Debates of Feb. 26th, 2015

Bill C-2—Time Allocation Motion

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

Mr. Speaker, I move:

That in relation to Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the report stage and one sitting day shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the said bill; and

That fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration of the report stage and on the day allotted to the third 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 stage of the bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

There will now be a 30-minute question period for members to participate in, and I would ask members to keep their questions or comments to around a minute and government responses to a similar length.

The hon. member for Vancouver East.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is the 89th time that the government has put closure on debate on a bill. It really is a very shameful record. It is an historic but shameful record in the history of this Parliament.

This bill, Bill C-2, is a particularly grievous one and is fundamentally flawed. I find it very ironic that the government itself sat on this bill for months and months—in fact, the better part of a year—before it brought it forward for debate. Now, all of a sudden, it decides it wants to rush it through at report stage and third reading at the last minute.

I want to ask why it is cutting off debate, why it sat on this bill for so long, and why members of Parliament, who have the right to a thorough debate at report stage and third reading of this bill and to discuss all of the arguments that came out of committee, a legitimate process, are now being limited and foreclosed in the House.

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Minister of Health]

First, Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on the member's notion that this bill is grievous. This bill is in response to a Supreme Court ruling, and it follows that Supreme Court ruling to the letter.

As for the amount of time that we have debated this bill, it has now received over 20 hours of debate. The House leader said it has been debated for 12 days. The NDP alone has delivered 64 speeches on this very topic and to date has asked 55 questions. This is third reading. This is the process that bills go through, and all parties have had an opportunity to discuss the bill in committee.

However, what is most shocking is that the NDP does not realize that unless this bill passes, we cannot come into compliance with what the Supreme Court has asked us to do when it comes to these establishments for supervised injection and community consultations.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of questions I would like to ask.

Obviously I agree with my colleague in the New Democratic Party that this bill was delayed for a very long time and that all of a sudden the government wants to rush it through. At report stage, members heard from many people who challenged these proposed measures by pointing out that they did not in fact meet the Supreme Court rulings but overstepped them and are going to be open to a charter challenge.

As well, when the bill was tabled by the Minister of Health, it did not go to the health committee. It actually went to an enforcement committee, the Standing Committee on Public Safety, which is a very strange and puzzling thing to happen. This tells us where the government is coming from. For the government, this is about enforcement and not at all about health. However, it is in fact about health.

The question I want to ask is this. Why is it that members do not have the time to discuss what they heard at report stage, when there were two dissenting opinions by the opposition party saying that what was heard from witnesses was not reflected?

This bill oversteps the Supreme Court ruling in many ways. The Supreme Court had five criteria. This bill, coming from a government that says health is a provincial jurisdiction, actually intrudes completely and in great detail into provincial governments, municipal governments, and local police rulings. In fact, those three groups—the provincial governments, the municipal governments, and the police—all put forward amendments that said this bill was intruding into their jurisdictions.

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Edmonton—Spruce Grove, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I believe the member herself participated in the committee discussions. The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and I were both there. It is an issue that affects both health and public safety, and that is why both ministers appeared before the committee to answer any questions that members had.

I am disappointed that the opposition continues to delay the bill, because it has been debated at length and if we do not pass the bill, there will not be a framework for any community to move forward with any sort of an application in this process. Not only has it received ample debate in the House, it is now time for the legislation to proceed. In fact, community groups are asking for this bill to proceed. They are in favour of it. They have mentioned that at committee, and have written a lot of correspondence to me and to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to share their views. Organizations such as Safer Ottawa, along with various homeowners' associations and tourism-related businesses, have been very vocal in their strong opposition to safe injection sites and want to have the public consultations that are outlined in this bill.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that this bill is especially important to me. We have just completed another stage. A committee study allowed members to hear from experts. I am not a member of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, so I think it is quite appropriate to talk about this bill. This bill has been on the table for quite some time. The government could have put it back on the agenda before now, since it is in charge of the schedule. It keeps moving time allocation motions without batting an eye.

