Debates of June 17th, 2014

Bill C-2—Time Allocation Motion

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to address the whole question of the timing of this bill and the debate. This has received a huge amount of debate in the House of Commons. As a matter of fact, 97 members have been on their feet. There were more than 18 hours of debate in the House of Commons. I am not sure the Magna Carta had that many hours of debate. That being said, there were 18 hours of debate.

The position of the New Democrats is that 18 days or maybe 18 years would not be enough on bills that they do not like, which is consistent in this particular area.

I am pleased that the House leader is moving forward with this. Let us get it to committee. If members want to hear debate, let Canadians, Canadian groups and Canadian individuals, come before the committee and make their opinions known. That is appropriate here. It is not enough for the New Democrats to say that they want to debate it forever in here; let us hear from Canadians who have something to say about these drug consumption sites for illegal drugs. Let us get Canadians and Canadian groups aboard. That is what we should do.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. Before we get to questions, I will remind hon. members that in order to get enough time in, as there is a 30-minute time period for questions, around one-minute interventions on either side are always helpful to get more people involved.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is noteworthy to recognize that what we are witnessing is a breakdown in the tradition of how legislation is passed through the House of Commons. Typically, we would have government working with opposition parties to build some sort of a legislative agenda that would allow for a good, healthy number of hours of debate on controversial legislation, while at the same time legislation that is straightforward and has the support of all parties would be passed through quickly.

Ever since we have had a majority Conservative government, it has used time allocation more than in the history of any other political entity inside the House of Commons. My colleague is right in saying shame, on that point.

The legislation we are limiting debate on is of a serious nature. The question I would ask the government House leader is why he believes the government has failed Canadians by not allowing for the appropriate passage of all forms of legislation through negotiation, as opposed to a majority rule inside the House, which is not healthy for democracy in Canada.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I completely disagree with the hon. member. As a matter of fact, there have been 97 members of the House of Commons who have had the opportunity to speak to this bill. In fact, I am surprised that the House leader was as patient as he was. This is an important piece of legislation. We want to get these things passed. However, apparently they allowed 97 members to come forward, and they had the right to get up. However, I am concerned and surprised that the hon. member is not more concerned; I want to get this before a committee. Let Canadian groups and individuals have their say. What is so wrong with that? This is what will happen at the committee. This is important legislation; let us move it through the process. Come on; let us go.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence demonstrates a somewhat shaky grasp of parliamentary democracy: first, with his reference to the Magna Carta, which of course preceded Parliament; and second, in talking about how much debate is enough debate. It misunderstands representative democracy. The idea that people come here and represent their ridings seems completely foreign to the members on the other side.

When we get to referring a bill to committee, I have my biggest concern. I sit on the public safety committee and I will be happy to debate this bill there, but what we have seen lately is that it is of course going to the wrong committee because it is a health question. However, I hope we are not going to see this, and this is my question. Can the minister give us the assurance that he will not try to limit the debate on this bill in committee to only the public safety aspects, so that we can have a full examination of its health aspects in the public safety committee?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, to the final part of the member's comments, of course that is up to the public safety committee. I am not going to start dictating what it should do or should not do. He talked about parliamentary democracy. It is up to the committee members to decide how many speakers and representations it wants to have, and appropriately so.

However, I would only say for the hon. member that we should always find common ground as to where we agree. Even though there have been over 18 hours of debate, for the NDP 18 years would not be enough. At least we agree that there is no limit to how far we could go before they would be satisfied. However, in terms of the member's comments with respect to parliamentary democracy, he has to agree with me that this is part of the parliamentary process. Let Canadians come forward and let groups come forward and make representations on that. That is only right.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the hon. minister who is before us today also has a background as a lawyer. I have been researching and considering a substantial point of privilege to be made at a later date, because the use of time allocation in this place is not part of parliamentary procedure; it is unprecedented.

I look to the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the case about a previous Speaker, Gib Parent, and Satnam Vaid and the Human Rights Commission. There are some very interesting comments by the Supreme Court about the nature of privilege. It is basically that in our work here, as a matter of privilege, and the court stated that we must function:

...as a legislative and deliberative body, including the assembly’s work in holding the government to account, that outside interference would undermine the level of autonomy required to enable the assembly and its members to do their legislative work with dignity and efficiency.

