François Pilon

[Reducing the effects of urban heat islands Act, September 26th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity today to speak to Bill C-579, introduced by my colleague and friend, the excellent NDP member for Honoré-Mercier.

Her bill would reduce the harmful effects of urban heat islands on the health of Canadians. The environment is an issue that I have been particularly interested in since I was elected in 2011. I work with a number of local organizations that promote and protect the environment, including the Conseil régional de l'environnement de Laval and the Association pour la protection du boisé Sainte-Dorothée. I find the issue of heat islands to be very worrisome, and as parliamentarians, we have to tackle this issue as quickly as possible for the good of the people.

Let us begin with a definition of a heat island. According to Health Canada a heat island is an urban area that is hotter than nearby areas. Depending on the population density, the temperature can vary by up to 12°C from one neighbourhood to the next. These heat islands are directly caused by human activity in urban areas, whether it is urbanization, transportation, the pollution it causes, or the lack of vegetation. There is no doubt that heat islands have a direct effect on the health of Canadians.

Montreal's public health authority noted that on hot days, the mortality rate was 20% higher than average for people who live in heat islands. It goes without saying that heat islands affect the health of Canadians because of higher temperatures, which create heat waves and increase air pollution.

Between 1973 and 2003, nearly 8,000 people died in Canada alone because of heat waves, and many of these deaths occurred in heat islands. Therefore, this is a problem that we must tackle as parliamentarians, not just because it is a public health issue, but also because it is a wake up call about the disastrous consequences of the environmental decisions, or rather non-decisions, by successive Liberal and Conservative governments over the years.

Although we have been aware of the existence and effects of heat islands for many years, no government—Liberal or Conservative—has bothered to address this issue. No national strategy has been put in place to reduce the effects of heat islands on the health of Canadians. The provincial, municipal and federal governments are not working together on this issue. We need some leadership here, as we do on many other issues. The NDP is the party that is showing leadership by addressing the urgent problems facing our society.

I am proud of the leadership my colleague from Honoré-Mercier has shown on this crucial issue. I am also proud of the leadership shown by our leader, the leader of the official opposition and future Prime Minister of Canada, who has put environmental protection ahead of lobby groups' interests throughout his career. That is the kind of leadership Canadians deserve. As a result of this same leadership, we were able to hear from a number of experts on wetlands and urban agriculture when I was on the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. They told us about the dangers of deforestation in urban areas and the negative effects of wetland destruction.

I want to take this opportunity to say hello to Guy Garand and Marie-Christine Bellemare from the Conseil régional de l'environnement in my riding of Laval—Les Îles. They came to testify in committee to explain the direct causal links between wetland destruction in my region and the creation of heat islands.

Heat is not the only consequence of heat islands. The effects can come in many forms, including higher smog levels in major urban centres and lower air quality, which can create breeding grounds for bacteria, mites and mould. These effects also increase demand for energy to cool indoor air and increase demand for and consumption of drinking water.

We must act now because Canadians' health is at stake. Our children, grandchildren and seniors are among those most affected by heat islands.

The Conservative government has washed its hands of the whole thing. It eliminated energy efficiency programs. It has done nothing to help major Canadian cities that have this problem share knowledge and take coordinated action. It is leaving municipalities to their own devices yet again. It has never taken action or implemented any kind of strategy to tackle this problem.

The NDP does not pass the buck and hope that problems will magically solve themselves. The health of Canadians is a priority, and we want the current government to support Health Canada in its mission to reduce the harmful effects of heat islands. We want to support the provinces and municipalities in their efforts to locate and assess the hottest urban areas. We want to facilitate information sharing among the provinces and municipalities. We want to raise public awareness about the pressing problem of heat islands.

We also believe that it is the federal government's role to support the work of organizations that are offering tangible, low-cost solutions for dealing with or reducing the effects of heat islands. One solution is planting trees, which also improves Canadians' quality of life.

The federal government has an obligation to show leadership and coordinate all these efforts. The NDP is asking for leadership on this bill, among other things.

I can already hear the members opposite saying that it will cost too much and that our heads are in the clouds. That is not true. According to a 2013 study by the Université de Sherbrooke, planting trees provides a return on investment that is 5.8 times higher than the cost of the trees themselves. The University of California, Berkeley, demonstrated that developing a strategy to counter the effects of heat islands reduces energy consumption by 3% to 5%. That is in addition to the money saved on emergency and health care services and on the cost of hospital stays when communities effectively address the problem of heat islands.

