Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Legal and
Constitutional Affairs
Issue 18 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Wednesday, June 12, 1996
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, to which was referred Bill S-8, respecting Queen's University at Kingston, and Bill C-8, respecting the control of certain drugs, their precursors and other substances and to amend certain other Acts and repeal the Narcotic Control Act in consequence thereof, met this day at 3:30 p.m. to give consideration to the bills.
Senator Sharon Carstairs (Chair) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good afternoon, senators. We will begin this afternoon's committee with consideration of Bill S-8, respecting Queen's University at Kingston. We have from Cunningham, Swan, Carty, Little & Bonham, Mr. Robert A. Little, Legal Counsel. He is a graduate of Queen's. I have a certain bias, I must admit; I have a daughter who is a graduate of Queen's.
Senator Bryden: Honourable senators, it is unusual for us to have a senator sitting at the witness stand. If the particular senator gives evidence, can I ask that we take sworn testimony?
Senator Nolin: He is an amicus curiae.
Senator Murray: I am sponsor of the bill.
Senator Bryden: He is an exhibit.
The Chair: As we all know, Senator Murray is at the other end of the table. He was the sponsor of the bill in the Senate and we are most pleased to have him in the committee with us this afternoon.
Mr. Robert A. Little, Legal Counsel, Cunningham, Swan, Carty, Little & Bonham: Honourable senators, the university wants me to express its appreciation to the Senate for dealing with this petition and for suspending the normal rules of procedure, which I understand would require seven days' notice before this could go ahead.
I would also thank the Senate committee for hearing the petition the way it has today.
The petition is the result of the wish of the university to extend the representation on its board of trustees to members of the student body, to members of its staff, and also to members of its faculty.
The university has one of the traditional forms of divided governance, giving academic responsibilities to a Senate, and responsibilities for the management and operation of the university to a board of trustees. It is that body into which the representation of students, of staff and of faculty is sought.
Hitherto, staff and faculty were prevented by the act of 1912 from having that representation. The act is silent as far as students are concerned. It is no surprise that at this time the students want representation, as do the staff and the faculty.
Over the past three or four years, the board of trustees has consulted with faculty, students, staff, and graduates, as well as its own members. The results were a report to the board last December and a request that a petition be presented to Parliament to make the amendments to the legislation which are before you today.
As Senator Murray mentioned the other evening in the Senate, the amendments are two-fold in nature. One deals with an anachronistic situation in a provision in the act in 1912 which stipulated that the university was to remain Christian in character and that the university was to satisfy itself of the Christian character of its faculty. It also said that laymen were to be eligible to be appointed to the university.
That rather unusual provision, I am told - and I think Senator Murray referred to it - was the result of a compromise after a long debate which occurred within the Presbyterian Church at that time, and also in Parliament, as to whether there would be any remaining religious influence in the university.
The 1912 act removed the denominational nature of the university. It had been Presbyterian since the royal charter was granted in 1841.
In taking that denominational feature away, a compromise was reached, and that rather unusual provision in section 19 of the 1912 act was inserted.
It certainly is anomalous. It certainly is out of date. It has not been acted or relied upon in any way in the university for many, many years, if indeed since 1912. It is contrary to the Ontario Human Rights Code, which requires that the university treat people equally and without discrimination in all matters of employment.
The university's policies and practices comply with that requirement, but to have that provision in the charter is an anomalous situation which flies in the face of the university's commitment to non-discriminatory practices. The petition requests that it be removed by repeal.
The second point in the legislation is to add the representation to the existing board of trustees. The board has all of the usual sorts of people who sit on that kind of institutional board: the principal of the university, the chancellor of the university, the rector, as well as representatives of other constituencies, such as beneficiaries, benefactors, graduates, and the like.
The proposal today, reflected in the bill, would add students, would add members of staff, and would add members of faculty. They will be full voting members of the board. They will be elected by their own constituency; the faculty electing theirs, the staff members theirs, and the students theirs.