I put for the hon. minister that surely 74 limitations of debate in a period of one Parliament is not only unprecedented by a bit, but it is unprecedented by a country mile over anything that has ever taken place in this Parliament, ever since Confederation. Would the minister not agree with me that it begins to be an abuse of democracy that offends our privileges here as members to do our work on behalf of our constituents?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have to respect what it is the court has said. The court has set down a number of conditions for drug consumption sites where illegal drugs are used. It has set out conditions, and we want to ensure that they are implemented, that they are part of the law of this country. The minister actually goes further than that. She has added another 10 different considerations that should go into this; so every precaution is taken to ensure that we get it right.

I am surprised that the hon. members of the opposition do not want to have this before a committee. That too is a vital part of our parliamentary system, the committee hearings. That is the only thing I would urge her. There has been full debate on this. If they are part of a group that says there will never be enough debate on it, I accept that, but this is why we in government have to make decisions. However, I would say this for the member. Let us move forward. Let us have Canadians have their say on this important legislation.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since this is the government's 74th time allocation motion, the question I am going to ask may seem sarcastic, but I am really starting to wonder about this.

Do the Conservatives intend to introduce a bill that would make the usual and current rules of the House the exception, since the exception has become the rule?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to discuss this with the government House leader. I believe, from my perusal of this, that he has been very patient with all the dozens and dozens of members who have spoken. We want there to be a fulsome debate, and that is appropriate at second reading, but that is only one part of the parliamentary process.

I am going to tell him that he was very patient, because for me and so many of us, including the government House leader, this is a very important piece of legislation. This is responding to a Supreme Court of Canada decision setting out a number of conditions for this, and it is very important that we move on that. I have to tell him that he has obviously been very patient and that is a wonderful virtue in the parliamentary system, but I also say that this is only one part of the process. Let us move it forward and get it before committee.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Minister of State (Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario)]

Mr. Speaker, I will ask my hon. colleague a question regarding injection sites and what is laid out in this bill about them.

I know there have been considerable community consultations. I know that there has been considerable debate in the House, as the minister himself has mentioned. Some 97 members of Parliament have stood to voice their opinions on this. I also have to agree with him that, as we sit through debates and listen to members on the opposite side, we hear that the speeches are almost all the same. It does not matter how many hours we sit here. Even if it is one hour, we end up hearing the same speech three or four times. As much as I like listening to my friends across the way, there is an obligation to Canadians that we actually enact what is going to improve the safety of their communities and these injection sites where, in fact, illegal drugs are offered to people.

I wonder if the minister could comment on community consultations and how this act would benefit my community in Cambridge and North Dumfries, for example. I know the NDP wants to put an injection site in Cambridge. I do not think the folks in Cambridge would be at all happy with that, and I wonder if the member could comment on that.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the minister covered a lot of ground. He pointed out that the New Democrats have made dozens and dozens of speeches basically saying the same thing. I do not mean this as disagreement, but they are certainly entitled to do that. As justice minister, I heard hundreds of speeches, all basically saying the same thing, that they did not like our crackdown on crime. That is their business. If they all want to oppose these things, I understand that and I do not have any particular problem with that. They are making their position very clear.

Quite frankly, even as minister of justice, I heard many times that people want to have some input with respect to this issue that is before the House right now. I am pleased that even when the minister gets an application, she is going to give Canadians another opportunity, 90 days, to give her their input. This is the way to go.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there have been 74 time allocation motions, as disturbing as that is; as you know, it is the curtailment of debate in the House. However, even more disturbing than the 74 times that debate has been shut down is the fact that the government is trying to change what has been a precedent in the House of allowing one further sitting day to now what is becoming a precedent of five hours of debate. This is a dangerous precedent.

Does my colleague not agree with me that changing this precedent in the Standing Orders of having one sitting day to interpret it as five hours is the height of cynicism and that it will feed the cynicism of Canadians who want us to make Parliament work? Does he not agree that this dangerous precedent will certainly do damage to this institution in the future and our work as parliamentarians?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is concerned about the number of hours of debate. Again, I have indicated that I believe the House leader has been quite generous and accommodating on that.

