Public Safety Committee on Oct. 27th, 2014

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Colleagues, we will call to order the 34th meeting of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. Today we'll be dealing with Bill C-2, an act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

For the first hour of witnesses, we will have two of our ministers appearing. They are the Honourable Rona Ambrose, Minister of Health, and the Honourable Steven Blaney, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. They will be here for the first hour.

Accompanying them and staying for the duration will be a number of other officials: from the Department of Health, Hilary Geller, assistant deputy minister, healthy environments and consumer safety branch; from the Department of Justice, Diane Labelle, general counsel for legal services, Health Canada; from the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Kathy Thompson, assistant deputy minister, community safety and countering crime branch; and, closing it out, from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Chief Superintendent Eric Slinn, director general, support services, federal policing.

For the next hour, from 4:30 to 5:30 p.m., we will have an additional departmental official from the Department of Health appearing as a witness. That will be Suzy McDonald, associate director general, controlled substances and tobacco directorate, healthy environments and consumer safety branch.

That's the list of our witnesses today.

Colleagues, without further delay we will go to statements from our ministers. First up is Minister Ambrose.

Minister, you have the floor.

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Minister of Health]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm very pleased to be here with all of you, with Minister Blaney and our officials, to discuss the government's respect for communities act, a bill that protects and ensures public health and public safety in our communities.

Before I begin in earnest, I want to say that our thoughts and prayers remain with the family and friends of Corporal Nathan Cirillo of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders of Canada. Likewise, of course, our thoughts and prayers remain with the family and friends of Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent, who was killed by an ISIL-inspired terrorist.

Last week's events, which unfolded in parts of these very halls, were a grim reminder that Canada is not immune to these types of attacks that we've seen elsewhere around the world. I've been very moved to see Canadians pulling together with the kind of firm solidarity that has seen our country through many challenges. Together, I know we will remain vigilant against those at home or abroad who would wish to harm us.

Mr. Chair, I'll turn to the business before us today, which is the respect for communities act. It strengthens Canada's drug control framework, codifying the factors laid out by the Supreme Court of Canada. Our government takes very seriously the harm caused by dangerous and addictive drugs. These drugs tear families apart, they promote criminal behaviour, and they destroy lives. They make our streets less safe, and have harmful impacts on our communities. Indeed, the level of drug use in Canada remains concerning. Amongst youth it is still far too common. The ripple effects of drug abuse are being felt throughout our society.

Our government is taking action to address these problems, through the respect for communities act, to protect the health and safety of Canadians and the communities in which they live. This legislation was not prepared overnight or on a whim. This bill was drafted to specifically codify a detailed ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada in September 2011 on a supervised injection site. In this ruling, the Supreme Court was crystal clear. They ordered that I, in my capacity as Minister of Health, must consider specific factors when reviewing applications that grant exemptions from Canada's drug laws allowing for such sites.

I do not have an option to ignore these factors. Those factors are included in this legislation, and are as follows:

...evidence, if any, on the impact of such a facility on crime rates, the local conditions indicating a need for such a...site, the regulatory structure in place to support the facility, the resources available to support its maintenance, and expressions of community support or opposition.

I feel, Mr. Chair, that the last point is particularly important. Our government sincerely believes, and the Supreme Court agrees, that communities deserve a say when there is a proposal to build a supervised injection site.

The court wrote that their ruling was:

...not a licence for injection drug users to possess drugs wherever and whenever they wish. Nor is it an invitation for anyone who so chooses to open a facility for drug use under the banner of a “safe [consumption] facility”.

Our government respects this ruling by the highest court in the land. It with that in mind we are moving forward with the respect for communities act. This bill amends the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, which is Canada's federal drug control statute. It has a dual purpose: the protection of public health and the protection of public safety.

While prohibitive in nature, it also provides for exemptions for the legitimate use of controlled substances and their precursors. Exemptions are currently prescribed as being for medical or scientific purposes or otherwise in the public interest. It's one of my roles to sign off on these exemptions as Minister of Health. Exemptions that I see most often are for use in clinical trials, research in universities involving controlled substances, or for delivering aid in other countries. In all of those examples, the activities being exempted from the provisions of the act involve controlled substances accessed through a legal source. Exemptions of this sort, involving activities where controlled substances are accessed through a legal source, account for almost all of the exemptions that are being granted.

