Thank you.
There is a notorious lack of treatment beds in the downtown eastside, and while I would quickly assert that people at Insite have the best of intentions, I think the site itself represents a failure of public policy, indeed of ethical judgment. I suggest, then, that while the science is mixed, the public policy is clear.
Further, I want to talk about the ethics of diversion. Every dollar spent on the supervised injection site diverts a dollar away from treatment leading to full recovery.
Let me do the math by giving you an example. The 20-bed treatment centre I announced on May 14 will be able to treat 80 women per year, or 400 women, over its five-year lifespan. With just this amount alone, one in four female sex workers in the downtown eastside will now have the opportunity to escape the cycle of addiction, of violence, of victimization, crime, and abuse. It's an initiative of which I'm very proud and something for which I commend our partner, the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority.
If the $3 million per year used now to operate Insite were to offer treatment beds instead of injections, 1,200 more female sex workers could receive help over the same five-year period. Together, we could guarantee that every female sex worker in the downtown eastside would have an opportunity to escape their sad existence over the next five years. They could have hope for a better life.
Female sex workers now make up 38% of the visits to Insite. Is it wise or ethical to use this money to help keep them on drugs instead of getting them off the streets? Is this compassion? I would assert that it is not.
As mentioned, the evidence is that Insite's injection program saves at best one life per year—a precious life, yes, but I believe we can do better than that, and we must do better than that. We can do better than simply warehousing people addicted to drugs for palliative care.
If it were my son or daughter trapped in the misery of the downtown eastside, I would want health workers—and more importantly I would like my government—not to give up on my child, but to help me win him or her back, back into society and into health and wellness. That is what this government's national anti-drug strategy is all about and what we need to think about when addressing the exemption at Insite.
This much I know as health minister. The illicit drugs that are being injected as part of harm reduction at the supervised injection site are harmful to human health. There is no debate about this. The long-term effects of injecting heroin include collapsed veins, infections of heart lining and valves, abscesses, and liver disease. Pulmonary complications and pneumonia occur more frequently in street heroin addicts. Cocaine can result in cardiac or respiratory arrest. Additives and impurities found in many drugs purchased on the street may not dissolve readily and may result in clogging of the blood vessels that lead to the lungs, liver, kidneys, or brain, causing infection or even death. Sadly, we expect and see about 50 deaths by overdose in Vancouver each and every year.
In my opinion, supervised injection is not medicine; it does not heal the person addicted to drugs. Each and every injection, along with the heroin and cocaine injected, harms the person. Injection not only causes physical harm, it also deepens and prolongs the addiction.
Programs to support supervised injections divert valuable dollars away from treatment—