That is the essence of the bill. I do not want to take any more time than is necessary or appropriate. I would be glad to answer any questions which you may have.
Senator Gigantès: If I understand you correctly, the university will no longer have to worry about whether or not its professors or students are Christian.
Mr. Little: Exactly.
Senator Stewart: How many affiliated colleges are there?
Mr. Little: There is one affiliated college. It is the Queen's Theological College. When the denominational character of the university was changed in 1912, at the same time, Parliament passed a statute to incorporate the Queen's Theological College. What had been the Faculty of Theology became the Queen's Theological College; it continues an affiliation to this day.
Senator Jessiman: The amendment says:
10. The Board of Trustees of the University consists of
(a) a member appointed annually by the governing board of each of the affiliated colleges.
Is there only one?
Mr. Little: There is only one. I do not know exactly what they were contemplating in 1912, but it was carried forward that way.
Senator Jessiman: This is 1996, and clause 2 says that "Section 10 of the Act is replaced by the following". But they are still including it.
Mr. Little: There is still only one, yes.
Senator Jessiman: That is quite a board. It consists of 48 people by my count. Do they ever have a full turn out?
Mr. Little: It is a large board and there have been observers as well. Some of the observers would become members under this bill.
Senator Jessiman: What is a quorum?
Mr. Little: A quorum is eight.
Senator Beaudoin: Queen's University was incorporated by Royal Charter in October 1841, so it was the United Provinces of Canada that dealt with those cases at that time. Was it also incorporated by a statute of the Province of Canada?
Mr. Little: No it was not. There was a bill which was introduced in 1840 that reached a certain point, but the vice regal representative objected to it. Politics were involved at that time. There had been a university incorporated in Toronto. There was a religious rivalry, and it was suggested that it had to come from London and it had to come from the Queen. Hence, that legislation was stopped. A petition was made to Her Majesty and the Royal Charter was issued in 1841.
Senator Beaudoin: It is typically a Royal Charter. McGill was incorporated in 1820; the University of Laval around the mid-century. Kingston involved a Royal Charter, period. But after incorporation by Royal Charter, Parliament intervened?
Mr. Little: Yes.
Senator Beaudoin: Which Parliament? Was it the Parliament of Canada which succeeded the other Parliament?
Mr. Little: In 1874, the university needed to amend its charter. At that point, they did not know where to go - whether they should go to Toronto, or to Ottawa, or to Quebec City. They chose to go to Toronto and to Quebec City, and they passed amending legislation. It stood for eight years.
A case then went to the Privy Council; it was known as Dobie v. the Board for the Management of the Temporalities Fund of the Presbyterian Church of Canada. The principle in Dobie made it clear that legislation in Toronto and in Quebec City did not do what the university wanted it to do. Hence, they came to Ottawa and quickly enacted legislation that said retroactively that what was done in 1874 was good law but that it now had a proper constitutional basis.
Senator Beaudoin: That is interesting.
Senator Milne: I am curious as to how your board of trustees fits in. Do you have a senate at the university?
Mr. Little: Yes, we do.
Senator Gigantès: There is nothing worse than a senate at a university. Every university president will tell you that it is a most murderous place.
Senator Milne: There may be something worse than the Senate, let me tell you, having served on the senate of the University of Guelph. You may regret this. I recall from my senate days that whenever there were faculty members, they certainly monopolized the conversation and the discussion within the senate.
Mr. Little: That is a risk they are prepared to take.
Senator Gigantès: Concerning the Theological College, according to the university legislation, is the university likely to appoint non-Christians in the Theological College?
Mr. Little: It is unlikely that the board of the Theological College would do that. It is a separate legal entity. It is now affiliated with the United Church of Canada. The United Church reviews the appointments of the professors, as well as the principal.
Senator Gigantès: I do not like that.
Senator Lewis: This is a private bill. It is usual to have confirmation from our legal counsel that the bill is in the usual form.
