Bill C-2 explained in plain English

This document records the proceedings of the House of Commons on October 17, 2013. The main event related to Bill C-2 was its introduction and first reading. Other significant procedural events included debates on government motions concerning the order of business for the fall session and a ruling from the Speaker on a point of order regarding the division of a motion. There were also discussions related to privilege concerning Elections Canada, statements by members on various topics, and oral questions on government priorities, ethics, veterans affairs, justice, the economy, and consumer protection.

During this House of Commons sitting on October 18, 2013, the main item of business was the second reading debate of Bill C-2, an Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. The bill, also referred to as the "Respect for Communities Act," aims to establish a new process for granting exemptions for activities involving illicit substances at supervised consumption sites. The debate included discussions on the criteria for applications, the role of community consultation, and the balance between public health and public safety. Several members from different parties participated, expressing support, opposition, and concerns regarding the bill's potential impact and its alignment with a Supreme Court of Canada ruling.

During this debate at the second reading stage of Bill C-2, the sponsor of the bill, Ms. Eve Adams, spoke about the government's "Respect for Communities Act." She explained that the bill aims to create a legal framework for supervised injection sites, building on a 2011 Supreme Court of Canada ruling. The proposed legislation would require applicants seeking exemptions for such sites to provide detailed information and undergo a rigorous assessment process, including community consultation and letters of opinion from local authorities and police. Other Members of Parliament, including Ms. Libby Davies, Ms. Judy Sgro, Mr. Randall Garrison, Ms. Joyce Murray, Mr. John Carmichael, Mr. David McGuinty, Mr. Dennis Bevington, Mrs. Cathy McLeod, Mr. Robert Goguen, Ms. Isabelle Morin, and Ms. Christine Moore, also participated in the debate, expressing various viewpoints on the bill's potential impacts, its alignment with the Supreme Court's ruling, and the importance of public health versus public safety.

This document records a debate in the House of Commons on Bill C-2, concerning amendments to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. The debate focused on the proposed "Respect for Communities Act," which aims to establish a new process for granting exemptions for supervised consumption sites. The main discussion points revolved around the criteria for these exemptions, the role of community consultation, and the balance between public health and public safety. Various members expressed concerns that the proposed legislation would create significant barriers to establishing such sites, while others argued it would ensure community input and safety.

During a House of Commons debate on Bill C-2, the "Respect for Communities Act," the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Eve Adams, explained that the bill would codify into law the five factors the Supreme Court of Canada outlined in a 2011 ruling regarding supervised injection sites. These factors include evidence on crime rates, local conditions, regulatory structure, resources, and community support. The bill aims to provide the Minister of Health with the information needed to assess applications for exemptions for supervised consumption sites, ensuring communities have a voice in the process. Opposition members, notably Libby Davies and Joyce Murray, expressed concerns that the bill's criteria were too onerous and designed to prevent new sites from opening, arguing it contradicted the spirit of the Supreme Court's decision and prioritized ideology over evidence-based harm reduction.

The House of Commons debated Bill C-2, the Respect for Communities Act, concerning amendments to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. The debate focused on the criteria and processes for supervised consumption sites, with Members of Parliament from different parties expressing their views on public health, safety, and the role of community input.

This record details a debate in the House of Commons on Bill C-2, an Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. Members of Parliament from different parties discussed the bill's provisions, focusing on the amendment to Section 56 of the Act, which governs exemptions for controlled substances. The debate highlighted concerns from opposition members that the bill, despite the Supreme Court's ruling in favour of supervised injection sites, creates excessive hurdles for establishing such facilities. Government members defended the bill, emphasizing the need for community consultation and a balanced approach to public health and safety. The discussion also touched upon broader issues such as the effectiveness of harm reduction strategies and the government's approach to drug policy. The sitting also included statements by members on various other topics and oral questions related to ethics and government actions.

