Home
Home | Goals | Founders | What's New | Headlines | Contact Us | Please donate! | Links | Search

Debates of the House of Commoms

Wednesday, March 6, 1996

(extracts relating to the proposed Controlled Drugs and Substances Act)

* * *

CONTROLLED DRUGS AND SUBSTANCES ACT

Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-8, an act to amend respecting the control of certain drugs, their precursors and other substances, and to amend certain other acts and to repeal the Narcotic Control Act in consequence thereof.

He said: Madam Speaker, pursuant to the standing orders and to the traditions of the House I wish to state that this bill is in the same form as Bill C-7 of the first session of the 35th Parliament at the time of prorogation. I therefore request that it be reinstated as provided in the special order adopted by this House on March 4.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

(1510)

[Translation]

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The Chair is satisfied that this bill is in the same form as Bill C-7 was at the time of prorogation of the first session of the 35th Parliament.

Accordingly, pursuant to order made Monday, March 4, 1996, the bill is deemed to have been adopted at all stages and to have been passed by the House.


Debates of the House of Commoms

Friday, March 1, 1996

Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.) moved:

That, in order to facilitate the conduct of the business of the House in the Second Session of the Thirty- fifth Parliament, this House order as follows:

That, during the first thirty sitting days of the Second Session of the Thirty-fifth Parliament, whenever a Minister of the Crown, when proposing a motion for first reading of a bill states that the said bill is in the same form as a Government bill was at the time of prorogation of the First Session, and, whenever any Private Member, when proposing a motion for first reading of a public bill states that the said bill is in the same form as a private member's public bill that he or she introduced in the First Session, if the Speaker is satisfied that the said bill is in the same form as at prorogation, the said bill shall be deemed to have been considered and approved at all stages completed at the time of prorogation and shall stand, if necessary, on the Order Paper, or, as the case may be, referred to committee, at the same stage and under the same legislative procedural process at which it stood at the time of prorogation;

Provided that any evidence adduced by any committee with regard to any bill in the First Session of the Thirty-fifth Parliament that is affected by this Order shall be deemed to have been laid upon the Table, and, as the case may be, referred to the appropriate committee;

Provided that, if this Order is applied to any bill, the consideration of which had been completed in the House of Commons, but which was before the Senate at the time of prorogation, the said bill shall be deemed to have been introduced, completed at all stages and passed by the House of Commons in the present session; and

. . .

The proposal in this motion will apply only to bills from the last session in which the House and therefore the public had invested a significant amount of time, namely those bills on which the House had at least taken one more decision in addition to permitting first reading. This would be those bills that had at least been referred to committee, whether before or after second reading. Bills that had merely been introduced but not advanced any further in the last session do not represent any real investment of House time and may simply be reintroduced in the new session in the ordinary fashion.

(1015)

The procedure will work as follows. During the first 30 sitting days of the new session any minister or private member who introduces a bill precisely the same as a bill in the old session and which had at least been referred to a committee will have the right to request that the new bill be reinstated to the stage at which it had progressed at the time of prorogation.

If the Speaker is satisfied that the bill is precisely in the same form, it shall be ordered reinstated at that stage. This procedure does not oblige a minister or a private member to reintroduce a bill. It merely gives them a new right to do so during a limited period at the beginning of the session.

For the government's part, it has already decided to reintroduce a number of bills under this proposed regime. There will be some bills returned to the committee stage, some resumed at the report stage and some at third reading stage. At least two will, under this special procedure, be deemed by the House to have passed all stages in this session and be sent forthwith to the Senate where they were at the time of prorogation.

Not every minister has reached a final conclusion on this matter, but the list will include Bill C-7 regarding controlled drugs and substances; Bills C-52, C-95 and C-96, reorganizing a number of departments; Bill C-78 respecting witness protection; Bill C-84 respecting regulations; Bill C-88 respecting internal trade; Bill C-94 regarding fuel additives; Bill C-98 concerning oceans; Bill C-100 regarding financial institutions; Bill C-101 respecting transportation; Bill C-106 respecting the Law Reform Commission; Bill C-111 respecting employment insurance.

This may not be an all inclusive list. Ministers as well as private members will have 30 sitting days to make their final decisions on restoration of bills.

I cannot speak with authority on which private members will reintroduce their measures. At least four of my colleagues on this side of the House have been in communication with my office, demanding the action we are proposing. I hope it is not presumptuous of me to expect members on the other side to be equally committed to their own legislative proposals.

One initiative actually came from the hon. member for Lethbridge. I am looking forward to his thoughts, which I hope will be positive, on our acceptance of what could be argued to have started with his own proposal.

[Translation]

In closing, I think this is a very good motion and I ask the House to support it.

. . .

Don Boudria

Let us look at some of the bills that would qualify because they were not completed in the last session of Parliament. I do not know which minister, which backbench MP on the government side, which opposition member will wish to reactivate any of these bills. These are examples. For instance, there is Bill C-7, the controlled drug and substances act, an act to repeal the Narcotic Control Act and parts of the Food and Drugs Act.

It has been the subject of a lot of debate. Why would we want to repeat all of that? Why not save the taxpayers' money and pick up where we left off?

. . .

Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.):

. . . If members want to debate the unemployment insurance bill, let us debate the unemployment insurance bill. If they want to debate Bill C-7, if they want to debate changes to health legislation, let us debate changes to health legislation. If they want to oppose it, oppose it. Let us have a vigorous, hard fought debate. Let us hold the government to account and let us vote. But let us stop the procedural nonsense. Let us get on with the work of this House.

home page

Debates of the House of Commoms

Wednesday, March 6, 1996

(extracts relating to the proposed Controlled Drugs and Substances Act)

* * *

CONTROLLED DRUGS AND SUBSTANCES ACT

Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-8, an act to amend respecting the control of certain drugs, their precursors and other substances, and to amend certain other acts and to repeal the Narcotic Control Act in consequence thereof.

He said: Madam Speaker, pursuant to the standing orders and to the traditions of the House I wish to state that this bill is in the same form as Bill C-7 of the first session of the 35th Parliament at the time of prorogation. I therefore request that it be reinstated as provided in the special order adopted by this House on March 4.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

(1510)

[Translation]

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The Chair is satisfied that this bill is in the same form as Bill C-7 was at the time of prorogation of the first session of the 35th Parliament.

Accordingly, pursuant to order made Monday, March 4, 1996, the bill is deemed to have been adopted at all stages and to have been passed by the House.


Debates of the House of Commoms

Friday, March 1, 1996

Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.) moved:

That, in order to facilitate the conduct of the business of the House in the Second Session of the Thirty- fifth Parliament, this House order as follows:

That, during the first thirty sitting days of the Second Session of the Thirty-fifth Parliament, whenever a Minister of the Crown, when proposing a motion for first reading of a bill states that the said bill is in the same form as a Government bill was at the time of prorogation of the First Session, and, whenever any Private Member, when proposing a motion for first reading of a public bill states that the said bill is in the same form as a private member's public bill that he or she introduced in the First Session, if the Speaker is satisfied that the said bill is in the same form as at prorogation, the said bill shall be deemed to have been considered and approved at all stages completed at the time of prorogation and shall stand, if necessary, on the Order Paper, or, as the case may be, referred to committee, at the same stage and under the same legislative procedural process at which it stood at the time of prorogation;

Provided that any evidence adduced by any committee with regard to any bill in the First Session of the Thirty-fifth Parliament that is affected by this Order shall be deemed to have been laid upon the Table, and, as the case may be, referred to the appropriate committee;

Provided that, if this Order is applied to any bill, the consideration of which had been completed in the House of Commons, but which was before the Senate at the time of prorogation, the said bill shall be deemed to have been introduced, completed at all stages and passed by the House of Commons in the present session; and

. . .

The proposal in this motion will apply only to bills from the last session in which the House and therefore the public had invested a significant amount of time, namely those bills on which the House had at least taken one more decision in addition to permitting first reading. This would be those bills that had at least been referred to committee, whether before or after second reading. Bills that had merely been introduced but not advanced any further in the last session do not represent any real investment of House time and may simply be reintroduced in the new session in the ordinary fashion.

(1015)

The procedure will work as follows. During the first 30 sitting days of the new session any minister or private member who introduces a bill precisely the same as a bill in the old session and which had at least been referred to a committee will have the right to request that the new bill be reinstated to the stage at which it had progressed at the time of prorogation.

If the Speaker is satisfied that the bill is precisely in the same form, it shall be ordered reinstated at that stage. This procedure does not oblige a minister or a private member to reintroduce a bill. It merely gives them a new right to do so during a limited period at the beginning of the session.

For the government's part, it has already decided to reintroduce a number of bills under this proposed regime. There will be some bills returned to the committee stage, some resumed at the report stage and some at third reading stage. At least two will, under this special procedure, be deemed by the House to have passed all stages in this session and be sent forthwith to the Senate where they were at the time of prorogation.

Not every minister has reached a final conclusion on this matter, but the list will include Bill C-7 regarding controlled drugs and substances; Bills C-52, C-95 and C-96, reorganizing a number of departments; Bill C-78 respecting witness protection; Bill C-84 respecting regulations; Bill C-88 respecting internal trade; Bill C-94 regarding fuel additives; Bill C-98 concerning oceans; Bill C-100 regarding financial institutions; Bill C-101 respecting transportation; Bill C-106 respecting the Law Reform Commission; Bill C-111 respecting employment insurance.

This may not be an all inclusive list. Ministers as well as private members will have 30 sitting days to make their final decisions on restoration of bills.

I cannot speak with authority on which private members will reintroduce their measures. At least four of my colleagues on this side of the House have been in communication with my office, demanding the action we are proposing. I hope it is not presumptuous of me to expect members on the other side to be equally committed to their own legislative proposals.

One initiative actually came from the hon. member for Lethbridge. I am looking forward to his thoughts, which I hope will be positive, on our acceptance of what could be argued to have started with his own proposal.

[Translation]

In closing, I think this is a very good motion and I ask the House to support it.

. . .

Don Boudria

Let us look at some of the bills that would qualify because they were not completed in the last session of Parliament. I do not know which minister, which backbench MP on the government side, which opposition member will wish to reactivate any of these bills. These are examples. For instance, there is Bill C-7, the controlled drug and substances act, an act to repeal the Narcotic Control Act and parts of the Food and Drugs Act.

It has been the subject of a lot of debate. Why would we want to repeat all of that? Why not save the taxpayers' money and pick up where we left off?

. . .

Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.):

. . . If members want to debate the unemployment insurance bill, let us debate the unemployment insurance bill. If they want to debate Bill C-7, if they want to debate changes to health legislation, let us debate changes to health legislation. If they want to oppose it, oppose it. Let us have a vigorous, hard fought debate. Let us hold the government to account and let us vote. But let us stop the procedural nonsense. Let us get on with the work of this House.

Updated: 24 Jul 2001 | Accessed: 26549 times