The Chair: We have received that.
Senator Bryden: This is a private bill, but it is a bill being passed by the Parliament of Canada. Does it comply with the Canadian Constitution and is it required to do so?
Mr. Little: Yes, it does. The effect of the Dobie case was to indicate that Parliament only could vary or amend the Royal Charter given by Queen Victoria in 1841. The subject matter is the internal government structure and organization of a Royal Charter corporation. This one happens to have an educational purpose. It is well within the competence of the Parliament of Canada to incorporate companies with those structures and with those organizations. There has been case law to support that. It does not mean, however, that Parliament is legislating on the subject matter of legislation, which falls under section 93 of the Constitution Act. It is only legislating here respecting the internal structure and organization of a federal corporation.
Senator Bryden: This may be a question for Senator Murray. Is the removal of the protection of positions that existed in the former act, which made it only possible for Presbyterians to be staff members, an illegal or unconstitutional interference with a minority's right?
Senator Murray: Actually, the removal of the provision regarding Presbyterians specifically took place in 1912. Prior to that, the members of the faculty had to subscribe to the Westminster confession of faith.
In 1912, after much debate, it was decided to include this new clause which specified that the university would remain distinctively Christian and that the trustees would satisfy themselves of the Christian character of faculty, et cetera. The better opinion, which has been given to us by our solicitor, is that that provision is at odds with the Ontario Human Rights Code at least.
Senator Bryden: And that is the provision that is being removed here.
Senator Murray: Yes. As a matter of policy, the university would regard it as inappropriate in a more pluralistic age and a charter age.
Senator Bryden: Because we have been imbued with this for so long, is the removal of that clause - namely, that it be the Christian faith, and so on - in any way in violation of the preamble to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which says:
Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God in the rule of law:
Mr. Little: With respect, I do not think it is. A decision of the Supreme Court of Canada states that the Charter does not apply to universities and to their activities. It has been found by the Supreme Court in McKinney not to be a governmental agency.
Now, it does not mean that. The principles in the Charter are not observed in many of the policies and practices, but on this particular point, the Charter, strictly speaking, does not apply.
Senator Murray: However, the Ontario Human Rights Code does apply.
Mr. Little: Yes, it certainly does.
Senator Beaudoin: I am very interested in that question. You state that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, under jurisprudence, does not apply to universities. However, if I am not mistaken, Senator Murray stated that it may go against the Ontario Human Rights Code.
Senator Murray: Yes.
Senator Beaudoin: Do you think it goes against the Ontario Human Rights Code?
Senator Murray: That is their advice.
Mr. Little: There is a provision which says that one must have that qualification to be employed at the university, and that is contrary to section 5 of the Ontario Human Rights Code.
Senator Beaudoin: At this moment, we do not have a decision of the Supreme Court with respect to what "God" means in the preamble to the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms.
Senator Bryden: We do not have a decision stipulating what "rule of law" means either, but we have argued about it for two years.
Senator Beaudoin: Much has been written about the rule of law. The only thing I remember having seen on this matter is a letter from the Chief Justice of Canada in a newspaper on the question of what "God" means. If I am not mistaken, the court has taken the attitude that it does not necessarily mean "the God" for Christians - Catholic, Protestants, et cetera - but rather "a supreme being".
The Chair: Mr. Little, to make you aware of the undertone of what is being said here, it has nothing to do with your bill but a great deal to do with several other bills that have been before this committee and in some cases still remain before this committee.
Thank you, Mr. Little, for appearing this afternoon.
Senator Lewis: Madam Chair, I move that we report the bill without amendment.
The Chair: It has been moved by Senator Lewis that we report the bill without amendment.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Senator Gigantès: No. I disapprove with any interference by any church in any educational institution. I always have. I fought on such grounds before, and I still do.
The Chair: That has been noted, Senator Gigantès.
