It's withdrawn.
Evidence of meeting #37 for Public Safety and National Security in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was chair.
A video is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #37 for Public Safety and National Security in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was chair.
A video is available from Parliament.
5 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Okay.
Colleagues, shall clause 5 carry as amended?
A point of order, Mr. Garrison?
5 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
If we're creating a clause 5.1, that will come after voting on clause 5?
5 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
Thank you.
And we'll have 5 minutes on that new clause?
5 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
That's correct. That's my understanding. I will confer with the clerk.
5 p.m.
A voice
New clause, new clock.
5 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
A recorded vote, please.
(Clause 5 as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
We will now go to a new clause 5.1, proposed in NDP amendment 20.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I'm pleased to move this motion for a new clause that adds a sunset clause to the bill. In other words, it would give a chance for reporting to be done to the minister and to consider the impacts of the bill and whether this entire regime was really necessary or in fact was an obstacle to creating safe injection sites.
Much like security certificate provisions, which expired previously, this would add a similar clause to this bill, so that if, after seeing the experience, the House of Commons wishes to proceed with this, it would have to enact it again. Otherwise, it would expire.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC
Thank you very much.
I too would like to speak in favour of this amendment. I do think it's a very important amendment, because this bill has been very, very controversial. Clearly it's going to go through the House, so I see this clause as one about accountability. It's saying that once we've reached the two-year mark, the Minister of Health would have to lay before the House information on public health, public safety, and the operation of this bill and what its impact has been. I do think it's very important to have that assessment.
The amendment makes it clear that it would then only be by a resolution of the House—and of course this is the sunset clause passed by both Houses of Parliament—that the act would be able to continue. It's really a pause to make an assessment. I'm very concerned that if this bill passes as is.... Well, first of all, we're very skeptical that any application will ever be approved, but having said that, if by some miracle some application were approved or some business did take place, this would allow an opportunity for an assessment to be made.
I do think that's very legitimate; it does happen in legislation. There are strong precedents for having a sunset clause, and it puts the onus on the government of the day to argue their case as to why a particular piece of legislation should continue. I think that would be a good examination for all of us to go through.
November 5th, 2014 / 5:05 p.m.
NDP
Hélène LeBlanc NDP LaSalle—Émard, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I would like to reinforce what my colleagues just said. I think the bill before us is very complex, as mentioned. The bill and all the proposed amendments very much reflect how complex it is. This provision, this sunset clause, will make it possible to do an evaluation.
The goal was to hold the government to account. This will enable us to assess the bill. For these reasons, I strongly support my colleagues in this.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I support this clause very strongly, because I do believe that, as Ms. Davies says, it does bring in an element of accountability. But it also allows us to examine the evidence as to where and if the minister had a balanced approach, if she did in fact give any exemptions, and what the results and outcome are two years later with regard to crime, with regard to open drug scenes, with regard to overdose deaths in that area where the exemptions were made, and to compare all of that to results in areas where exemptions were not made.
I think it gives us an opportunity to set some indicators and to look at how we evaluate them, so we will make a decision on whether the government, by not giving exemptions, had in fact made the wrong decision or the right decision. It will also allow us to hold this up against any of the charter compliance that the Supreme Court so very clearly put in place.
So I do support this. I think it's really an important clause.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Diane Ablonczy Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Do you think two years is really sufficient time to gather and analyze trends and statistics? It strikes me as a very short period of time.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC
Yes. Actually in InSite, the safe injection site in Vancouver's downtown eastside, within six months there were remarkable changes in terms of crime, the open crime scene, and open shooting up. Overdose deaths were zero and have continued to be zero since then. People are able to seek detoxification upstairs at InSite. All of these things could be seen very clearly within or earlier than six months of opening the site. So I think we are going to be able to do that within about six months in every instance.