Bill C-2 (Historical)

Respect for Communities Act

An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act

This enactment amends the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to, among other things,
(a) create a separate exemption regime for activities involving the use of a controlled substance or precursor that is obtained in a manner not authorized under this Act;
(b) specify the purposes for which an exemption may be granted for those activities; and
(c) set out the information that must be submitted to the Minister of Health before the Minister may consider an application for an exemption in relation to a supervised consumption site.

Respect for Communities Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, who once again raised the NDP's concerns about this bill, which would create major obstacles and, like many of this government's bills, would give a single minister powers that would better be shared more democratically.

These decisions should never be left up to a single minister because, as we have seen, in many cases, that person does not fulfill his or her responsibility and is not accountable. It is always someone else's fault.

My colleague has brought this issue up in the House many times, so would he care to comment on the fact that this bill once again gives the minister control over a number of decisions, for example the decision of whether to accept or reject applications for safe injection sites?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

Indeed, this Conservative government has an unfortunate tendency to concentrate power in the hands of ministers or of the Prime Minister. That is what is happening here. This leads to a growing number of situations where they can act arbitrarily and say: “I made this decision. That is it and that is all.”

It is always the same thing. The government avoids consulting, it avoids taking into consideration the views of experts, and it avoids commissioning studies by experts who would inform us objectively and rationally on what should be done.

In the past, we saw dangerous concentrations of power in the hands of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and, recently, in the hands of the Minister of Labour regarding the definition of danger in the area of health and safety for workers under federal jurisdiction.

This is a shift toward more powers in the hands of ministers. It is also a shift toward arbitrariness and that is really regrettable.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since we are here for the first time this year, allow me to wish a happy new year to you, to my colleagues, to the staff of the House of Commons and to the people at home.

At the beginning of the year, we make resolutions. Mr. Speaker, you inspire us with good resolutions every day when you begin with the prayer asking the Almighty to give us the wisdom to make good laws, if I am not mistaken.

This is what should guide us in this debate and in the debates on every bill. We are only here for a while. What will history remember of our Parliament? How will we have conducted our debates? What legislative legacy will we leave? I would not want people to remember that confusion prevailed, or that we did not act in the best interests of all Canadians. The fact is that everyone wants our society to thrive, to prosper and to be happy. I do not think we wish anything else.

This brings us to an important question. How do we define public interest in a bill, and in this one in particular? I want to quote American journalist Walter Lippmann, when he spoke about public interest, because the definition of that expression is very subjective. Here is a taste:

The public interest may be presumed to be what [people] would choose if they saw clearly, thought rationally and acted disinterestedly and benevolently.

We could add to that the ability to see the long-term results of action taken. Clearly, this is a little utopian and unrealistic. However, that is the direction we should be pursuing when considering a bill like this one.

This bill clearly shows the tectonic plates that are grinding against one another, in other words, people's values, which are not necessarily the same, and the law, which the Supreme Court clearly defined, when we are talking about the right to life, liberty or security, and the desired result or what we understand of an action, bill or institution.

Beyond everything else we could say, the real question we should be asking ourselves is this: are we going in the right direction? Will this bill, as it is currently written, allow us to improve the plight of our communities? That is the important question. If we vote for this bill, are we improving the plight of our diverse communities?

Here on this side of the House, we believe that things can be done differently. It is always a little strange to see such conflicting actions. This government boasts about eliminating red tape, but this bill introduces more red tape. The government is not very consistent. I do not know where it is going with this.

Is the government using red tape as a smoke screen, to hide its real intentions? I do not know. However, is creating red tape on an issue of public health really the best way to serve Canadians and our communities?

However, we have a lot of tools at our disposal here in the 21st century. We have knowledge that our ancestors did not have. We have a professional, coherent and non-partisan public administration to help us in our decision-making. I have the impression that we are taking a step backward, rather than moving forward, when it comes to putting public policy together.

Let me give you some examples where I think the government is not necessarily moving in the right direction to illustrate what I mean by that because public interest really is at the heart of this bill.

We have a beautiful bridge in my riding, the Quebec Bridge, that is being left to rust. Is it in the public interest to reduce the lifespan of a metal bridge that is also an image on postcards in my region? Some would say that it is in the public interest to do so, but I do not think it is. Public interest is preserving, maintaining, and taking care of our infrastructure, not being involved in legal wrangling.

Take funding post-secondary studies for example. We say we want to live in a knowledge society. Are we doing what it takes to make post-secondary education accessible to anyone who wants it, regardless of financial capabilities? The question can be asked now. I would like to know that we are contributing to a society where everyone has the opportunity to grow.