To conclude, the bill introduced by the hon. member for Honoré-Mercier clearly shows that the successive Liberal and Conservative governments were faced with this challenge and, as usual, did nothing.

Canadians will be able to count on real leadership by electing an NDP government in 2015.

[Reducing the effects of urban heat islands Act, September 26th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, as hon. members can see, this is something that is very important to me.

Can the hon. member for Honoré-Mercier tell us whether addressing the problem of heat islands would also help the provinces save money on health care?

[Reducing the effects of urban heat islands Act, September 26th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague for her wonderful speech.

I lived in the riding of Honoré—Mercier for several years and so I know that heat islands cause real problems near refineries and highways.

Does my colleague think that it would be a good idea for the federal government, the provinces and the municipalities to work together to resolve this problem as set out in her bill?

[Victims Bill of Rights, June 20th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague on her very fine speech.

She says she more or less trusts the government when it comes to implementing this bill. This is 2014 and we know there is an election coming up in 2015.

Does my colleague think this is essentially a ploy to make the Conservatives look good because they are trying to protect victims' rights, when in reality nothing will be done before the election?

[Combating Counterfeit Products Act, June 19th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent speech.

I was very interested in the part of her speech where she said that in the town where she was born there were industries that have probably disappeared today. I was born in Laval. I still live there and there are many pharmaceutical companies.

If we do not pass this bill, I am wondering if the same thing could happen and if the pharmaceutical companies in Laval will disappear.

[Petitions, June 19th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition signed by many of my constituents who are calling on the government to create a legal ombudsman mechanism for mining, to ensure that Canadian mining companies operating abroad are held accountable to local populations.

[Respect for Communities Act, June 17th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent question.

Indeed, I find this undemocratic. I do not know why the Conservatives introduce bills knowing that they are unconstitutional, that they go against the charter and that they will be challenged in court. Canadians yet again will end up paying for the legal fees. I do not think this is a very good approach for a party that claims to be close to the public.

[Respect for Communities Act, June 17th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

I do not know whether or not this is parliamentary language, but I think it is disgusting to use an issue like this to try to raise money. This completely poisons the debate. They are trying to make the public afraid of something that would be of benefit to them. I think it is absolutely disgusting that the Conservatives are acting this way with the public and they are trying to raise money for their election campaign based on lies.

[Respect for Communities Act, June 17th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Sherbrooke for his excellent question.

As we have seen, there are now fewer drugs on Vancouver streets thanks to this facility. We could not expect them to disappear completely, obviously.

There is a park across from my home where I sometimes see young people at 2 a.m. or 3 a.m. They are clearly not there to play ball. If they had access to an injection site, they would use that facility, if only when it is cold or raining outside. Then the next morning, when my grandchildren come for a visit, I would not need to go to the park with them to make sure everything is all right. They could go by themselves, without me worrying that they may be hurt by a syringe.

[Respect for Communities Act, June 17th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to debate Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

With every passing day, drugs are becoming an increasingly pressing problem in our big cities, which are less and less humane places. The bill before us today forces us to face what has become, under this Conservative government, an undeniable fact. This bill has an intensely ideological flavour, and completely disregards both fact and reality. This is nothing new in the wonderland inhabited by the Conservatives, who are increasingly out of touch with the needs of Canadians.

Bill C-2 is nothing but a poorly veiled attempt to put an end to supervised injection sites. It became obvious some time ago that this government does not shy away from introducing legislation that flies in the face of recent decisions made by the highest court in the country, the Supreme Court of Canada, which the government seems to consider a threat to its ideology.

In fact, in 2011, the Supreme Court ruled that InSite provided essential services and had to remain open under the exemption set out in section 56 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. The court also ruled that the charter authorized users to access InSite services, and that the provision of similar services should also be authorized under the same exemption.

In addition, a number of studies published in the renowned New England Journal of Medicine, and the British Medical Journal, describe the benefits of the InSite supervised injection site. These are experts in the field, which is why the Conservatives surely will not listen to them.