Honourable senators, we will report the bill to the Senate tomorrow. If Senator Murray can receive leave to proceed immediately to third reading, we should be able to send the bill to the other house tomorrow as well.
Senator Murray: Thank you, Madam Chair and colleagues.
Senator Gigantès: Senator, I will not refuse you leave, but I do express my disapproval.
Senator Murray: I think you are talking about another institution, senator.
Senator Gigantès: It does not matter. The board will appoint the theological people who are Christian, we are told.
Senator Murray: Their board will.
Senator Gigantès: Their board.
The Chair: But not the board of Queen's University.
Senator Gigantès: Within Queen's University, there is a theological college. Through this mechanism, we are mixing religion and education, which I find very objectionable.
I will not stop the bill, but I think someone should speak against this evil practice.
Senator Murray: It is a theological college.
Senator Gigantès: It is does not matter. Why could not I, an agnostic, teach the Bible there? I am an expert on the Bible.
Senator Murray: Perhaps you could. I will recommend it.
The Chair: Honourable senators, we will now move into clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-8, the Narcotic Control Act.
In the past, we have been given a series of amendments proposed by the government and actually moved by Senator Milne. She has her own amendment with respect to the commercial use of hemp.
Before we begin, do other senators have additional amendments?
Then may I have a motion to consider the bill clause by clause? We will deal with each specific amendment.
Senator Milne: Is it the wish of this committee to consider this bill clause by clause, or since we have discussed the amendments clause by clause once before, perhaps we could do all the government amendments at once, with the understanding that the legal department in the Senate have made a few corrections. There are corrections to the amendments.
The Chair: It may be clearer if we go clause by clause, but I will bundle together any clauses which I know are not being amended. Perhaps we can have a motion to take 20 or 30 of them together.
Senator Beaudoin: I think that is preferable because this is very technical.
The Chair: Let us go to clause 1. There will be no amendment to clause 1.
Shall clause 1 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
It has been moved:
That clause 2 of Bill C-8 be amended by striking out line 4 on page 2 and substituting the following:
"cluded in Schedule I, II, III, IV, or V;"
This amendment adds a schedule.
Senator Lewis: Which apparently had been inadvertently left out.
The Chair: That is correct.
Shall clause 2, as amended, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
A number of clauses are not being amended.
Shall clauses 3 to 30 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
It has been moved:
That the French version of clause 31 of Bill C-8 be amended by striking out lines 6 to 8 on page 28 and substituting the following:
"réglementaire - l'habilitant à se livrer à des opérations à l'égard de substances désignées ou de précurseurs - exerce son activité commerciale ou professionelle. Il"
Shall clause 31, as amended, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Another group of clauses are not being amended.
Shall clauses 32 to 54 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Senator Milne, I gather you will alert us to any amendments as we go through the clauses.
Senator Milne: Yes. When we come to clause 64, I will scream.
The Chair: It has been moved:
That the English version of clause 55 of Bill C-8 be amended by striking out line 42 on page 39 and substituting the following:
"stance included in Schedule I, II, III, IV, V or VI"
The change is "or VI".
The other amendment to clause 55 is:
That the English version of clause 55 of Bill C-8 be amended by striking out line 5 on page 39 and substituting the following:
"applications and distribution of controlled substances"
Shall clause 55 as amended in both amendments carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
There are no amendments to clauses 56 to 63. Shall clauses 56 to 63 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 64 carry?
Senator Milne: This is one of the changes which Mr. Audcent found to be necessary.
In section 2 of Schedule II, page 45, clause 64, we are adding the letter "s" to the word "drug".
There is a new section 4 in Schedule II, the last line, with reference to items 1 to 3.
Senator Beaudoin: Are these consequential or substantial?
Senator Milne: These are consequential.
Senator Beaudoin: So we have improved it.
Senator Milne: That is right.
As well, in article 2, substitute "produits" for "...duits".
Those are all of the changes to clause 64.
