Public Safety Committee on Nov. 5th, 2014

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Shall the title carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Shall the bill carry?

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

No, Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Mr. Garrison, on a point of order.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

I believe the question of “shall the bill carry?” is debatable. I would like to speak, and I believe my colleagues would like to speak.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

One second.

It is in order, but the chair will also put a limitation on this, as we have for the other clauses, of 5 minutes per party to debate the issue.

You have the floor, sir.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

With respect, Mr. Chair, the limitation would be arbitrary at this point, because it was not included in the government's—

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

The chair has made a ruling on it, and that, of course—

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

I haven't finished—

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

—has been raised in conference with the clerk—

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Out of respect for the Chair, I will respect the five-minute limit.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

I'll take part of that time and then give part of it to my colleagues. I'll try to be very quick.

The problem we've seen today is the inability to deal with legislation in a respectful manner that encourages debate on and improvement of legislation. The time limits prevented us many times from speaking to amendments that we were bringing forward. I think it's not advisable for committees to proceed in this manner. It seems to me fundamentally anti-democratic.

As well, the deadlines we were given caused us to have to write and submit amendments before we actually heard from all the witnesses before the committee, and sometimes committee witnesses do provide important information that helps guide us in producing better legislation. It has really been a travesty, I think, of the law-making process to have such short timelines imposed on us.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you.

I certainly don't support this bill. It has been a travesty in terms of both process and substance.

One of the organizations that wanted to appear, and of course couldn't because the timeline was so short, was the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, which is a government agency. I read their brief very carefully. I was very interested to see that they actually did not agree with many of the clauses that we've now commonly referred to as a to z.

In fact, what they were suggesting was setting up a ministerial advisory committee made up of public health officials, community representatives, and police. They had a different approach, but of course, unfortunately, they never were able to come before the committee. I do find it very distressing, I guess, that even a government agency like the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse didn't get to appear before the committee because we only had two meetings.

This process has been very frustrating. I've been here for 17 years, and I don't think I've ever seen a bill handled in this kind of manner, whereby you don't even get an opportunity to speak on the amendments. It has been very difficult. We wanted to have legitimate debate.

At the end of the day, my great fear is that unfortunately a political conclusion that the government has about safe injection sites is going to override any evidence, any demonstration of what has been a good operation at InSite and at the Dr. Peter Centre, and all of that will be for naught, because this bill basically will now be not just a barrier but a massive wall that won't allow anything through. I do think that's a travesty of public policy, which is what we're here to do.

I think we can disagree, but to enact legislation that sets out criteria that make it so impossibly ridiculous for anything to be approved.... I don't know. It just smacks of a sort of hypocrisy. It smacks of a lack of respect for the law itself. I find that very difficult. I appreciate that members have different points of view, and I really respect that, but this is going to be a really bad law. It's going to undo years of work that has been done in good faith, and that's very unfortunate.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

Madam LeBlanc.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Insite is a project recognized internationally for its innovation. I fail to understand why, as legislators, we are not able to think outside the box. We are going to eliminate an innovative project that has proven its worth and that should make Canada proud. This project provides a different way of looking at taking care of people in difficulty, of moving forward and of reaching out to them in their distress.

Why can't we work together to include innovation in our legislation by doing things differently? I noticed that some of the proposed amendments could have helped us have a bill like that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

Mrs. Fry, please.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I find that—

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

The chair will just advise that with one minute to go, I will bring closure to this so that we can finish today.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

I thought I was told at the very beginning that as a party I had 5 minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

You have your time now. The chair will bring this to closure with one minute to go in your comment. This is in order to pass the bill.

You have the floor.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

It's changing the goalposts in the middle of the game here, Mr. Chair.

I think it's very ironic that when the NDP motion tried to change the short name of the bill, currently labelled as Respect for Communities Act, we weren't allowed to do it according to the rules of the committee, because the bill had to be substantially changed in order to change the name of the bill. Not a comma in this bill has been changed.

Mr. Chair, I wish to say that this shows a lack of respect for the communities. The people who are addicts in those communities, the people who are the most vulnerable, the people who have died from overdose deaths in the downtown eastside year after year, which became such an absolute shame, are part of these communities that this government purports to have respect for. They show very little respect.

We brought forward witnesses, Mr. Chair. This bill will be intruding on provincial jurisdiction, municipal jurisdiction, and jurisdiction of local police forces and of the medical and nursing professions in that area, and yet this bill did not allow people from the province, especially the Fraser Health Authority, which has been running InSite for a while, to be able to come and present. They were not allowed to be here as witnesses because of the shortening of everything we do in order to ram things through. They weren't here, and yet of all the people we should be listening to, it should be them. The VPD drug enforcement officer at the time, Kash Heed, should have been able to come and say what the drug scene and the crime scene and the open drug scene caused in Vancouver at the time and how it changed remarkably after InSite.

To me, Mr. Chair, having been here for 21 years, I just feel that what happens here, with no bill coming before committee ever, or only rarely, being altered, it makes a joke of committees. It makes a joke of looking at the idea of talking about a bill and changing it, because no amendments are accepted by this government. I think it flies in the face of democracy. It flies in the face of the democratic institution. It flies in the face of the role of any all-party committee in this House when members tend to vote in ways that do not show they've actually heard a word the witnesses have said. The witnesses could speak until the end of time and there would be no change in the thinking here.

It's a rubber-stamp committee, and I just want to make sure this is clearly stated from me—

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much, Mrs. Fry.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

It's a waste of time, Mr. Chair.