Bill C-2 (Historical)

Respect for Communities Act

An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act

This enactment amends the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to, among other things,
(a) create a separate exemption regime for activities involving the use of a controlled substance or precursor that is obtained in a manner not authorized under this Act;
(b) specify the purposes for which an exemption may be granted for those activities; and
(c) set out the information that must be submitted to the Minister of Health before the Minister may consider an application for an exemption in relation to a supervised consumption site.

Respect for Communities Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to get the opportunity to speak to Bill C-2. We are somewhat surprised that the bill has actually been called at this time, as we had anticipated that we would be into a recess. I understand if it is the will of the chamber to pass the bill.

I am not quite sure if I have already spoken to the bill at this stage. Would you get confirmation from the table, Mr. Speaker? I would not want to be speaking twice on this particular bill.

The House resumed from January 27 consideration of the motion that Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the motion that the question be now put.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, first let me wish you and everybody else a happy new year.

This afternoon, we will continue the NDP's opposition day. Tomorrow, we will consider Bill C-8, the Combating Contraband Products Act, at report stage and third reading. Should we need to call a second bill, we will resume debate on Bill C-2, the Respect for Communities Act, which went through its seventh day of debate on Monday.

Monday and Tuesday shall be the third and fourth allotted days. Wednesday and Thursday, we plan to continue the second reading debate on Bill C-20, the Canada-Honduras Economic Growth and Prosperity Act.

As for the invitation from my friend, I certain would not want to tread upon the very important responsibilities of the whips, and I am sure they will carry out those discussions among themselves.

Respect for Communities Act

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech and for reminding us to choose our words wisely. We must think things through before making decisions for the common good.

I would like to point out that InSite is innovative. It meets the needs of the community and it came out of the Vancouver community. When it comes to health, we have to be more and more innovative. I think that Canada is a country that could be innovative and play a leadership role. What is more, we are not alone. This type of site has been set up in a number of cities in Europe and Australia. These sites have been recognized as helping vulnerable groups. They are accepted by the community because they improve the health of their clients, reduce the numbers of overdose deaths, and reduce drug use in public, open spaces.

I would like my colleague to elaborate on the innovativeness of a centre like InSite and the importance of it being community-based. It is too bad that a bill like C-2 would eliminate a good initiative.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since we are here for the first time this year, allow me to wish a happy new year to you, to my colleagues, to the staff of the House of Commons and to the people at home.

At the beginning of the year, we make resolutions. Mr. Speaker, you inspire us with good resolutions every day when you begin with the prayer asking the Almighty to give us the wisdom to make good laws, if I am not mistaken.

This is what should guide us in this debate and in the debates on every bill. We are only here for a while. What will history remember of our Parliament? How will we have conducted our debates? What legislative legacy will we leave? I would not want people to remember that confusion prevailed, or that we did not act in the best interests of all Canadians. The fact is that everyone wants our society to thrive, to prosper and to be happy. I do not think we wish anything else.

This brings us to an important question. How do we define public interest in a bill, and in this one in particular? I want to quote American journalist Walter Lippmann, when he spoke about public interest, because the definition of that expression is very subjective. Here is a taste:

The public interest may be presumed to be what [people] would choose if they saw clearly, thought rationally and acted disinterestedly and benevolently.

We could add to that the ability to see the long-term results of action taken. Clearly, this is a little utopian and unrealistic. However, that is the direction we should be pursuing when considering a bill like this one.

This bill clearly shows the tectonic plates that are grinding against one another, in other words, people's values, which are not necessarily the same, and the law, which the Supreme Court clearly defined, when we are talking about the right to life, liberty or security, and the desired result or what we understand of an action, bill or institution.

Beyond everything else we could say, the real question we should be asking ourselves is this: are we going in the right direction? Will this bill, as it is currently written, allow us to improve the plight of our communities? That is the important question. If we vote for this bill, are we improving the plight of our diverse communities?

Here on this side of the House, we believe that things can be done differently. It is always a little strange to see such conflicting actions. This government boasts about eliminating red tape, but this bill introduces more red tape. The government is not very consistent. I do not know where it is going with this.

Is the government using red tape as a smoke screen, to hide its real intentions? I do not know. However, is creating red tape on an issue of public health really the best way to serve Canadians and our communities?

