Public Safety Committee on Nov. 5th, 2014

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Wow.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Norlock.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair.

I'm wondering about all the enthusiasm over there, because I believe the chair is in receipt of information from a witness who sent us some documentation indicating that many of these positive notes remain to be seen and that there are serious concerns as to the accuracy of the information that was received.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

Is there any further comment?

Ms. Davies.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

In response to the question regarding the two years, unfortunately with these safe injection sites, there's enormous public scrutiny, probably far too much. In some ways, you just need to let the operation get on with its business and do a good job. I do think if other applications were approved, or even for InSite itself, there is that public scrutiny.

But this amendment here is about the bill itself and the impact of the bill and how it has been implemented. I think that's a slight difference. It's really about the bill. The bill is being sunsetted. It's about the process of how this bill is being used and the discretion of the minister, so it's a slightly different matter.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

That's fine. Thank you.

Madam Fry.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Chair, I just wish to respond to the statement that was made that this was all inaccurate. We know the one person who made this charge. This was a clinical trial project and it was reviewed not only by the people who conducted the project and the trial. It was reviewed by 24 international peer review bodies. It was named in Nature , the major science magazine, and it labelled all of the peer review from many countries in the world. They all came down with the same agreement. That evidence is one of the reasons we have 70 sites in Europe and in Sydney, Australia.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

The Chair is going to intervene here. We're not going to entertain any more discussion on this issue. It is not pertinent.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

I just didn't want it to sit without a response.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

That's fine. There's no more discussion on either side on this issue that is not pertinent to what we're dealing with right here. If we wish to take a further evaluation or study on the information that has been presented to us and we wish to comment further at some point, certainly it's up to the committee to decide where they wish to go with that, and they at every liberty to do so. But I just don't think that right now, after the fact, it's pertinent to the information we have before us here.

You have the floor, Mr. Garrison.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. In the interest of fairness, since two other parties have discussed this, I checked those charges made by that witness. A complaint was made to the professional body by that witness on those studies, and it was dismissed by the professional body as being without foundation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Mr. Norlock, on a point of order.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

The chair made a ruling and I've held my tongue. If we're all going to throw interjections in, I think, in all fairness I should be permitted to answer, but I will respect the decision of the chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

We'll actually bring it to a halt right now. I gave Mr. Garrison an opportunity only out of fairness, in that each of the other parties had an opportunity to make a comment on this issue. This issue now is not pertinent to the study before us right now and it is relative, so there's no more discussion on this issue at this time.

We will now go to the actual decision on amendment NDP-20. We'll ask for the vote.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 6 agreed to)

On the short title now, I do believe we have amendment NDP-21.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to move the amendment as submitted, which would change the title to make it “Communities and Health Act“.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

It may be debated, but the chair is ready to make a decision on this.

If you wish to have further comment on it, go ahead, Ms. Davies.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

You mean make a decision on its admissibility or—

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

That's correct, yes.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Okay. But you're going to allow some debate first?

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Yes, I will.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Okay.

I'll obviously speak in favour of the amendment, given that we made it. I do think it's symbolic. A title of a bill is very important. Given that this bill does address the issue of safe consumption sites, and recognizing that the single purpose of safe consumption sites is actually to protect people's health through various risk-reducing measures, and that in fact we have so much evidence to show that these kinds of sites actually save lives, it seems to us that it's really important to ensure that the name of the bill actually makes a reference to the health of individuals and communities. Even though we're in the public safety committee, it is the Minister of Health who makes decisions. It just seem a no-brainer, logical, and rational that the name of the bill should make reference to the fact that this is about the health of both individuals and communities. Unfortunately, the bill doesn't do that, which is why we've moved the amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Okay, thank you very much.

The chair will now refer to the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition , on pages 770 to 771, which states:

The title may be amended only if the bill has been so altered as to necessitate such an amendment.

In the opinion of the chair no amendment has been made to the bill that would necessitate a change in the short title; therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.

Shall the short title carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Shall the preamble carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.