It is a great pleasure for me to rise to speak on this bill and the principles of it. It has been exhaustively debated and my colleagues have weighed in and supported it very strongly. I thank the members of the party opposite and the New Democratic Party. I urge all members of the House to rise in support of this important legislation.

Whether we are talking about the measures taken in Vancouver or the ones taken in Montreal lately, measures that I know are being debated in communities across this country, the process outlined in the bill will be simplified, will take root in communities and among workers at the street level or across the spectrum of public health services who look after those who have substance abuse issues, and those who look to our communities and organizations to provide support.

There have been debates in this place and elsewhere across the country for over a decade and we saw some of the divisive community fights that ensued in Vancouver and other locales across the country on the issue of substance abuse, community health, and the measures for those who suffer from drug addiction. I applaud my colleagues in the House who support the measures that have now become more and more urgent, so that we may address the public health issues that are raised by the scourge of substance abuse in Canada.

This bill merits the support of all members of the House. I am particularly pleased that our friends in the New Democratic Party are in support of what is, essentially, a public health measure.

Why did Liberals have to make it a partisan issue, use closure, and slow down some of the vital portions of the bill? Why are they doing it this way and why did they not work with the rest of the parties in the House?

Conservatives proposed to expedite some of the necessary measures, but, instead, the government refused and has now brought forward closure when many members who were interested in speaking to this bill have not had an opportunity. I wonder if he would tell us why the government was not prepared to work in a non-partisan fashion, to move forward more quickly many of the essential elements of the bill, while still allowing proper debate on the government's proposal to reduce community consultation.

Mr. Speaker, what the member has missed in the context of this debate is that there was an opportunity to expedite certain portions of this legislation, which I think we all agreed on, while, at the same time, giving proper debate to the one provision that is more controversial because it takes away effective opportunities for consultation from communities.

Mr. Speaker, my question back to the member would be this. Over the course of the 10 years when people in Vancouver were trying to establish Insite, a groundbreaking service, where was the party opposite in listening to community voices, public health advocates, and, yes, evidence-based scientists? Where was that party in allowing the kind of debate required to establish that vital community service in Vancouver and other communities?

I would ask the member, going back to what the Supreme Court clearly stated, if it would give more flexibility to provide safe consumption sites, to give exemptions where they are needed, where they save lives, and where communities demand it, like Montreal, which has just received approval after such a lengthy period. It had been asking for these sites for close to two years. Does he feel this would help protect Canadians, as Mayor Coderre said, even if it is sometimes from themselves?

It became a partisan issue. The previous Conservative government responded to the Supreme Court judgment that set out five clear criteria on which to approve sites in communities where they are needed and, instead, provided 26 onerous, lengthy, complicated criteria that made it hard for communities to have the needed safe consumption sites, which prevent sickness and save lives. At this point, we should move forward with Bill .

Mr. Speaker, on such an important issue as safe consumption sites, which could, indeed, save lives, according to the vast majority of health experts, facts and evidence, and what we have seen in Vancouver, it has to proceed quickly.

[Translation]

As has been the case for a good number of issues, our approach has been based on science, evidence and, above all, jurisprudence. The bill as it stands is consistent with all these principles and is in rather stark contrast to the previous government's approach, which opposed community activists and was contrary to the jurisprudence and, yes, to findings about public health.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague, who has shown incredible leadership. I am delighted to see that he is there to support the on this issue.

[English]

Mr. Speaker, medical experts have been clear that there is an alarming lack of access to publicly funded detox and treatment centres in Canada. Certainly as politicians we know this. The health committee's recent report on the opioid crisis made three specific recommendations calling for significant new federal funding for public community-based detox and addictions treatment. Will budget 2017 contain significant new funding