However, we have a lot of tools at our disposal here in the 21st century. We have knowledge that our ancestors did not have. We have a professional, coherent and non-partisan public administration to help us in our decision-making. I have the impression that we are taking a step backward, rather than moving forward, when it comes to putting public policy together.

Let me give you some examples where I think the government is not necessarily moving in the right direction to illustrate what I mean by that because public interest really is at the heart of this bill.

We have a beautiful bridge in my riding, the Quebec Bridge, that is being left to rust. Is it in the public interest to reduce the lifespan of a metal bridge that is also an image on postcards in my region? Some would say that it is in the public interest to do so, but I do not think it is. Public interest is preserving, maintaining, and taking care of our infrastructure, not being involved in legal wrangling.

Take funding post-secondary studies for example. We say we want to live in a knowledge society. Are we doing what it takes to make post-secondary education accessible to anyone who wants it, regardless of financial capabilities? The question can be asked now. I would like to know that we are contributing to a society where everyone has the opportunity to grow.

Here is where I make the link to Bill C-2. We have constituents who have a serious problem with hard drugs. The current solutions are helping those people to get off the drugs. What does the government do? It chooses to forget that, look away, play partisan politics , withdraw into certain values and not accept reality and see what it could do better. I find that fundamentally deplorable.

Beyond everything we want to do and everything we want, the wisdom to pass legislation in the public interest every day is characterized by the sincere desire to sometimes set aside our own personal perspectives.

We all have opinions on anything and everything, and our values influence our decisions. However, we are not here to promote our values. We are here to serve the public and to look beyond our own individual thoughts to make suggestions that would improve the life for the Canadians we each represent, in each of our different ridings. The public interest is what should guide our actions here.

I have serious doubts that we are headed in the right direction in this case, especially since the government is not respecting the spirit of the Supreme Court decision with Bill C-2. I would have liked the government to find a solution within the parameters set by the Supreme Court. However, that is not the case. Did the Supreme Court go against public interest? Is that truly what my colleagues think? I do not think so. I believe that the Supreme Court set parameters in order to determine the direction we should take. Unfortunately, this bill does not contribute to the public interest.

I would like to be able to say that this bill may improve public safety, but I am not convinced, since needles will end up all over the place. I would like to be able to say that this bill would contribute to public safety, but the government is throwing people whose only desire is to satisfy a temporary, urgent need out onto the street. I would like to be able to say that this bill is full of wisdom, but is it wise to want to go backwards and to refuse to listen to experts? Is it wise to not do something that is already considered around the world to be a good practice? Unfortunately, I think that the Conservative government got it wrong.

I thank the public for listening to my speech. I hope that everyone will have the wisdom to vote for good legislation in 2014.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is my first opportunity in 2014 to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-2, which is an important bill.

I would also like to take this opportunity to wish you a happy new year, Mr. Speaker. Happy new year to all the members of the House of Commons and all Quebeckers and Canadians.

What do people wish for in the new year? They wish for good health.

The government's most important role is to look after the health and safety of its people. We are talking about public health and safety. Here we are again dealing with a Conservative government that has taken an extremely ideological position, a position that may well do away with centres or prevent the creation of more centres that improve public health and safety.

Instead of moving forward, the Conservative government is backtracking. Why? Because science, reality, facts and research are not important for this government. Indeed, we have seen this with employment insurance. No impact studies were done. The government is gutting everything. We have also seen it with the tax credit for labour-sponsored funds. No impact studies were done. In addition, no rational and logical arguments could explain that decision.

Once again, when it comes to justice and public safety, the Conservatives are more inclined to rely on fear, on the prejudices and fears of some people, rather than on real results and documented experiments. That is what we are seeing with Bill C-2.

This is the second time I have had an opportunity to address my colleagues on this bill. I am going to repeat the same arguments and hope that I can hammer them in, like a nail. Basically, Bill C-2 is a thinly veiled and almost crass attempt to put an end to the work and practices of supervised injection sites. Right now, there is only one site in Canada: the site in Vancouver known as InSite.

The bill would allow the minister to come up with a list of criteria that is so long, detailed and onerous that in the end it would practically prohibit the sites.

It is odd because this goes completely against the spirit and the letter of the Supreme Court ruling. According to the Supreme Court, under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the government was to uphold the exception under the law for maintaining the supervised injection sites, so that people with addictions can get this type of help. It is their right to have access to it. The law must not ban this in any way.