This bill's provisions begin where we see requests for exemptions of a different sort—to allow for activities with controlled substances that have been obtained through illegal sources. The serious risks associated with these substances are amplified when they are obtained from an illicit source, as all of us agree that these substances are dangerous and produced in uncontrolled environments. Given the severity of these risks, any application to undertake activities with these illicit substances needs to be assessed using rigorous criteria that include the factors directed by the Supreme Court that I mentioned earlier.

It's for this reason that the respect for communities act proposes to add a new section to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. This new section will deal specifically with applications for activities involving illicit substances, and includes a portion that is specific to supervised injection sites.

This bill sets out the information that an applicant seeking an exemption for activities involving illicit substances at a supervised injection site would be required to submit in advance to be considered for their application. Until all of the information required is provided, their application for an exemption relating to a supervised injection site would not be considered. This requirement ensures that I, as Minister of Health, can effectively carry out my responsibilities in weighing the merits of an application to establish a supervised injection site as ordered by the Supreme Court. The criteria included in this bill are based upon those factors dictated by the court.

One of the more important elements included, and the one that has led to the most debate, has been the Supreme Court requirement that expressions of community support or opposition should be considered. With this new legislation, applicants will have to seek input and local perspectives from provincial ministers responsible for health and public safety, the heads of local police forces, and the lead public health professionals in the province or territory, in the form of a letter outlining their opinion on the proposed activity. They will also be required to hold consultations with relevant professional licensing authorities in the province, and a broad range of community groups in the municipality. They will need to provide reports on these consultations, including summaries of the opinions that they heard, copies of any written submissions they received, and a description of any steps taken to address any relevant concerns that were raised during the consultation.

Our government recognizes the importance of consulting with relevant community groups about a proposed supervised injection site, and is pleased to follow through on a Supreme Court ruling in this regard. As I mentioned earlier, one of the main purposes of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act is the maintenance of public safety. This is achieved largely through minimizing the risk of diversion of controlled substances to illicit markets for use. This is being further enhanced through the respect for communities act's proposal for pre-inspection authority to allow Health Canada to verify that the information provided in the application is accurate and that all required measures are in place. In the event that an exemption of this nature is granted, the site would have to comply with clearly established terms and conditions, and would be subject to compliance inspections.

Given the inherent dangers of these substances, it's paramount that Health Canada be given the tools it needs to ensure the safety of these sites for both its staff and the community at large. As with any other exemption granted under this act, if the terms and conditions of an exemption are not being met, or if there are issues of non-compliance, the exemption can be revoked. By the same token, when exemptions granted under the provisions of the bill are set to expire, applications for extensions are provided for and criteria are set out. For the renewal of any exemption, the applicant would have to provide further information dating from the time of the first exemption, when the first exemption was granted, to the time of the most recent application. This information would then include details of any change in crime rates in the vicinity where the site is located, and information on any impacts that the activities at the site have had on individual or public health.

Given what we know about the risks associated with possession, use, and production of illicit substances, it's just common sense that exemptions to undertake activities with dangerous drugs should only be granted in exceptional circumstances once rigorous criteria have been addressed. This makes for good public policy that provides for the maintenance of public health, ensures public safety, and most of all respects our communities.

The Supreme Court has directed that I must consider those five factors as set out in its decision. This bill sets out the way in which we will accomplish that. Our government is taking action to ensure that the proper tools are available to do just that. This new approach will bring greater clarity and transparency to the way in which I, and future ministers of health, assess applications to establish supervised injection sites. The proposed approach also provides the legislative structure needed to properly address public health and safety concerns, but most importantly it allows the public and the community to have a voice in the process.

Just to wrap up, Mr. Chair, the respect for communities act is an important and necessary element in our government's commitment to address dangerous and illicit drug use. It complements our government's national anti-drug strategy, and provides for an application process that respects our communities. I encourage members of this committee to consider carefully the provisions of the respect for communities act and its genesis in the Supreme Court's 2011 ruling.

The Supreme Court has been very clear in what my responsibilities as Minister of Health are. I believe that the respect for communities act provides the tools necessary so that our government can comply with these rulings.

Just on a final note, Mr. Chair, we believe the communities deserve to have their voices heard in these considerations and these consultations and that public health must remain a priority so that our streets are kept safe.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you, Minister Ambrose.

