Public Safety Committee on Nov. 5th, 2014

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

Mr. Chair, this amendment from the floor again deals with clause 5 of the bill, but this time is replacing lines 33 to 38 on page 8. We have submitted it in advance and it will be circulated.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

It has already been circulated, I believe.

Is there any further discussion?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We now have Green Party number 5.

Ms. May.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Very briefly, this is an attempt to amend within clause 5 the request for information from a local government level, that is municipalities. It appears, the way it is currently drafted, to be intended to encourage negative comments about the site. To that I suggest proposed subparagraph 56.1(3)(b)(i) that would require the local government to provide “information about vulnerable populations in the area of the proposed site—including people who are Aboriginal persons, low-income or homeless individuals, survival sex workers or persons who are suffering from a mental illness or have a disability—and outlines programs already available to assist them”.

It's an attempt to provide balance for the communities who are most served by these safe injection sites.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

Are there any further speakers?

(Amendment negatived)

Now we have Liberal amendment 6.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Chair, again I have removed that amendment and replaced it with the following. I have it here for the clerk.

It says that Bill C-2 in clause 5 be amended by replacing lines 35 to 38 on page 8 with the following:

located that provides rationale for and endorses the application for the exemption

This is with respect to municipalities.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

That's fine. Thank you.

We'll just wait a second until the clerk gets a copy of that.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

While you are receiving it, I would suggest again that this is very intrusive into affairs of the municipality, which as we well know is under the jurisdiction of the provinces. The federal government is again imposing itself on other jurisdictions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

Is there any further discussion.

(Amendment negatived)

Now we go to Liberal amendment 7.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

That amendment stays as is, Mr. Chair. Again it is based on the same idea opposing intrusion into municipal affairs by the federal government.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Is there discussion?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Now we have an NDP amendment from the floor.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to move an amendment from the floor. This is to clause 5 on page 8, replacing lines 40 to 42. I believe it has been distributed.

I won't make any further comments because we're running out of time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

Are there comments?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

All right.

We will now go to the Green Party and amendment PV-6.

Ms. May.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This amendment is an attempt to replace further subsections that are clearly designed to do indirectly that which the government has been told it can't do directly.

What I'd like to replace is at line 41 on page 8. Proposed paragraph 56.1(3)(d) would thus read as follows:

a description by the applicant of the measures that have been taken or will be taken to address potential public health and safety concerns;

That would replace the duplicative obstacles created by getting separate letters from the police force, from lead health professionals, from the provincial minister, and so on.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

Any discussion?

Yes, Ms. James.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you.

When we talk about community consultations, and requiring a wide range of stakeholders who are pertinent to health matters as well as to community and public safety, this amendment that's been put forward actually removes the requirement for police to have their say.

I'm not sure why you think that's not important, but I certainly will not be supporting this amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

Further discussion?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We'll move now to Liberal amendment 8.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Chair, I would like to remove that motion and replace it with another.

I move that Bill C-2 in clause 5 be amended by replacing lines 1 to 4 on page 9 with the following:

would be located that provides the rationale for and endorses the application for the exemption;

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Yes, Ms. Ablonczy.

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

Does that mean the provincial minister of health wouldn't have to provide information?

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

No. These are all dealing with the different people who have to provide letters, and I am saying with the rationale for endorsing. The first is from the Minister of Health, the next one is from the municipality, and the third one is from the police force. These are criteria laid out by the Supreme Court that must be taken into consideration.

I am agreeing that the police force should, but they shouldn't give all of that detailed information. They should just provide a letter saying that we think this is a good idea, here is the evidence-based reason why, and we think an exemption should be granted. So they give their reasons in the letter, but there is no intrusion into local police force activities.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Is there further discussion?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We'll go now to Liberal amendment 9.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Chair, this is again asking for us to delete proposed paragraph 56.1(3)(f) under clause 5. It is no longer necessary given the previous amendment I made.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you.

We will now go to amendment NDP-7.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to move the motion and pass the floor to Ms. Davies.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Actually, how much time do we have left?