I would like to know if the Minister of Health took the time to talk to the opposition to determine how many of hours of debate might be necessary for further consideration of the bill. What makes her think that a time allocation motion is absolutely necessary for moving forward with the bill? The government makes no effort to reach consensus. It moves time allocation and closure motions as a matter of policy, leaving no room for discussion. I think that is an irresponsible attitude.

Did the minister take the time to consult the opposition parties to discuss how they envision the next stages of the bill?

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Edmonton—Spruce Grove, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the bill has been debated for 20 hours over 12 days. It went to committee. The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and I as health minister were there to answer questions. We are trying to pass this bill.

It is interesting that the member said that this measure is important to her, and that she wants to see it passed and thinks that we are delaying it, yet we continue to experience delays by the opposition.

It is important that this bill pass, because otherwise we have no framework with which to provide public consultations for any municipality or group that wants to apply to have a supervised injection site. The Supreme Court of Canada was clear that public consultations need to happen before any of these supervised injection sites can move forward. However, we have been unable to reach a consensus because the opposition members think that we should not have to consult the public. They think that any municipality or group should have the right to impose a supervised injection site without public consultation.

We do not believe that is the case. We agree with the Supreme Court of Canada and we will proceed with this bill to make sure that the public and neighbourhood groups, whether they be local politicians or the police, have their say.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the more the Minister of Health speaks, the more we understand the reason for this closure motion, which brings time allocation to the House for the 89th time.

The reality is that the government has refused to bring the legislation forward to the House for over a year simply because it was obvious after the first round of debates that there were many flaws in the bill.

The government has not been willing to accept amendments. There have been concerns raised about jurisdiction and about strangling the safe injection site and what that means for health. There was concern over a wide variety of community impacts as well. We have a government that brought forward a badly flawed bill last year and forced it through. Initial debates reflected very poorly on the government, so it hid the bill for a year and is now bringing it forward with closure, trying to ram it through the House with no due parliamentary consideration.

Is that not the real reason we are seeing closure today? Why did the government sit on the bill for over a year?

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Edmonton—Spruce Grove, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we are, right now, debating. I am here to answer the member's questions. We have debated this bill for 20 hours over 12 days. It went to committee. The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and I were available for any questions, and we continue to be.

Canadian families deserve and expect safe and healthy communities in which to raise their children. The respect for communities act would give local law enforcement, municipal leaders, and local residents a voice that they want and deserve before a permit is granted for a supervised injection site.

This bill, just as the Supreme Court ordered, says that in my capacity as Minister of Health, I must consider specific factors when reviewing applications, and the big factor is public consultations. This bill has to move forward before we can have a framework in place that would allow for public consultations.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have to ask the hon. minister how she can say with a straight face that there is great urgency in passing the bill, given that it was taken off the table for such a long period of time.

Now it absolutely has to pass in record time. The Supreme Court is waiting. All of these arguments are being brought forward. However, if all of the arguments she has presented are compelling in terms of speed, why did the bill suddenly disappear off the face of the earth for a very long time?

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Edmonton—Spruce Grove, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is not true. We had consultations on the bill, we took it to committee, and we debated it for 20 hours over 12 days of debate. There has been lengthy debate and consultation on this bill to make sure that we get it right. However, it is time to move forward.

One of the five factors that the Supreme Court outlined in its ruling was expressions of community support or opposition. I know it is hard for the opposition to understand that, because they are on the record as saying that these sites should move forward if anyone desires to open a safe injection site in a community. However, that is not what the Supreme Court said, and it is not what we believe should happen.

We believe that local residents should have a say. At the end of the day, this is about supervised illicit drug use, and there are health and public safety factors to be considered. We believe without a doubt that the public has a right to consultation, and this bill would provide for that consultation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. Minister of Health, for whom I have immense respect. Much of the legislation that I have supported in the House has come forward from the Minister of Health.

Unfortunately, I do not support the bill before us. I think it has been designed to make it impossible to ever again set up a harm reduction site. It goes beyond consulting with communities and appears to be designed to create so many hurdles that no organization would ever be able to open a safe injection site.