Here is where I make the link to Bill C-2. We have constituents who have a serious problem with hard drugs. The current solutions are helping those people to get off the drugs. What does the government do? It chooses to forget that, look away, play partisan politics , withdraw into certain values and not accept reality and see what it could do better. I find that fundamentally deplorable.

Beyond everything we want to do and everything we want, the wisdom to pass legislation in the public interest every day is characterized by the sincere desire to sometimes set aside our own personal perspectives.

We all have opinions on anything and everything, and our values influence our decisions. However, we are not here to promote our values. We are here to serve the public and to look beyond our own individual thoughts to make suggestions that would improve the life for the Canadians we each represent, in each of our different ridings. The public interest is what should guide our actions here.

I have serious doubts that we are headed in the right direction in this case, especially since the government is not respecting the spirit of the Supreme Court decision with Bill C-2. I would have liked the government to find a solution within the parameters set by the Supreme Court. However, that is not the case. Did the Supreme Court go against public interest? Is that truly what my colleagues think? I do not think so. I believe that the Supreme Court set parameters in order to determine the direction we should take. Unfortunately, this bill does not contribute to the public interest.

I would like to be able to say that this bill may improve public safety, but I am not convinced, since needles will end up all over the place. I would like to be able to say that this bill would contribute to public safety, but the government is throwing people whose only desire is to satisfy a temporary, urgent need out onto the street. I would like to be able to say that this bill is full of wisdom, but is it wise to want to go backwards and to refuse to listen to experts? Is it wise to not do something that is already considered around the world to be a good practice? Unfortunately, I think that the Conservative government got it wrong.

I thank the public for listening to my speech. I hope that everyone will have the wisdom to vote for good legislation in 2014.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech and for reminding us to choose our words wisely. We must think things through before making decisions for the common good.

I would like to point out that InSite is innovative. It meets the needs of the community and it came out of the Vancouver community. When it comes to health, we have to be more and more innovative. I think that Canada is a country that could be innovative and play a leadership role. What is more, we are not alone. This type of site has been set up in a number of cities in Europe and Australia. These sites have been recognized as helping vulnerable groups. They are accepted by the community because they improve the health of their clients, reduce the numbers of overdose deaths, and reduce drug use in public, open spaces.

I would like my colleague to elaborate on the innovativeness of a centre like InSite and the importance of it being community-based. It is too bad that a bill like C-2 would eliminate a good initiative.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her insightful remarks. It goes to show how fortunate our society is.

In Canada, we live in a wealthy and educated society. Earlier I was talking about post-secondary education. I think that my colleague would agree that we have the means to provide our constituents with all the innovation, technology and cutting-edge knowledge humanity possesses. We are that fortunate. We have the knowledge and the means to show leadership in problem-solving, regardless of the problem. In this case we are talking about addictions and prevention. We want to be able to contain certain unfortunate practices. My colleague is right to say that we must focus more on innovation. She is also right to say that we must move forward and implement modern solutions. She is right to say that we must use our knowledge for the good of the people.

The House resumed from January 27 consideration of the motion that Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the motion that the question be now put.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to get the opportunity to speak to Bill C-2. We are somewhat surprised that the bill has actually been called at this time, as we had anticipated that we would be into a recess. I understand if it is the will of the chamber to pass the bill.

I am not quite sure if I have already spoken to the bill at this stage. Would you get confirmation from the table, Mr. Speaker? I would not want to be speaking twice on this particular bill.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

We will get confirmation for the hon. member for Winnipeg North, and we will take up that question momentarily.

Until we verify that, perhaps the hon. member would wish to continue his remarks.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. As it turns out, the hon. member's intuition was correct. Indeed, he has already had the opportunity to speak to the bill at this stage.

I see the hon. member for Halifax West rising.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to speak to the bill.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

We just called orders of the day. We are starting on Bill C-2. Between me and the table, we are trying to get situated in terms of which party was next on the list on resuming debate.

Indeed, at this point on resuming debate, the next slot up is a Conservative slot, so we will resume debate with the next Conservative speaker.

This is Bill C-2 on the previous question. Accordingly, when we first recognized the hon. member for Winnipeg North, he had already spoken at this stage of the bill, so we will go to the next speaking slot, which is the Conservatives. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Kootenay—Columbia.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker—

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I believe the member has already spoken. If you check the record, you will know for sure. I know he asked enough questions that he could have spoken about ten times. They were all reasonable questions.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I appreciate the intervention on the part of the hon. member for Malpeque. Indeed, we will in fact do that. As I did with the member for Winnipeg North, we will let the member for Kootenay—Columbia continue until we have verified that.

He has spoken already. That being the case, the hon. member for Winnipeg North on a point of order.