Debates of June 17th, 2014

Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act

[Bruce Hyer, Green, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I realize you were distracted, but I was unable to present my question due to the overwhelming din from the other side. I sat down and I never did get to ask my question.

Might I be able to ask my question?

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I have already indicated that question period is over and we are moving on to the vote. I do not know if there is consent of the House to revert to question period.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

There does not seem to be.

The hon. member for Ottawa South is rising.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am looking for unanimous consent this afternoon to table three documents.

The first is the budget document from Australia, which tables building Australia's infrastructure—

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I am hearing nays before the member has even finished.

I sense the desire of the House to get on to the deferred recorded divisions. We had tabling of documents earlier today. Perhaps we will go ahead with the vote, and then if the member wants to seek unanimous consent of the House, the House might be in a better mood and may be inclined to grant it.

We will now move on.

The question is on Motion No. 1. A vote on this motion also applies to Motion No. 3.

During the taking of the vote:

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order. I think that members are getting awfully close to holding up a prop, and I do not think that it suits the House very well. I will ask members to come to order, and we will resume with the vote.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #213

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I declare Motion No. 1 defeated. I therefore declare Motion No. 3 defeated as well.

The next question is on Motion No. 2.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #214

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I declare Motion No. 2 defeated.

[John Baird, Conservative, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #215

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion carried. When shall the bill be read a third time? At the next sitting of the House.

Bill C-2—Time Allocation Motion

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That, in relation to Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, not more than five further hours shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the Bill; and That, at the expiry of the five hours provided for the consideration of second reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

There will now be a 30-minute period for questions. I will recognize the hon. member for Vancouver East.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to see how the government House leader acts in sort of a flippant and dismissive way when he reads this motion. It is no wonder, as this is the 74th time since 2011 that the government has introduced closure on a piece of legislation before the House. That means that most of its legislation has been rammed through, forced through by closure, because it cannot bear to have a proper comprehensive debate in the House of Commons by members of Parliament from all parties on any government legislation. It is bent on the idea that it has to ram it through.

Bill C-2, which is an amendment to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, is a particularly important bill because it follows a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada concerning safer injection sites in this country. As we have seen with other legislation, most notably Bill C-36 recently, which also has to do with a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada concerning laws pertaining to prostitution in this country, this is yet another bill in this House that basically does not stand the test of the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada.

I would ask the minister why the government has decreed that this bill will not go to the health committee where it should go, because it is a matter pertaining to the health and well-being of Canadians who are very much at risk and who have been marginalized, rather than going to the public safety committee. That demonstrates the conclusion that the government sees this as just another law and order measure, as opposed to a measure that is affecting the health of people. Why were people not properly consulted on this bill, such as front-line service workers, so that we would have the benefit of that in terms of debating the bill? Why will it now go to the public safety committee instead of where it should be going, which is for a thorough examination at the Standing Committee on Health?