senator White: Although I appreciate your concerns, my concern is that it took three months last time, and in discussions with the department, it would take eight weeks today if we tried to list a precursor. The alternative to this was that I was going to list the number of days they would have had, which would have been 7 or 14 days, because I can start counting dead bodies. Although I understand the concern, I'm less concerned about whether or not this is enough time when I look at other countries that can do this within days and we're taking weeks and months. At the end of the day, the fact that they gazette it is important, but I don't think it's more important than the number of lives being lost.
I appreciate the concerns raised, but I still believe, from discussions with legal authorities, that this legislation would be legitimate. It doesn't state that the minister "shall not.'' It states that the minister "is under no obligation.'' It gives the minister an out if they need one. I think it's covered with the phrase "is under no obligation to publish.''
[Translation]
Senator Pratte: I have a question of clarification for Ms. Brouillet. As I understand it, the minister may decide to put a product on Schedule 5 and implement it immediately, regardless of when it is published in the Canada Gazette. The Minister is responsible for the decision on the coming into force regardless of the time required for publication in the Canada Gazette.
Ms. Brouillet: Absolutely. Your interpretation of my remarks is quite correct. When the minister makes an instrument of that nature, she has the option of stating that this instrument comes into force immediately. In addition, to ensure that the community is informed of the immediate implementation of this provision, she also has an obligation to ensure that this information is properly distributed to those people covered under the provision. In other words, the minister can make the provision applicable immediately, regardless of when it will be published in the Canada Gazette.
Maybe my colleague, Kristen Mattison, could clarify.
[English]
Senator Pratte: If I may, what happens if regulation or, in this case, if a product is added to Schedule V and it's not published in the Canada Gazette?
Kirsten Mattison, Director, Controlled Substances Directorate, Health Canada: That would go against the provisions of the Statutory Instruments Act. The minister is able to make the order have immediate effect, but the order would have to be registered within 7 days and published within 23 days. Without an unreasonable delay, people would be informed, but that date of effect would be backdated. So when it was published in the Gazette, the order would say, "This has been in effect since last week, and we're informing you about it now.''
Senator Pratte: What happens if we provided in this new law, like this amendment proposes, that the minister does not have to publish it in the Canada Gazette?
Ms. Mattison: I'm not sure. Maybe my colleague knows. There would be a conflict between this new law and the wording that currently exists in the Statutory Instruments Act.
Ms. Brouillet: If I understand the amendment correctly, its purpose is actually to relieve the obligation of publishing in Canada Gazette Part II a regulation that is made by the minister. The obligation currently exists in the Statutory Instruments Act and its attached regulations that an instrument has to be published in the Canada Gazette 23 days after it is made. If this amendment passes, that obligation will be relieved, but that does not, per se, accelerate the speed at which the obligation will have to be applied.
In order to have the obligation apply as early as possible, the scheduling applied by police, the most efficient way to do it is to apply section 9. If it is relieved from the Canada Gazette, then the government will have an obligation to ensure that the public is still informed. So even though it is not subject to the obligation in the Canada Gazette, there is still an obligation for the government to inform the public of an obligation that applies to everyone.
[Translation]
Senator Dupuis: You partially answered my question. If I understand correctly, the effect of this proposed amendment would be to exempt the requirement to publish the regulation in the form of an order of the minister.
In that sense, I have a problem with this proposal, because there is an increasing emphasis on making the regulations public. Even though the minister is not required to publish her order, she can still take three months. Nothing is gained to ensure greater efficiency in decision-making. In this sense, the amendment does not address the concerns. Ministers have the power to do so as soon as possible in accordance with the requirements that are expected of a government, that is, by regulating activities in a transparent manner.
[English]
Senator Omidvar: I have a question for the many lawyers in this room. Is there precedence for this in any other jurisdiction, because you've got one law in conflict with another?
Senator White: I understand the concern being raised. I'm not suggesting the minister shall not gazette. However, when we talk about the period of time, what it would have meant last September when the minister brought forward the eight precursors is that she could have immediately given notification in the Gazette but still would have taken the action of making them illegal at the same time.
What we're doing now is talking about setting for 90 days until the gazetting is completed. Look, we're not talking about every instrument. We're talking about illegal precursors. I would understand if we were changing the act so that all instruments would be excluded from gazetting. We're talking about items under this piece of legislation. To be fair, the lawyers in the room can answer better than I can because I'm not one as to whether or not this is a jeopardy as a result. But my perspective is that if we can speed this up from 8 or 12 weeks to 8 to 10 days or, better yet, 48 hours, I think there is a public safety piece. If a lawyer tells me that there's nothing legally wrong with it, although it doesn't necessarily mesh cleanly, that becomes someone else's problem not mine.
Senator Batters: Is there another way, other than gazetting, to provide the necessary public notice? Would notification on the Government of Canada website be sufficient?
Is there another way we can speed things up? We have previously had your department before this committee on these types of bills, and, unfortunately, significant delays have ended up costing people lives. I'm trying to prevent that.
Ms. Mattison: I think it would help if I clarify what we mean by the word "gazetting,'' and I'll quickly walk through the regulatory process so that we can be clear where the delays are introduced.
Senator Batters: I'm wondering if there is another way to do it more quickly.
Ms. Mattison: Just to be clear, gazetting under the Statutory Instruments Act can happen after the law has effect. The requirement to gazette is not in itself a delay. We're saying this provision doesn't relieve a source of delay. The source of delay is in the decision making. The source of delay is in those requirements.
If you look to section 60, there are three conditions under which the minister may make this temporary order. The minister has to be convinced that there's an imminent threat to public health and safety, or there may be a threat to public health and safety, and the substance in the country.