Over the past three years, it has become apparent that the Conservatives do not take kindly to opinionated scientists, particularly when the opinions of those scientists do not suit them or go against their ideology.

The purpose of a government is not to muzzle scientists or members of the House of Commons and, yet, this has occurred a record number of times in Canadian history under the Conservative government. The government's responsibility is to take stock of the facts and to make the best decisions for Canadians.

With Bill C-2, the government is once again falling into the embarrassing trap of grandstanding and ignoring facts that clearly prove that supervised injection facilities like InSite have a wide range of benefits for the general public.

Indeed, just a few hours after Bill C-2 was introduced, the Conservatives made a big show of announcing their “Keep heroin out of our backyards” campaign, which was designed to rally grassroots support and to, once again, fuel the public's unfounded fears about safety.

Let us take a few moments to think about this seriously. Are the Conservatives so keen on magical thinking that they believe that, if InSite closed, heroin use would automatically disappear in just a few hours? I hope that their cognitive reasoning is a little more advance than that, but I have my doubts.

The reality is that, after the closure of supervised injection facilities, heroin use would not disappear but would once again be widespread in neighbourhoods and could, at that point, become a real danger for the general public. That is exactly the opposite of what the Conservatives are claiming.

Let us forget the Conservatives' ideological inflexibility that results in exactly the opposite of what they claim, and talk about the real facts about InSite and the positive benefits of supervised injection facilities.

The InSite project was set up as part of a public health initiative by the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority and a number of other community partners following a 12-fold increase in the number of overdose-related deaths in Vancouver between 1987 and 1993. Over that seven-year period, the Vancouver area also saw a disturbing increase in the rate of blood-borne diseases, such as hepatitis A, B and C and HIV/AIDS, among injection drug users.

In 2003, InSite secured an exemption under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act for activities with medical and scientific applications, in order to provide services and conduct research into the effectiveness of supervised injection facilities.

In 2007, the Onsite Detox Centre was added at the same location. In 2008, InSite's exemption expired.

The Minister of Health denied InSite's application to renew this exemption, a portent of the introduction of Bill C-2, which is before us today.

The Minister of Health's decision triggered a series of court cases, following which the British Columbia Supreme Court found that InSite should be given a further exemption. The Conservative government appealed that decision, but lost. The British Columbia Court of Appeal also found that InSite should remain open.

Finally, in 2011, The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the minister's decision to close InSite violated its clients' charter rights, was arbitrary, and was contrary to the purpose of the act, particularly with respect to public health and safety.

The NDP feels that government decisions should be made with Canadians' best interests in mind and be based on fact rather than on an ideological stance. Evidence has shown that safe injection sites effectively reduce the risk of contracting and spreading blood-borne diseases and reduce deaths from overdoses. Evidence has also shown that they do not adversely affect public safety. In some cases, they actually promote it by reducing injection drug use in public and violence, as well as reducing the waste associated with drug use. These sites strike a balance between public health and public safety goals, while connecting the users of these sites with the health services and addiction treatment they need to escape the hell of drug use.

In this case, the facts are clear and unequivocal. Between 1987 and 1993, before InSite was established, the number of overdose deaths in Vancouver increased from 16 to 200 deaths per year. Since InSite opened in 2003, the rate of overdose deaths in east Vancouver has fallen by 35%.

I have some other facts for our Conservative friends who believe that InSite is dangerous and poses a threat to the public.

Over one year, 2,171 InSite users were referred to addiction counselling or other support services. Those who use InSite services at least once a week are 1.7 times more likely to enrol in a detox program than those who visit infrequently. There has been a significant drop in the number of discarded needles, injection-related waste materials, and people injecting themselves with drugs on the street. One year after InSite opened, 80% of respondents living or working in Vancouver's downtown east side supported InSite.

A number of studies have examined the possible negative impact of InSite, but not one single study produced any evidence of harm to the community.

The facts are clear. An initiative like InSite is a step in the right direction in terms of public health and public safety. In contrast to what the Conservatives claim, such an initiative gets drugs off our streets and moves them to supervised sites where people are attended to and strongly encouraged to explore the possibilities for drug treatment and social reintegration.

That is why Bill C-2—which is based on wishful thinking rather than facts, as is often the case on the other side of this House—is simply unacceptable.