This record details a debate in the House of Commons on November 18, 2013, concerning Bill C-2, an Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. The debate focused on the establishment of supervised injection sites. Members from the New Democratic Party (NDP) and the Liberal Party argued in favour of supervised injection sites, citing evidence of their effectiveness in reducing harm, disease transmission, and overdose deaths, and highlighting the Supreme Court of Canada's ruling that supported such sites. They criticized the bill for creating barriers and being ideologically driven rather than evidence-based. Members from the Conservative Party defended the bill, emphasizing public safety, community input, and the need to control illicit drug use, arguing that supervised injection sites were not a safe or appropriate solution. The debate also touched upon the government's approach to Indigenous matters, referencing Bill C-428 (Indian Act Amendment and Replacement Act), with opposition members raising concerns about consultation with First Nations and the bill's potential legal implications.

On November 21, 2013, Members of the House of Commons debated Bill C-2, which sought to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. The debate focused primarily on the implications of the bill for supervised injection sites, with most opposition Members expressing strong opposition to the bill. They argued that the bill was ideologically driven, defied Supreme Court rulings, and would create undue barriers to harm reduction services, which they claimed were supported by scientific evidence and medical professionals. Government Members defended the bill, stating it was based on evidence, community consultation, and implemented the Supreme Court's directive to balance public health and safety. Other legislative matters, including foreign affairs, veterans affairs, rail safety, and environmental protection, were also discussed in routine proceedings and oral questions. The debate on Bill C-2 was ultimately adjourned.

During a House of Commons sitting on November 26, 2013, Members of Parliament debated an opposition motion concerning the Prime Minister's Office and its alleged involvement in the handling of Senator Mike Duffy's expenses. The debate focused heavily on the contents of an RCMP affidavit and the actions of various individuals within the Prime Minister's Office and the Senate. Opposition members alleged a cover-up and potential criminal activity, calling for the Prime Minister to testify under oath. Government members defended the Prime Minister's actions and the integrity of the office, stating that the RCMP had found no evidence linking the Prime Minister to any wrongdoing and that the Prime Minister had co-operated fully with the investigation. The debate also touched upon other matters, including Auditor General reports on rail and food safety, and statements by members on various topics.

This document is a record of a debate in the House of Commons on November 28, 2013, concerning Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. The debate focused on the proposed changes to the process for approving supervised injection sites, with members from different parties expressing their views on the bill's impact on public health, community safety, and the Supreme Court's previous rulings. The discussion also touched upon other matters before the House that day, including various petitions, government responses, and other legislative items.

On January 27, 2014, the House of Commons debated Motion No. 428, which proposed the creation of an electronic petitions system. Members from various parties expressed differing views on the motion. The NDP and Liberal members largely supported the idea of modernizing petitioning to increase citizen engagement, citing examples from other jurisdictions and public opinion polls. Conservative members raised concerns about potential costs, the risk of frivolous petitions, the undermining of committee independence, and the effectiveness of electronic petitions compared to existing paper-based systems. Following the debate on the motion, the House began considering Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, also known as the Respect for Communities Act. The debate focused on the proposed changes that would affect supervised injection sites, with NDP members strongly opposing the bill, arguing it was ideologically driven, ignored scientific evidence and Supreme Court rulings, and would create unnecessary barriers. Conservative members, while acknowledging the need for public health services, questioned the practicality and potential unintended consequences of supervised injection sites and emphasized the importance of community consultation and controlling illegal drug use. The debate also included statements by members on various other topics and requests for emergency debates on the situations in Ukraine and mental health services in the Canadian Armed Forces.

This artifact is a record of debate that took place in the House of Commons on January 30, 2014. The debate focused primarily on an opposition motion concerning the support for Canadian soldiers and veterans. Key themes included the mental health crisis, the closure of Veterans Affairs offices, and the handling of military suicide inquiries. There was also discussion on other matters such as the Energy Safety and Security Act, the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, and various petitions presented by Members of Parliament. The sitting also included oral questions on topics like Veterans Affairs, Employment, Ethics, National Defence, and Consumer Protection. Finally, there were statements by members on various subjects and proceedings related to private members' business.

This artifact is a record of debate in the House of Commons on June 17, 2014, concerning Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. The debate focused on the proposed legislation's impact on supervised injection sites, particularly the Supreme Court's decision regarding Vancouver's InSite facility. Opposition members argued that the bill's stringent conditions and discretionary powers for the minister would effectively prevent new sites from opening and were a partisan attempt to circumvent the Supreme Court's ruling, which emphasized public health and safety benefits. Government members defended the bill as necessary for community consultation and public safety, asserting that it balances various considerations, although the specific impacts on drugs in prisons and the rationale for certain legislative choices were debated.