For that reason, and because of the need to explore this issue in full debate, I am very concerned that we are again having closure. Closure makes it almost impossible for members of Parliament representing smaller parties, such as the Green Party, the Bloc, Forces et Démocratie, or the many independents who are now in this place to have an opportunity to participate in debate.

This institution exists to examine legislation and work on it together, not push it through like a bulldozer.

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Edmonton—Spruce Grove, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is far from what has happened. This bill has been considered for a lengthy period of time. We have had 20 hours of debate. We have had debate at committee and input from members from all sides of the House. We have had input from people all across the country. I receive correspondence from Canadians all the time on this issue.

However, the Supreme Court was clear about what it required us to put forward in this legislation. The most important requirement is public consultation and making sure that we hear from those in the community who will be impacted by this measure. If a supervised injection site is opened up next to a school, parents want to know. They want to have a say. If it is opened next to a condo complex, the people there would want to have a say. Local municipal leaders want to have a say.

Most importantly, these people are not well. These are people who are drug addicts. We want to make sure, if such an establishment were to open up, that there would be treatment options available. Is this merely a supervised injection site, or are there resources available?

We believe these people need help. They need intervention and treatment. We need prevention programs. We are focused on that and we deliver it, but we want to make sure that it is in concert with this measure.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to speak to the bill itself because now is not the time, but it is the time to ask why a time allocation motion is being moved for the 89th time. Our procedural rules allow us to use a few exceptional measures in urgent matters, but that does not really apply here.

My question is quite simple. After 89 time allocation motions, are we still talking about exceptional measures or a way of governing?

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Edmonton—Spruce Grove, AB]

Mr. Speaker, let us remember what this is. The bill is to provide an exemption under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act so that illicit drugs can be used in a legal way within an establishment. I think all members in the House agree that illicit drug use comes not just with health impacts but with public safety implications. Therefore, the whole genesis of the idea of public consultation is an important one.

We know that there are risks associated with the possession, use, and production of illicit substances, so it is just common sense that if the Minister of Health is going to provide an exemption for an establishment to allow the use of illicit substances, which we know have health implications and public safety implications for a community, we should have a framework that allows for full public consultations with everyone who is impacted.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the sudden rush is interesting, and this is what I want to speak about. Why the sudden rush, and why is the Minister of Health here when this was actually under a different committee, not health, where it should have been?

The Supreme Court ruled on this in 2011. We need to discuss the bill in the House and re-debate it, because when the bill went to committee, despite recommendations from many people, as well as provinces, municipalities, and the Vancouver Police Department, not a comma in the bill was changed.

This is part of the issue. The government listens to no one. Everyone is in agreement with the idea of public consultations. There were huge public consultations when InSite was brought in. No one is disagreeing with that. What we want to know is why the government has waited. The ruling was in 2011, and now, all of a sudden, it wants to ram everything through and not allow for debate on why the process at committee, which is important, was actually not listened to. Not a comma in the bill was changed. We need to discuss that in the House.

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Edmonton—Spruce Grove, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we did listen to committee members, and we listened to the Supreme Court, municipal leaders, local law enforcement, Canadians across the country, and groups that were concerned about this. However, at the end of the day, the theme was clear. Right from the Supreme Court ruling on down, people wanted to have a say. They want to have a voice about what happens in their communities.

Let us remember the substance of the bill. This is the Minister of Health providing an exemption for an illicit drug to be used in an establishment. Anyone who is within the vicinity has every right to have a voice in the matter. That is what the bill does, so the sooner we get it through, the sooner Canadians can have a voice in the matter.

[Paulina Ayala, NDP, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there is something that I find very troubling.

I just heard my Liberal colleague say that the committee heard from witnesses and that not even a comma was changed. That is not listening to Canadians. It seems to me that the people who came to committee are Canadian citizens. The minister says that the Conservatives listened to Canadians and that that is what they want. Come on.