Now Minister Blaney.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for having me here this afternoon at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. I look forward to coming back here to discuss Bill C-44, The Protection of Canada from Terrorists Act, which was just tabled in the House and aims to protect Canada against terrorism.

As Minister of Public Safety I strongly believe that we must do everything in our power to keep our streets and communities safe for us and for our children. That is why I would like to thank my colleague Minister Ambrose for her leadership on this vital piece of legislation, and more specifically for involving communities in a decision that could so dramatically transform their neighbourhoods.

Bill C-2 proposes new requirements for organizations that seek an exemption under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act in order to set up supervised consumption sites.

The bill you will be examining guarantees that those who could be affected by the creation of these centres will be consulted before such a centre is built in their community.

In other words, ordinary Canadians, civic-minded community groups, and front-line law enforcement will be able to have their voice heard as to whether or not these drug consumption sites belong in their backyards.

Canadians expect that the decision to allow for a designated area where laws can be broken and illicit drugs can be consumed by addicts will not be taken lightly. But shockingly not a single Canadian would be consulted if one of these drug consumption sites were to open today in any one of your constituencies. What I find shocking is the deputy leader of the NDP, Ms. Davies, announced that they oppose allowing members of their community to add their voices on this decision. For me consulting is a key principle of a democratic decision process, and that's why I am so grateful to stand by Minister Ambrose, Minister of Health, and also to bring my full support to this bill so people involved, people impacted, or consulted can have a say.

On a public safety issue we saw the New Democrats call for a plan to give needles to convicted criminals so that they could continue their drug habits while behind bars. I don't agree. I don't think this is part of rehabilitation where we want our inmates to go on with their lives when they are free. Instead we brought forward the drug-free prisons act. On the other side we have the Liberals' stand. Mr. Trudeau's signature policy is to legalize the sale of marijuana, which would make it easier for our children to access. He has made clear that his vision of legalization would make smoking marijuana a normal everyday activity. I don't agree. I think we can do more for our children. I think we can offer them more as a protective society.

That's why I totally reject this radical pro-narcotic ideology. Let's take a look at what the bill before us today actually does.

First and foremost, this bill guarantees that requests to allow the consumption of controlled substances in our communities will be carefully reviewed.

Proposals to set up such sites raise important public safety concerns on the part of the staff in those sites, families and local police services.

There is no doubt whatsoever that the viewpoint of local enforcement organizations should be taken into consideration.

Substances obtained from illegal sources have a nefarious and devastating effect on public safety and could favour organized crime.

This summer I saw first-hand some of the challenges police officers face while safeguarding our communities, including in areas where drug use is prevalent. I walked the streets of the downtown eastside with the Vancouver Police Department. These are certainly not the types of criminal activities I would want occurring near a school, or near any community. Front-line police officers tend to agree.

Tom Stamatakis, President of the Vancouver Police Union and the Canadian Police Association said:

...my experience in Vancouver is that these sites also lead to an increase in criminal behaviour and disorder in the surrounding community and have significant impact on police resources.

Is it the kind of Canada we want, Mr. Chair?

For these reasons, I support Minister Ambrose's bill. Not only does it give a voice to Canadians who are directly affected by the decision to build a supervised consumption site, but it adds to other rigorous measures taken by our government to counter drug consumption.

As I mentioned, the Drug-Free Prisons Act is another important bill being examined by Parliament. That bill will guarantee that the Parole Board of Canada has additional legal power when it makes decisions on the conditional release of offenders who have obtained parole, but whose tests have come back positive, or who refuse to submit to a drug test before being released from an institution into a community.

This bill will also guarantee that the Parole Board of Canada pays particular attention to whether or not the obligation to abstain from consuming drugs or alcohol should be made a condition of the offender's parole.

Our Conservative government is proud of our efforts to support communities and keep them safe, including through tackling the problem of illicit drug use.

Thank you for your time today to discuss this very important issue.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you, Mr. Blaney and Minister Ambrose.

We will now go to our rounds of questioning. We will start our first round off with Ms. James.

You have seven minutes, please.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to both Minister Ambrose and Minister Blaney and the officials for appearing in committee today.

I've heard both ministers talk about the need for community consultation on this bill. I think we're all hopeful that the measures that will be in this bill will provide communities with the opportunity to provide their own views on injection sites that seek to open up in their area.