The Chair: There is also the major amendment with which we were presented originally, which is:
That clause 64 of Bill C-8 be amended by striking out lines 18 to 31 on page 45 and substituting the following:
You have been given all of that. It is a major substitution.
Shall clause 64 as amended carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
We do have an amendment to clause 65:
That clause 65 of Bill C-8 be amended by striking out lines 34 and 35 on page 45 and substituting the following:
"(c) an offence described in subsection 5(3) or (4), 6(3) or 7(2) of the Controlled Drugs and"
Shall clause 65 as amended carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
There are no changes to clauses 66 to 70. Shall clauses 66 to 70 carry?
Senator Milne: There is another one on clause 65.
The Chair: There are new clauses, but we will deal with the new clauses at the end.
We have an amendment to clause 71 as follows:
That clause 71 of Bill C-8 be amended
(a) by striking out line 26 on page 48 and substituting the following:
"section 5(3) or (4), 6(3) or 7(2) of the Controlled"
(b) by striking out line 3 on page 49 and substituting the following:
"subsection 5(3) or (4), 6(3) or 7(2) of the Con-".
Shall clause 71 as amended carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Clause 72 is amended. The amendment reads:
That clause 72 of Bill C-8 be amended by striking out lines 9 to 13 on page 49 and substituting the following:
"the end of subparagraph (viii) and by adding the following after paragraph (ix)
(x) paragraph 4(4)(a) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, or
(xi) subsection 5(4) of the Controlled"
Senator Beaudoin: We must also accept the French version. The motion should be doubled, because it is not the same in French. The line numbers are sometimes different. Strictly speaking, I think we should be adopting both. However, if that has been understood from the beginning, I have no problem.
The Chair: Let us have a formal motion to that effect so it is absolutely clear.
Senator Nolin: When you mention lines, you mention lines to the English version. That is what I understand you are moving.
The Chair: Yes, that is correct.
Senator Beaudoin: The law is clear that it must be adopted in both languages, and sometimes there is a difference of lines between the French and English. We should have a general motion saying that when we adopt the text, it is adopted in both versions, clause by clause.
The Chair: It has been moved by Senator Beaudoin that, as we are moving the bill clause by clause in the English language, it is to be considered that we are also moving it clause by clause in the French version of the bill. Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 72 as amended carried?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Clause 73 has not been amended. Shall clause 73 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Clause 74 has been amended.
Senator Milne: I understand that the amendment has been repeated twice on the page. The amendment to the amendment is just striking out the second repetition.
The Chair: When it was reprinted it was, in fact, taken out.
Senator Beaudoin: There was a strong intention to amend.
The Chair: There was an extraordinarily strong intention to amend.
It is moved:
That the French version of clause 74 of Bill C-8 be amended by striking out lines 7 and 8 on page 50 and substituting the following:
"paragraphe 16(1) de la Loi réglementant certaines drogues et autres substances."
Shall clause 74, as amended, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
There are no proposed amendments to clauses 75 to 95. Shall clauses 75 to 95 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
There is a series of new clauses on firearms. The first one is clause 65.1, which states:
That Bill C-8 be amended by adding, immediately after line 36 on page 45, the following:
"65.1 Paragraph 109(1)(c) of the Act, as enacted by section 139 of the Firearms Act, is replaced by the following:
(c) an offence relating to the contravention of subsection 5(3) or (4), 6(3) or 7(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, or"
Shall that clause carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
We now have new clause 76.1, which reads:
That Bill C-8 be amended by adding, immediately after line 30 on page 50, the following:
"1995, c. 39.
Firearms Act
76.1 Subparagraph 5(2)(a)(iv) of the Firearms Act is replaced by the following:
(iv) an offence relating to the contravention of subsection 5(3) or (4), 6(3) or 7(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act;"
Shall that clause carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
That new clause is required because, between the original Bill C-7 and the present Bill C-8, we have a new act called the Firearms Act. When we were talking about these amendments earlier, Senator Nolin pointed out that we would normally get those amendments by way of an omnibus bill; however, because we were still dealing with the bill, it was felt that now is the appropriate time to put them in.