It's the time between the surveillance telling us that this problem exists to the minister being certain that the rule change is required. Once the minister is convinced and signs the order, that's not where the delay is introduced; that's the immediate process.
Senator White: When the minister signed in September, why didn't it actually take effect until December? My issue is those 90 days that took place. In fact, in discussions with Health Canada since this bill came forward, I've been told it might be eight weeks now. That's still not very fast. I'm trying to figure out how we get rid of the delay, whatever it is.
Ms. Mattison: That's where I was trying to see the process holistically. The Health Canada timeline starts from the very day the first junior analyst becomes aware that there might be a problem, to the minister taking a decision. We were trying to give an estimate, and that's where the eight weeks came in of how long that information gathering and decision making might take.
If the evidence came in on day one that was at a level where the minister was absolutely certain and able to have all the facts at her command immediately, then she would be able to take a much faster decision. So that eight weeks is officials trying to give an average of how our scanning process works, where we get information, and how we gather information and get it up to the minister.
Senator White: But our gazetting started last September and the legislation took effect in December.
Ms. Mattison: That's case by case, though. Temporary scheduling will happen faster than what happened last September. You're talking about a ministerial order, not a Governor-in-Council regulation.
For the Governor-in-Council regulatory process, there is an interim step where Canadians are supposed to be notified that a rule is going to be changed. That's Canada Gazette Part I. My colleague was very careful to speak about Canada Gazette Part II.
Canada Gazette Part I is notice to Canadians that a change is being considered. We have done those as short as 30 days, but they can often be extended longer.
Canada Gazette Part II will be the changes taking effect. Then depending upon the impacts that we foresee from our consultative phase to industry, to international trade, to legitimate business — because these systems are in place for regulation changes from car emissions all the way to controlled substances; we follow the same process — we will determine what we call a coming-into-force-period. That can be immediate, or it can be one week, or it can be upon publication, or it could be 90 days or 180 days.
Senator White: If the minister signed the document today, how long before it's illegal?
Ms. Mattison: It would be at the moment; immediately.
Senator White: Then I withdraw my amendment.
The Chair: Shall clause 45 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Batters: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
Shall clauses 46 through 50 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Batters: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
Shall clauses 51 through 60 carry?
Senator Baker: I have an observation that the legal authority at the table may wish to comment on.
In Canada, we have a requirement that letters cannot be opened without a warrant. In the Canada Post Corporation Act, a letter cannot be opened. It's the one thing that cannot be done. Under the Customs Act, a letter cannot be opened. That's the one thing that you can't do without a warrant. However, this section of this bill changes that. It removes this restriction on the authorities opening mail coming to Canada or leaving Canada.
The section of the act that it removes is this:
"Exception for mail,'' it says this:
An officer —
— not a customs officer —
— may not open or cause to be opened any mail . . . unless the person to whom it is addressed consents or the person who sent it . . . .
Then it goes on to say the same requirement is there. You cannot do it.
This will remove that restriction from the Customs Act, but it says "an officer.'' What does "an officer'' mean? I'll quote it for you. "An officer'' means someone who is engaged in the enforcement of the Customs Act, and also includes any RCMP officer. When you go back to what it will now allow an officer to do, it says an officer who "suspects on reasonable grounds that this Act'' — the Customs Act — "or the regulations or any other Act of Parliament administered or enforced by him or,'' and then it goes on.
The concern of a reasonable person would be, with the removal of this, an RCMP officer can, on a suspicion, open any mail, without a warrant, that is entering Canada or leaving Canada.
I just want to make that as an observation. I don't know if you wish to comment on it. I don't know that it's advisable that you comment on it, but if you find it advisable, then you can comment on it.
It's something that's of concern to a great many people who have looked at this act, I imagine. I haven't heard much about it, but to me it stands out.
Do you have any comment, Ms. Brouillet? You don't have to comment.
Ms. Brouillet: Thank you for your question, Senator Baker.
As legal counsel for Health Canada, I think I will —
Senator Baker: And the Justice Department.
Ms. Brouillet: — at this point not make any further comments. I think you have received a number of very eminent colleagues of ours who have addressed questions with respect to the powers of the CBSA and the RCMP, and you have also heard from the Privacy Commissioner. They have addressed most of the issues that I would like to address if ever I were to make a comment.
Thank you for your question, Senator Baker.
Senator Baker: Did they ask this question specifically?
Ms. Brouillet: I don't know that that question was asked specifically.
Senator Baker: No, I don't imagine it was, because you would have to know the Customs Act and the Canada Post Corporation Act to know what the effect of this would be. I'm sure the Sûreté du Québec and the Ontario and Ottawa police forces represented here around the table would know the effect of removing this section and the possible power that it would give to am RCMP officer who wishes to open mail of journalists that could be entering Canada, without a warrant.
Senator White: Come on. This is no place for this.
Senator Baker: No, no, I haven't said anything one way or the other. Maybe I support this. I think members would appreciate some possible written opinion as to the effect of this change as it relates to the RCMP and their suspicion to open mail without a warrant.
The Chair: Senator Baker, perhaps we can ask our analysts to look at this and report back to the committee.
Senator Baker: Good idea.
The Chair: Shall clauses 51 through 60 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Batters: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
Shall clauses 61 through 73 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Batters: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
Shall Schedule 1 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Batters: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
Shall Schedule 2 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Batters: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
Shall the preamble carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Batters: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall the bill, as amended, carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Batters: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
Does the committee wish to consider appending observations to the report?
Hon. Senators: No.
The Chair: Is it agreed that I report this bill, as amended, to the Senate?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: I will report this back to the Senate.
Tomorrow, the Commissioner of Canada Elections will appear before the committee.
(The committee adjourned.)