The government is trying to circumvent the Supreme Court ruling by putting up obstacles to ensure that similar sites are not set up in Toronto, Montreal or other cities, even though public health authorities want to have the opportunity of copying what is being done in Vancouver. Why? Because it is working. Most importantly, it saves lives. We are looking at legislation that might prevent us from saving lives in Toronto, Montreal or other major urban centres in Canada.

The NDP thinks that facts and studies should be the foundation for public policy making. We cannot play with people's lives by fearmongering. More than 30 studies published in journals such as the New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet and the British Medical Journal have described the benefits of InSite in Vancouver.

I have no idea what it is going to take to convince the government. Thirty studies published in the top international medical journals in the world is not enough. Doctors are unanimous and the Canadian Nurses Association is unanimous. However, the government does not want to hear it and is incapable of listening or seeing reality when it does not fall in line with its regressive Conservative ideology.

What is more, studies on more than 70 injection sites in Europe or Australia have observed similar benefits to the ones we see at InSite. It is therefore not an exception.

The NDP believes that other centres can provide similar services. Appropriate supervision would help our constituents.

The Conservatives say that it makes no sense to help people to inject themselves with drugs. However, we know where those people are going to do it if they do not do it at a supervised injection site. They are not going to stop doing it. They will go into back alleys and parks. Then our children will be in danger of coming across contaminated syringes, pricking themselves with them and becoming ill, when it all could have been avoided with something quite simple.

Sometimes, things happen in ways that do not seem to be purely coincidental. For example, last month, the day after the session of Parliament came to an end, Canada Post was announcing all its cuts to services for Canadians. An hour later, the Minister of Transport had already sent out her media release saying that she was in agreement. Perhaps it was a coincidence, but it seems as though a lot of information is being exchanged with a public institution that is supposed to be independent of government.

What happened after Bill C-2 was introduced as a way to rally the Conservative base? We saw a Conservative campaign called “Keep heroin out of our backyards”. It was launched on their website. It was important to support Bill C-2 because it was going to keep heroin away from our children. However, the opposite is true. The opposite has been proven and documented. We are going to say it over and over again in the hope that the Conservatives will finally listen to reason.

What exactly has happened in Vancouver since the site opened? We have seen deaths by overdose drop by 35%. That is a direct effect. Why did the authorities in Vancouver decide to open the injection site? They did so because there had been a huge increase in the number of deaths by overdose between 1987 and 1992, a twelve-fold increase. At the time, the Vancouver area was also seeing a dramatic rise in the rates of communicable diseases, such as hepatitis A, B and C, and HIV/AIDS, among injection drug users.

The centre was opened and we started seeing a tangible change very quickly. The centre has helped reverse the trend of overdose deaths, which had been on the rise. The number is now going down. This is socially accepted in the community, in the area, and by police officers, more than 80% of whom support the existence of InSite. The site does not simply meet the needs of a drug addict. It also tries to help that individual recover from their addiction.

In 2007, the OnSite detox centre was added to the facility. People who go to the InSite supervised injection centre are nearly twice as likely to enrol in a detox program than someone who uses drugs in the street, alley or park.

In 2008, InSite's exemption under section 54 expired, and the Minister of Health asked InSite to renew the exemption. This decision triggered a series of trials that must have cost taxpayers a lot of money. The B.C. Supreme Court ruled that InSite should receive another exemption. The federal government took the case to the Court of Appeal, then, in 2011, the Supreme Court ruled that the minister's decision to close InSite violated its clients' rights, as guaranteed by the charter. It also declared that the minister's decision was, “arbitrary...because it undermines the very purposes of the CDSA — the protection of health and public safety.”

The Supreme Court of Canada based its decision on section 7 of the charter, which states that everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person. The court stated:

The infringement at stake is serious; it threatens the health, indeed the lives, of the claimants and others like them. The grave consequences that might result from a lapse in the current constitutional exemption for Insite cannot be ignored. These claimants would be cast back into the application process they have tried and failed at, and made to await the Minister’s decision based on a reconsideration of the same facts.

After the court rendered its decision, public health authorities and organizations in Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal made plans and asked to open safe injection sites. They know that. Public health authorities in those municipalities are saying that the sites fulfill a need, that they will improve the social fabric and the ties people have with one another, that they will reduce the risk for children and that they will save lives.

I have a hard time understanding why the Conservative government keeps going when it is clearly moving in the wrong direction with Bill C-2.