The hon. member has to answer to Canadians, who want to have some say. If someone wants to open up one of these sites next door to where people are trying to raise their children or put it right across the street from a school, what are we supposed to say? Should we say the NDP is unhappy and it wants to debate this issue forever? People would say no; they want us to comply with what the courts are saying, that we should lay down conditions and make sure Canadians have the opportunity to have some say as to where, how, and the circumstances under which these sites are going to be implemented.

Again, there is a process where the minister can look at these. I am very impressed. The Supreme Court of Canada put five different conditions and she was good enough to add 10 more in this bill to make sure it is completely clear. That is very helpful to anybody setting up one of these sites.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence keeps saying that we should give the opportunity to Canadians to have input into this. Why do we not start with the elected officials, the very people Canadians elected to the House, and give them the opportunity to talk about the bill?

I know the Conservatives are not very good with facts and figures. The minister talks about having 97 members speak in the House, which is about 30% of the members in the House. What about the other 70% of the members? They have not spoken. I am sure that even the Conservative members would want to get up and have the opportunity to represent their constituents. Democracy is all about that.

Why is the Minister of National Defence trying to shut down debate? It is not only in the House, as I am absolutely sure the Conservatives will shut down debate at the committee stage, where we will hear from many research analysts and experts in this area and try to make some amendments to the bill.

Could the minister assure us that there will not be time allocation at the committee stage so we can hear from the experts at the ground level who will help us improve the bill?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member pointed out that almost one-third of the members have already spoken on the bill. This is only second reading.

Again, I said that if the bill goes to committee, if those members are inclined to filibuster or ask the same questions over and over again, they are entitled to do that. I told my colleague that even at third reading, if there are dozens of NDP members who want to get up, say the same thing and make the same speech over and over again, that is their right to do that. However, what we have here is important legislation that Canadians are very interested in.

When I was justice minister, many people raised this subject with me and they did the same when in British Columbia. All I am saying at this point is that if we get the bill to committee, Canadians, Canadian groups and institutions will have that opportunity to have some input. What is wrong with that?

I love to hear the hon. members go on and on and fight all of our efforts to crack down on crime, for instance. I have heard that for years. They can go ahead and do that, but let Canadians have their say. That is all we are asking for.

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

Mr. Speaker, what does a 74th guillotine mean? It means that we have one half hour to talk as we are doing now—which is not productive—one half hour waiting for the bells and the actual vote. It means that almost 90 hours of debate did not take place in the House.

How many bills—if everyone had time to speak—would have gotten through had we made good use of those 90 hours?

I have the following question for the minister. Will he promise not to use the guillotine at committee and third reading stage?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member cannot make a commitment to get the bill out of the House of Commons. The NDP members are fighting this at every step of the way, even though there has been a very fulsome debate, with a considerable amount of time, within our parliamentary system.

However, those members are saying that they cannot agree to anything. That is the position they are taking, and they are welcome to it. However, I would ask them to please explain that to Canadians who are concerned about this subject. They are worried, for instance, about an application for a site that may go next door to them or one across the street from a school.

The NDP members have to admit that not only are all the protections and conditions set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in the bill, but the Minister of Health went considerably further and added another 10 to ensure these things would operate properly, that people's safety would be taken into consideration and to ensure that everything would be done in accordance with health procedures.

It seems to me that the bill should have the support of those members. Rather than fight it every step of the way, they should be asking how they can get the bill through. We know Canadians want this. It is important for Canada, and that is what I would urge them to do.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the minister has not answered a couple of basic questions.

I would note, and I am sure he is aware, that the last time this bill was debated in the House was at the end of January of this year. It has already been five months. I am curious to know why, at the eleventh hour, the government is now bringing in closure. We could have had debate on the bill in February, March, April or May. I am afraid the minister's responses just do not cut it.

The other question he has been unable to answer is why this bill, which is clearly a health measure, is not going to the health committee. This is about a health intervention to save lives, and that is very clear from the Supreme Court of Canada decision. Why is it going to the public safety committee?

That is a very basic question about the government's attitude to this issue and the bill. Why is the bill going to the public safety committee and not the health committee?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, to be fair to the hon. member, whether we debated the bill in January or in June, or six years from now, those members would oppose it, and they certainly are entitled to do that.

However, I do not agree with the member's description as to what this is all about. The Supreme Court of Canada said that one of the conditions should be the impact of such a facility on crime rates. Again, that is one of the five conditions set out by the Supreme Court of Canada.