It's important to note that, prior to this bill coming to committee, we as parliamentarians actually spent more than 18 hours in the House of Commons, during the first substantive legislative phase of this bill. I think we're all happy to see it finally coming to committee and going through this process.

I agree with both of you that we, as legislators, need to make sure communities are involved, and I think this is important to the success of any initiative as well.

Minister Ambrose, you mentioned in your opening remarks the importance of hearing from local authorities and the public about applications for proposed supervised consumption sites. Could you elaborate on how Bill C-2, this legislation that is before us, would allow consultation with a range of stakeholders, because we're not just talking about a level of government, one community group, or a single police force, but a range of stakeholders? Could you provide your opinion on how this is important in the application for a supervised injection site?

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

As I mentioned in my opening remarks, our government firmly believes that supervised injection sites should not be built without community consultation. We've embraced the need for consultation as one of the major ways that we are demonstrating respect for Canadians and for their communities on an issue like this.

The community opinions both for and against are one solid criterion that the Supreme Court has said that I, as Minister of Health, or any future minister of health must consider when looking at an application. My message to the committee is to allow me and future health ministers the ability to do just that. That's a big part of what this legislation does. These consultations will point to broad-based support, opposition, or perhaps even measured comments from either viewpoint. But the principle of having these discussions remains paramount. We obviously take very seriously the harm caused by dangerous and addictive drugs. We know serious concerns are raised by communities about what an injection site would bring to their neighbourhood.

It's for this reason and in support of the Supreme Court's requirement that Bill C-2 would require that rigorous criteria be addressed in advance of an application for a supervised injection site to be considered. It's also the reason why it's so important for all Canadians to have an opportunity to provide views before any site opens. As you've mentioned, the criteria that are set out in the bill would allow many different voices to be heard and inform the Minister of Health's consideration of an application. Applicants seeking to open a supervised injection site will have to seek input from local perspectives in the form of a letter outlining their opinion on the proposed activities from numerous groups.

For example, a letter would be required from the provincial health minister who is responsible for where the site would be located. The letter would outline his or her opinion on the proposed activities at the site, describe how these activities are integrated within the provincial health care system, and provide information about access to available drug treatment services for persons who would also use the site. Not only would this allow for the relevant provincial authority to have a say in the process, but it would also serve to further inform a federal health minister during the approval process.

The support of a provincial health minister in the application of a supervised injection site is certainly something worth considering.

In a similar vein we would expect letters from the municipal government as well and the head of the police force in the community to state their opinion on the record whether or not the proposed activities at the site are safe, including any concerns around public health, so of course public safety.

Lastly, we would hope to see letters from the head or the lead health professional such as the chief public health officer for the province and the provincial minister responsible for public safety to make sure their opinions are on the record. Applicants will also be required to hold consultations with relevant professional licensing authorities in the province and a broad range of community groups in the municipality. They'll need to provide reports of these consultations, including summaries of the opinions heard, copies of any written submissions received, and a description of any steps taken to address any relevant concerns that were raised during consultations.

The bottom line here is that the voices of the local community need to be represented clearly. They need to be provided with the opportunity to make their views known. This is an issue that affects people in their community. Whether or not someone is applying to put a site in a residential neighbourhood I think it's just common sense that we would involve all stakeholders in the process and that their views would be sought before we move to an application.

When we go through consultation processes, whether it's other controversial projects proceeding, we see time and again relevant stakeholders and stakeholders directly impacted by that project wanting to have a voice in the process. That's what this does.

I think it's absolutely necessary that it happen.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you, Minister, for that answer.

In your opening remarks, I think it was near the end of your speech, you talked about the fact that this legislation is going to provide greater clarity and transparency for you and future ministers of health. Can you explain why that's so?

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

To the point where the health minister is the one who would allow for an exemption under the current act but without any input, without having heard from the provincial health minister or the chief public health officer or people in the community or not seeing that a rigorous and adequate consultation had been held with the community on putting in a site. Again, the Supreme Court has dictated the policy. This legislation then helps us implement that so the health minister can see transparently that all these steps have been taken before taking a decision.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

We will now go to Ms. Davies, for seven minutes, please.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairperson.

Thank you to the ministers for being here today, and the officials.