The Canadian Medical Association said the following:

Supervised injection programs are an important harm reduction strategy. Harm reduction is a central pillar in a comprehensive public health approach to disease prevention and health promotion.

The NDP believes that peoples' lives and public safety should be our main concern. That is why we must fight Bill C-2, which is a step in the wrong direction.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert for her speech.

The Canadian Medical Association is opposed to Bill C-2 and therefore supports the NDP's position. The Canadian Nurses Association also supports the NDP's position. I would like my colleague, who has plenty of experience in the health field, to tell us why it is important to oppose this bill in order to defend public health.

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is the second time I have risen in this chamber to debate Bill C-2, which was introduced as Bill C-65 at the end of the parliamentary session.

I am still very disappointed with Bill C-2, which I think once again represents what the Conservative government is all about. It governs the country according to its own ideology and not for the benefit of Canadians.

This Conservative government is ignoring the scientific evidence around the ruling of the highest court in our country. It is absurd. This bill is another thinly veiled attempt to put an end to supervised injection sites, as the government has already tried to do with InSite in Vancouver.

This government is not hesitating to use taxpayers' money to appeal rulings that do not tally with its ideologies, as it did in 2008. I have a lot of questions. The Supreme Court of Canada recognized the positive impact that a supervised injection site has had in Vancouver East, and its ruling was unequivocal:

InSite has saved lives and improved health. And it did those things without increasing the incidence of drug use and crime in the surrounding area.

I would like to repeat that last sentence again: “And it did those things without increasing the incidence of drug use and crime in the surrounding area.”

The Canadian Nurses Association holds a similar view:

In Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside, where the Insite safe injection site is located, business owners, service providers and residents in the neighbourhood agree that the clinic has had a positive impact on the health of the people who use it and on the health of the community.

That is a fundamental issue in this debate. The Supreme Court ruling was based on section 7 of the charter and on the constraints imposed by the law, aiming to strike a balance between public health and public safety.

As a health care professional, I find this bill mind-boggling. I want to add my voice to those of people in the field who have criticized Bill C-2, including the Canadian Medical Association, which fully endorses the existence of harm reduction tools, including supervised injection sites, and believes they should be included in a comprehensive national drug strategy.

The CMA's position is founded upon clinical evidence and not upon ideology, unlike Bill C-2. The CMA, which represents all of the doctors in the country, is very critical of Bill C-2:

The unanimous decision was grounded in evidence, not ideology. The overwhelming clinical evidence is that centres like Insite save lives when it comes to some of our most vulnerable patient populations. In its ruling, the Supreme Court stated that “…the evidence indicates that a supervised injection site will decrease the risk of death and disease, and there is little or no evidence that it will have a negative impact on public safety, the Minister should generally grant an exemption.” What we have seen today seems to contradict the essence of the ruling.

Harm reduction works. This method has proven to be effective. In Australia, a report on supervised injection sites found that one site had reduced the number of overdoses, reduced the spread of HIV and hepatitis C and alleviated safety concerns related to users shooting up in public places and needle disposal. The report even indicated that the site served as a gateway to addiction treatment.

If that is not improving safety in the community, I do not know what is.

Many countries now have supervised injection sites: Australia, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, Germany, Spain and Switzerland, just to name a few. These sites work.

It is no wonder Montreal's director of public health recommended, in December 2011, that the city establish such a site in the greater Montreal area. He gave a number of reasons similar to the ones I just quoted concerning Australia's experience. Why? Because they are based on conclusive data that the Conservatives and the Minister of Health have patently decided to ignore.

I would like to quote Montreal's director of public health:

The reasons that justify implementing SIS in Montréal are very succinct: the epidemic of infections caused by HIV and HCV, and the excess mortality among IDU. Cocaine use, the drug most often injected in Montréal, is a major determinant of HIV transmission, as is sharing used needles. HCV infection is also having devastating effects: 7 in 10 IDU have been exposed to the virus and its transmission does not appear to be slowing. As for excess mortality among IDU, the data on hand indicate that the problem in Montréal is alarming.

I urge the government to do its job for once in the health field. Since the Conservatives took power, we have seen the federal government disengage from files where Canadians expect it to play a role. This includes the government's refusal to negotiate a new health accord with the provinces, the shortage of prescription drugs, and diluted chemotherapy treatments.