I am pleased the minister, in drafting this legislation, has added, as one of the ten conditions, the potential impact of the proposed site on public safety, including law enforcement research statistics, if any, related to such issues as crime, public nuisance and public consumption of illicit substances.

This is very complete. This is one of the things that has to impress anybody looking at this. It goes beyond the conditions set out by the Supreme Court of Canada.

I would ask the member if the NDP members would have been happier debating it in February, but let us face it, and all be honest, they would have opposed it in January, February, next March or 10 years from now, and that is their right to do so.

However, let us get it before a committee, so Canadians can have their say.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, some drug traffickers in Montreal are getting very greedy and are trying to increase profits by selling low quality drugs. This caused a massive increase in deaths associated with these bad drugs.

I am pleased to support the government's desire to punish these drug traffickers and put them in prison, and especially those greedy ones. However, Bill C-2 also deals with public health.

The minister said that he was proud that we had adopted 10 other Supreme Court recommendations, but that is the problem: it turns a public health issue into a punishment issue.

The NDP wants to combat this dangerous aspect of illegal drug use by making this a public health issue. When the government puts an end to debate like this, it is maintaining this confusion between public health and punishment.

Why is it so important to turn a public health issue into a punishment issue?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member may disagree with this. In his example, he was talking about Montreal or wherever his constituency is. If some group were opening up one of these drug consumption sites next door to him, would the member find it so unreasonable that the minister would want to do a criminal record check on those individuals? Does that sound so unreasonable?

I have a feeling that the members across, if this were being opened up across the street from the school where their kids were or next door to them, might say that it was a pretty reasonable condition by the minister, a criminal records check for the people that were moving in next door to them.

However, with respect to what the member says about it being a health issue, a description of the available drug treatment services at the site is there. One of the health components is what drug treatment services will be available. That is pretty reasonable.

I would have thought the members would have welcomed that. Okay, the member may not agree that the staff should have criminal records checks. That may be one of the bad ones on that list. However, what about the drug treatment services? That is pretty reasonable. I would hope the member would have embraced that.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Minister of State (Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario)]

Mr. Speaker, as I have sat here and listened to this conversation about limiting debate, when there has, in fact, been no limit to the debate, I am getting more and more concerned.

Obviously, I am here to represent my community of Cambridge-North Dumfries. Maybe in my hon. colleagues' ridings, it is okay to have injection sites beside a school without criminal record checks and without actual proper drug treatment programs. However, I can assure the members of the House that no one in Cambridge is willing to have drug injection sites for drug addicts beside a school. This is common sense.

This is Canada. We need this legislation passed. The best place for it right now is at committee, after 97 members have spoken during 18 hours of debate. It is time for the committee to hear from Canadians so those folks will know what Canadians think.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it will be difficult to top that. That was very good, and I appreciate it.

The hon. member makes an excellent point. What is the problem with having Canadians come forward and give their opinions? They would have strong opinions on this.

When I went across the country as the justice minister, and certainly now as the defence minister, people did not say that they wanted to get more of these sites in their neighbourhoods and that they did not want to put conditions on these people. I never have heard that from people, and I have a feeling that this is what they are worried about. They are worried that we are going to have groups come forward and say that they would like to have this regulated and that they would like to have a say in whether it would move in across the street from a school. They would like to ensure that these people have criminal record checks.

I think Canadians will have a look at this and say that it is all very reasonable and that this is what the government should be doing. It is certainly in compliance with the court orders.

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

Mr. Speaker, what we have going on is a bit of a pretence, with the minister talking about what happens if they are next to schools or in our neighbourhoods. We know from the experience of the safe injection in Vancouver East that crime rates go down. The number of needles found in alleyways goes down. The whole community becomes safer. There is amazing community support for the one existing safe injection in Vancouver East. We have a bit of fear-mongering from the other side.

Again, I would like to come back to the question of the committee. We are going to the public safety committee. We know that with the study of marijuana that has been commissioned, the government has said that we can only talk about the harms in committee and that we cannot talk about anything else that might happen.

I want reassurance from the government that the Conservatives will not use their majority on the public safety committee to limit the scope of the debate so as to exclude the health benefits, which was the primary reason that the Supreme Court made its decision. Could we get assurance that the government will not use its majority to prevent the discussion of the health benefits of safe injection sites?