Senator Lewis: So this reflects an amendment to the Firearms Act.
The Chair: Exactly.
We have a new clause 83.1, which reads:
That Bill C-8 be amended by adding, immediately after line 9 on page 52, the following:
"R.S., c. N-5.
National Defence Act
83.1 Paragraph 147.1(1)(c) of the National Defence Act, as enacted by section 176 of the Firearms Act, is replaced by the following:
(c) relating to the contravention of subsection 5(3) or (4), 6(3) or 7(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, or"
That is again making the legislation consistent.
Senator Beaudoin: All those acts have been referred to in the title of this bill.
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Bryden: Do we actually move the title, for instance, the "National Defence Act"? For example, if we make an amendment which affects the marginal notes, we do not change the marginal notes. If we have a heading in the bill, I do not think we move the headings. Are those part of the bill?
I would like to know this for future reference. These headings are often used for convenience, as are the marginal notes. Those of us who practice law know that in the interpretation of a statute, it is the section which has a bearing. One may look at a heading sometimes for assistance in clarifying the intention, and only rarely at the marginal notes. We sometimes refer to the preamble, as well. It is mainly the words of the section, rather than the heading or the marginal notes, which are used.
It is not my intention to change anything today. I have thought of this before and would like to have it clarified.
The Chair: The clerk has a response for you. She has just consulted with Mark Audcent, whom I asked to attend here to deal with just this kind of matter.
Ms Heather Lank, Clerk of the Committee: Senator, the headings are not voted on by the committee, but they are treated as part of the act by the courts, although the marginal notes are not.
Senator Lewis: I note that in the amendment, the quotation marks open at "National Defence Act" and close at the end of the paragraph. So it includes the heading.
Senator Bryden: It is my understanding that we are not moving "National Defence Act".
Senator Beaudoin: That is an important question. Let us ask Mr. Audcent to join us at the table to assist in this.
Senator Lewis: The heading in clause 83 is "Immigration Act". If there is no heading in clause 83.1, it will look as though it deals with the Immigration Act.
The Chair: That is why we have to put "National Defence Act" in.
Mr. Mark Audcent, Acting Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel: Senators, marginal notes are never part of the act and are treated editorially. With respect to the heading, there is jurisprudence which says that the courts do use them. I wish I had brought my copy of the Interpretation Act with me. The Interpretation Act may indicate that the headings are part of the bill. However, it is not the practice of parliamentary committees, to my knowledge, to adopt headings. I have never seen them adopted in committee or in the chamber. They end up in a netherland; not being voted upon but forming part of the law.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Audcent.
Shall the new clause 83.1 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
We have new clauses 93.1 to 93.3.
Senator Milne: This is where Mr. Audcent's amendments to the amendments come in. We have substituted "schedule" with a capital "S" everywhere it occurred with a small "s".
Senator Beaudoin: Is this an amendment or a correction?
Senator Milne: This is a correction.
The Chair: This has to do with the same sorts of things under the Young Offenders Act and the Minister of Public Works and Government Services Act. We are on 93.1 to 93.3.
Senator Milne: Madam Chair, I move:
That Bill C-8 be amended by adding, immediately after line 11 on page 55, the following:
"R.S., c. Y-1
Young Offenders Act
1995, c. 19, s. 36
93.1 Item 4 of the Schedule to the Young Offenders Act is replaced by the following:
4. An offence under any of the following provisions of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act:
(a) section 5 (trafficking);
(b) section 6 (importing and exporting); and
(c) section 7 (production of substance).