It is unbelievable and completely unacceptable for a bill such as this, which flies in the face of the Supreme Court ruling, to be introduced.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague from Laurentides—Labelle for his observation. I think it is very, if the expression can be excused, insightful.

I think the reason it is insightful is that the government seems to want to pick a fight with the Supreme Court of Canada. Imagine dropping something into an omnibus budget bill to deal with the appointment of a Supreme Court judge. Why? I do not understand that.

I was on the finance committee when I had to deal with this position. From watching on CPAC the arguments in the Supreme Court of Canada, it certainly looks like the government deliberately provoked a fight with the court. Of course, as my colleague rightly noted, we are going to see more of that in the future.

If Bill C-2 is enacted, we will be right back where we started. It is going to cost us millions of dollars in lawyers, and more people are going to die. That is what is going to happen as a consequence of this. The lawyers are all predicting it.

As I said earlier, colleagues who do constitutional law tell me that they just do not understand how this passed muster with the Department of Justice.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to first commend my neighbour and friend from Victoria for an excellent speech.

This is what has been bothering me about Bill C-2 from the beginning. It is that it is, by stealth, an effort to pretend and feign respect for the Supreme Court decision while, through every aspect of the bill, making it impossible to live up to what the Supreme Court has told Parliament we must do, which is respect charter rights and the evidence that says that InSite facilities are working.

I have been here for the debate all day. Every comment from a Conservative member of Parliament has not been for defending Bill C-2 for what it pretends to be, a protection of communities act, a consultation with communities, but for what it really is: an effort to defeat the purposes of InSite. Every question from Conservatives has gone to the question of how we can possibly have a facility like InSite without encouraging and participating in the illegal drug trade.

The questions from Conservatives throughout the day have been honest. They have been from people who really do not want to see InSite facilities operate. They go to the real purpose of and motivation for Bill C-2, which is to defeat the existence of valuable facilities for harm reduction.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to Bill C-2 , an act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

I remain very concerned about the government's motivation in introducing the bill in the face of a unanimous loss. The Supreme Court of Canada in 2011 unanimously defeated the government's position on this matter. To read the bill, it would almost suggest that the government has not read the judgment or is flying in the face of that judgment.

It also causes me great concern that the Minister of Justice would see fit to introduce the bill in the face of his obligation under subsection 4.1(1) of the Department of Justice Act, wherein advice from his officials on the constitutionality of legislation is required. However, we know that the standards of the Department of Justice these days are very low in that regard, having had the benefit of a whistleblower who told us that instructions had been sent to departmental lawyers saying that if there was even a 5% chance of a provision or law passing muster under the charter, then it would be fine to recommend it going ahead as constitutional and to introduce the law.

I say this by way of preamble, because as a reformed lawyer, I have many friends who were involved in this litigation. Colleagues have told me that this is simply a bad-faith effort, or at least a patently unconstitutional response to the unanimous decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. They cannot wait to get this in the courts again, not believing that it could possibly pass muster, for reasons I will try to outline in my remarks.

The Downtown Eastside of Vancouver has disproportionately high levels of illegal drug use, poverty, and homelessness and high rates of HIV and hepatitis C infections. InSite came to the rescue with the approval of the City of Vancouver, the police department, and stakeholders in that troubled community. It succeeded in reducing blood-borne illnesses and in providing access to counselling, detox, and other services that simply were not being accessed by this high-risk population.

As colleagues have pointed out, studies have shown that InSite contributed to a 35% reduction in deaths by overdose in that troubled area of Vancouver as compared to nearby neighbourhoods. The reduction was only 9% in other neighbourhoods compared to 35% in the Downtown Eastside.

This is not the report of merely an academic who looked at statistics. This report was co-authored by the world-famous expert Dr. Julio Montaner, director of the British Columbia Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS. In a moment, I will contrast this success rate for the safe injection site with what is happening in my community of Victoria. There is a very troubling difference between the two communities.

There is a worldwide trend that InSite was part of. It is a trend that was outlined in June 2012 in a report by the Global Commission on Drug Policy. The title of its annual report, “The War on Drugs and HIV/AIDS: How the Criminalization of Drug Use Fuels the Global Pandemic”, I think is provocative. It is a report from world-famous scientists and other public policy experts.

I found it interesting that in their analysis of places such as the InSite facility, which was referred to in their study, they concluded that criminalization actually encourages unsafe injection procedures, like sharing needles, as addicts hasten to inject in order to avoid detection and law enforcement. That global commission supported InSite and other safe injection facilities.