There is something else that is really bothering me, and that is the undermining of our democracy. We have a parliamentary system and we are not even debating the issue. I find that very dangerous.

I would like the minister to respond to that. Why is the government undermining Canadian democracy and why is it not really listening to Canadians?

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Edmonton—Spruce Grove, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments, and I would love it if she could tell me what part of the bill she would like to strike down. Is it the part where we want public consultations with anyone who would be impacted in the neighbourhood of an establishment that received an exemption for the use of illicit drugs? Does she want to get rid of the part where we ask them to document that this is actually helping those who are part and parcel of using the establishment for supervised drug injections, or does she want to get rid of the part where we ask them to show that prevention and treatment options are available for those drug addicts who are using these supervised drug injection facilities?

I would love to know what part of the bill she would like to get rid of. We heard loud and clear from Canadians, from those who care about people who are addicted to drugs and are looking for treatment and intervention, and from those in the community who would be impacted by this, that this is what they want.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for her very insightful comments on these questions. I wish all parliamentarians would listen very carefully to what she says, because it is very relevant.

I would like the minister to expand on the response we need to have when we have collaboration across the country and when the Supreme Court and Canadians are saying that there is a certain thing they want, which is a voice. Could the minister address that a little bit more fully?

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Edmonton—Spruce Grove, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I return to the substance of this bill. The Controlled Drugs and Substances Act puts in place very strict controls for dangerous and addictive drugs. The Supreme Court's ruling requires that the Minister of Health consider certain factors when reviewing an application for an exemption from these controls.

That is what we are talking about. I would be giving an exemption to an establishment where illegal and illicit drugs would then be used in a supervised manner. It is important that those who are impacted by this, whether it involves public safety or health, be considered.

At the end of the day, we are talking about people who are addicted to drugs. They are suffering. They need help. We want to know if there are going to be programs available. If these supervised injection sites are actually going to help these people who are addicted to drugs, will there be resources available to support them in terms of treatment and options for recovery?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the motion we are debating today clearly demonstrates the Prime Minister's lack of respect for process inside this chamber. Once again, we are moving to time allocation, and it is very important that we do not lose sight of that.

An MP's responsibility is to ensure that there is due diligence done at every stage. The Liberal Party health critic raised numerous amendments at committee stage. There is a great sense of frustration that the majority Conservative government just does not have an open mind to anything. It shoves through legislation. It does not want to respond to amendments that are being moved.

My question is not for the minister but for the government House leader. Why does the government House leader not negotiate with opposition parties to make sure that there is more productive work being done inside the House of Commons and in the standing committees of our Parliament?

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Edmonton—Spruce Grove, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I did hear from some of the opposition members about supervised injection sites. Let us remember that they are places for the supervised injection of illicit and illegal drugs, which are harmful to those who are addicted to those drugs and which have an impact on the health and public safety of that community.

We have heard from the opposition. What did the opposition say? It wants the current rules to stay in place. In other words, it wants an exemption under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to proceed without any public consultation.

Our government heard the Supreme Court, but it heard even more loudly and clearly from Canadians who live in these neighbourhoods and who might have kids going to school next door to a supervised injection site. They want their voices heard, and they have a right to that. The Supreme Court agreed, and that is why we need this legislation to proceed. It is so we have a framework for those kinds of public consultations so that we can hear those in favour and those opposed.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is the 89th time allocation motion. I would like the minister to answer my question about the motion we are currently debating rather than talking about the bill. With respect to the bill, we still have a lot to talk about and many issues that we must discuss.

However, with respect to the principle of democracy and our role here in the Parliament of Canada, 89 time allocation motions is a sad record. Unfortunately, it is not surprising coming from a majority government. Let us remember that in its quest to obtain a majority, this government was found in contempt of Parliament.

In light of this 89th time allocation motion, which we are currently debating, I would like the minister to tell us whether she feels the government's approach is good for democracy. Is it a good thing for democracy to cut short debate and not listen to what Canadians have to say?