This artifact is a Hansard record of a sitting of the House of Commons on June 18, 2014. It details debates that occurred during the sitting, including statements by members on various topics, oral questions and answers regarding natural resources, infrastructure, justice, privacy, housing, employment insurance, human rights, transportation, and Canadian heritage. It also includes proceedings related to private members' business and government orders, such as votes and discussions on specific bills like the Respect for Communities Act and the Victims Bill of Rights Act.

This document details a sitting of the House of Commons on June 19, 2014. The sitting included routine proceedings, government orders, statements by members, and oral questions. Key discussions revolved around environmental issues, veterans affairs, infrastructure, and various legislative proposals, including the Combating Counterfeit Products Act and the Respect for Communities Act (Bill C-2). The sitting also saw the passage of the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act (Bill C-6) and the approval of Bill C-2 for referral to committee. The document provides a transcript of the debates and proceedings, including the voting record for certain motions.

On November 18, 2014, in the House of Commons, during the consideration in committee stage, the House received the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. This report stated that the committee had studied Bill C-2, an Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, and reported the bill back to the House without amendment. Following this, the House proceeded to debate Bill C-44, the Protection of Canada from Terrorists Act, including a time allocation motion and second reading debate. The majority of the Hansard record provided details discussions on Bill C-44, including concerns about time allocation, the scope of CSIS powers, oversight of intelligence agencies, and the balance between national security and civil liberties. The record also includes statements by members on various other topics and the beginning of government orders concerning Bill C-44, which was ultimately referred to committee.

This document is a record of a sitting of the House of Commons on December 1, 2014. During this sitting, the House considered Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, at the report stage. The debate focused on various motions in amendment, primarily concerning the proposed 'Respect for Communities Act'. Members debated the merits of supervised consumption sites, the role of community consultation, and whether the bill appropriately reflected Supreme Court of Canada decisions on the matter. The sitting also included routine proceedings, statements by members on various topics, and oral question period where ministers responded to questions from the opposition on issues such as veterans affairs, northern development, and national defence. The debate on Bill C-2 involved extensive discussion on public health, safety, and the potential impacts of supervised consumption sites on communities.

On February 27, 2015, the House of Commons debated Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, at the report stage. The debate included discussions on the process of legislative review, with a point of order raised regarding committee procedures. Members also debated the content of the bill, focusing on the criteria for supervised consumption sites and the balance between public health and public safety. The sitting also included statements by members on various topics and oral questions on issues unrelated to Bill C-2.

On March 9, 2015, the House of Commons considered Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. During this report stage debate, members discussed various issues, including the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority (CATSA) and pipeline safety. The debate touched upon the impact of airport designation on economic development, the government's approach to aviation security, and proposed amendments to a motion concerning airport screening. Additionally, a significant portion of the debate focused on Bill C-46, the Pipeline Safety Act, discussing its provisions related to liability, environmental protection, and the "polluter pays" principle. Concerns were raised about the $1 billion liability cap for major oil pipelines and the discretionary powers granted to the National Energy Board and cabinet. The sitting also included statements by members on various topics and routine proceedings such as the tabling of petitions and government responses.

This document is a record of the House of Commons debate at the third reading stage of Bill C-2, the Respect for Communities Act. The debate focused on the proposed amendments to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act regarding supervised consumption sites. Members of Parliament from different parties discussed the criteria for exemption applications, the role of community consultation, and the balance between public health and public safety. The debate also touched upon the Supreme Court of Canada's ruling on supervised injection sites and whether the proposed legislation aligns with it. Various statements by members on unrelated topics were also included.

This record documents a sitting of the House of Commons on March 23, 2015. The sitting included debates on private members' business, government orders, statements by members, and oral questions. Specifically, it details the third reading debate for Bill S-7, the Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act, and the third reading and passage of Bill C-2, the Respect for Communities Act. The sitting also covered various statements by Members of Parliament on diverse topics and a question period addressing issues such as public safety, national defence, employment, and infrastructure.