Conditional Amendments
Bill C-7
93.2 If Bill C-7, introduced during the second session of the thirty-fifth Parliament and entitled An Act to establish the Department of Public Works and Government Services and to amend and repeal certain Acts, is assented to, then, on the later of the day on which subsection 3(1) of that Act comes into force and the day on which subsection 14(4) of this Act comes into force, subsection 14(4) of this Act is replaced by the following:
Minister of Public Works and Government Services
(4) Where the Attorney General so requests, a judge appointing a person under subparagraph (3)(b)(i) shall appoint the Minister of Public Works and Government Services.
1995, c. 39
93.3 On the later of the day on which subsection 515(4.1) of the Criminal Code, as enacted by section 153 of the Firearms Act, comes into force and subsection 515(4.1) of the Criminal Code, as enacted by subsection 71(1) of this Act, comes into force, subsection 515(4.1) of the Criminal Code is replaced by the following:
Condition prohibiting possession of firearms, et cetera.
(4.1) When making an order under subsection (2), in the case of an accused who is charged with
(a) an offence in the commission of which violence against a person was used, threatened or attempted,
(b) an offence under section 264 (criminal harassment),
(c) an offence relating to the contravention of subsection 5(3) or (4), 6(3) or 7(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, or
(d) an offence that involves, or the subject-matter of which is, a firearm, a cross-bow, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition or an explosive substance,
the justice shall add to the order a condition prohibiting the accused from possessing any firearm, cross-bow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition or explosive substance, or all such things, until the accused is dealt with according to law unless the justice considers that such a condition is not required in the interests of the safety of the accused or of any other person."
Senator Beaudoin: I have a question. What are "conditional amendments"? Those are the words which appear just above "93.2".
The Chair: This is conditional to the passage of other acts. At this point, that particular act, Bill C-7, has not been passed.
I believe that bill was passed in the Senate today.
Senator Beaudoin: This amendment will come into force, then, when other acts come into force.
The Chair: Shall new clauses 93.1 to 93.3 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Since there have been no amendments to Schedule I, shall Schedule I carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Schedule II has been amended by Senator Milne. Perhaps the honourable senator could go over it with us.
Senator Milne: I move:
That Schedule II to Bill C-8 be amended, on page 62, by adding the following after subitem 1(8):
"(9) Mature Cannabis stalks that do not include leaves, flowers, seeds or branches; and fibre derived from such stalks"
The Chair: Senator Milne, would you like to explain the purpose of the amendment?
Senator Milne: We had delegations appear before us who made it quite clear that there is no narcotic agent in the mature stalks of the cannabis plant, whether it is the hemp plant or cannabis which is grown as a drug. Once it is mature, there is very, very little cannabis content in the stalk. It is a valuable cash crop for farmers, one which can be grown on the tobacco lands of Southern Ontario. It is a cash crop that can be grown on the Prairies. It is frost resistant. It can be grown as far north as Edmonton.
This is a field into which many countries of the world are entering. Great Britain is now allowing it. Many of the European countries allow it. Some of the American states have laws which are presently being debated in the state legislatures to allow it. The Americans see the cash advantages of this. I feel that this is an opening, an opportunity for Canadian farmers.
Senator Jessiman: What do they do with the leaves, flowers, seeds or branches?
Senator Milne: They fall down and act as mulch on the ground. It is a non-polluting crop. It is a self-fertilizing and self-mulching crop.
Senator Jessiman: Can they be sold for more than the others?
Senator Milne: The seeds can be sold; but they would be regulated under this bill so that only infertile seeds could be sold as a crop.
The Chair: Shall Schedule II, as amended, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. There have been no changes to Schedules III to VIII. Shall those schedules carry, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the bill, as amended, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall I report the bill, as amended, to the Senate?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Milne: I believe that the amendments put forward to this bill have demonstrated very clearly one of the great values of the Senate. This was undoubtedly a sloppy job of drawing up a bill. The committee has performed its duties in catching these amendments and being able to bring them forward. Our legal staff, thanks very much to Mr. Audcent, have been further able to correct drafting errors in this bill. I think we have demonstrated the value of the Senate here today.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Milne.
The committee continued in camera.