I'd like to begin by just noting that it has been very obvious, over the last year and a half that the bill has been introduced, that there is very deep concern that the bill is flawed. First of all, the fact that it's coming to the public safety committee, not health, is a very clear signal about the government's biases on this issue. I notice that the Toronto Region Board of Trade expressed concerns that no other health service has to go through such an extensive process to approve a service.

We also know, of course, that the government opposed InSite, the safe injection site in the downtown eastside, all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. And I presume the only reason we're even dealing with legislation is that the Supreme Court of Canada compelled the government to bring forward a legislative initiative. But what I find very interesting is that there is nothing in this bill that actually compels the Minister of Health to consider an application or to approve an application. Even when an applicant has met all the criteria, literally a to z, all of the principles, there is nothing in here that compels the minister to approve an application.

My questions are really more focused on the political biases that are at work here in this bill, and we certainly heard this from Minister Blaney just this afternoon. I'd like to know what you actually know about safe consumption sites, and specifically, have either of you visited InSite in the downtown eastside?

Minister Blaney, you said you were on the street with cops. That's good. You certainly got a perspective, but have you actually visited InSite and spoken with the very professional people who run that service and interact with people?

Could either minister tell us that?

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

First of all, to your point about the balance between public health and public safety, in the parameters and the criteria we would be looking at to assess any application for a site, there is quite a balance between the criteria on the public health and public safety—

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

My question is whether you have actually visited InSite. Could you tell us that?

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

No, I have not. I've attempted to visit it, but let's get back to the facts here, which is that the Supreme Court ruled—

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Could Minister Blaney also respond to that? Has Minister Blaney ever visited InSite?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Ms. Davies, I met users of the Vancouver injection site.

I would like to go back to the comment on safety. As I mentioned in my statement...

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Actually, that wasn't my question. I haven't asked you about that.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

I simply want to say that it seems extremely important to me that this bill be debated at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, because we are talking about an extremely important safety issue. Indeed, these things destabilize and disrupt an environment. There is an increase in criminal activity and a deterioration in quality of life.

I did not get into politics to further human misery and contribute to the total disfigurement of neighbourhoods. That is why it is important, in my opinion, that this bill also be viewed as a matter of public safety.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Chair, if I could just continue with my questions, I really wonder whether the minister has considered any of the evidence that has now been produced over 10 years in probably more than two dozen reports. And I wonder if both ministers could tell us whether or not they actually believe that drug users have a right to access safe consumption sites in a health care setting. Do they believe that should be done, if the right conditions exist?

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

Well, what I will say is that my obligation when considering an exemption for proposed section 56 is now clearly laid out by the Supreme Court of Canada. When an applicant makes an application to Health Canada, the criteria are set out very transparently, very clearly, and remembering that voices of support and opposition are able to be heard—

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

My question is this. Do drug users have a right to have safe consumption in a health care setting, if your conditions have been satisfied?

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

As I said, my obligation when looking at an exemption for proposed section 56 is very clear. Those are the criteria on which I will be looking at many of those. Much of that falls outside of my purview. It falls to the communities and, in fact, the applicant to do what the Supreme Court has set out. The community has an opportunity to voice its support or its opposition, but it's absolutely clear in the Supreme Court's decision that the criteria be laid out transparently and these should not move forward until these criteria are met, and then an application would be considered, but I'm going to let—

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

If the criteria had been met, would an application then be approved? I think that's the question.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

The minister discharges her legal responsibilities very well. That is why this bill was tabled.

For each request, the following questions should be asked: Would you like to have an injection site in your riding? Would you like to live across from an injection site? Do you think this will contribute to the growth and development of the residents of your community? Will this contribute to building a stronger Quebec and a stronger Canada? Will it help support these individuals and help them get out of this vicious cycle when they cannot necessarily find a way out?

I believe these are important questions that have to be asked.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Minister Blaney, I would point you to the minister's own expert advisory committee. I can tell you from my own experience that having a safe injection site has improved the situation. For you to say that's not ever possible is just absolutely rhetoric. It's not based on any evidence.

I wonder if you're aware and have read any of the material from the minister's own expert advisory committee from December 2006, where they looked at a number of factors and they did come to a conclusion that the safe injection sites did increase access to health and addiction care.

There are so many studies backing that up. Has the minister ever read any of those studies or looked at any of the evidence, or is it just really a political conclusion that he's come to?