As my colleagues have pointed out, this initiative was undertaken, long before it was in Canada, in places like the Netherlands, Germany, all over Europe, and Australia. It seems that the current government simply does not get that the Supreme Court of Canada was looking certainly at public safety and also at public health concerns. The Conservatives do not seem to get that part of the judgment.

That is not just me speaking. A number of colleagues, such as Professor Elaine Hyshka, in a 2012 edition of the Canadian Journal of Public Health, concluded that the Conservatives' approach to drug use is “motivated by ideological principles of punishment and retribution towards drug users”.

It is that part of the Supreme Court of Canada's judgment that I must go back to, because it seems that it has been ignored by the government in enacting Bill C-2 in response to the Supreme Court's unanimous decision:

The Minister's failure to grant a [section] 56 exemption to Insite engaged the claimants [section] 7 [charter] rights and contravened the principles of fundamental justice...[It is also] grossly disproportionate.... [during its eight years of operation, Insite has been proven to save lives with] no discernible negative impact on the public safety and health objectives of Canada....

Where, as here, a supervised injection site will decrease the risk of death and disease, and there is little or no evidence that it will have a negative impact on public safety, the Minister should generally grant an exemption.

Where are we with Bill C-2? How did the government respond to the Supreme Court of Canada's unanimous decision? I say it responded either in bad faith without reading the decision or by ignoring what no doubt was the advice given by lawyers on the constitutionality of this initiative. I say that because of three or four things.

First, the preamble to Bill C-2 says that an exemption “should only be granted in exceptional circumstances and after the applicant has addressed rigorous criteria”. What are the criteria? Section 56.1, a new section this legislation would introduce, has some 26 conditions that must be met. Actually, there are 30, because of some subsections; they go from (a) to (z). These are conditions the minister must consider when approving an exemption for medical purposes.

I am not saying that these are illegitimate conditions, but the number of hurdles in the way of a community ever getting a safe injection site are so enormous that it is hard to believe that this is a good faith effort to apply the Supreme Court of Canada's decision. The minister then sent it to the Public Safety Commission rather than to the health committee, again an indication that the public health aspects may not have been taken as seriously as one would have expected.

All of this information would have to be provided in prescribed form. There is requirement after requirement, and it has to be done in the prescribed form. There is no time limit as to when the application would have to be considered by the relevant minister. It goes on and on. One wonders again whether there really was an effort to allow a safe injection site as per the spirit of this legislation.

In the time available, I want to contrast the record in Vancouver, with Insite, and what is going on in my community of Victoria. I am finding the following quote from the coroner a shocking one. Last year, the B.C. coroner reported that there were 44 deaths from illicit drug use on Vancouver Island in 2011. Sixteen of those deaths occurred in the greater Victoria area. He noted that Vancouver Island is the region with the highest rate of deaths related to illicit drug use in the entire province of British Columbia.

The Centre for Addictions Research at the University of Victoria concluded that Victoria's per capita death rate is almost 30% higher than in the Lower Mainland. Just a few kilometres away, a ferry ride away from Victoria, in the community where InSite exists, 30% fewer people die from overdoses per capita than on Vancouver Island, which does not have a safe injection site. All Bill C-2 would do is make it virtually impossible for us to realize the public health benefits that have been achieved on the mainland.

By way of conclusion, this legislation does not address the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in a meaningful and good faith fashion. It will simply provide obstacle after obstacle to achieving the public health benefits that the Supreme Court of Canada found, on the facts, to exist in InSite.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard for reminding us that a whole range of people and organizations are opposed to Bill C-2.

She rightly mentioned the Canadian Nurses Association. It is important to look at this also from the perspective of health and consider the impact it can have in our communities.

As I mentioned earlier, all those who are working hard for a supervised injection site or service on the island of Montreal are opposed to a bill like Bill C-2, which could derail all their efforts. We are talking about people in the field of public safety, meaning police officers in Montreal. We are also talking about community organizations, doctors and health care services. That is a lot of people.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech and for all the points she raised.

She mentioned that a number of voices have been raised against this bill, including the Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian Nurses Association and many other experts.

Last summer, an editorial in the Globe and Mail came out strongly against this approach and the content of Bill C-2. Specifically, it said that, in the clauses and the preamble, there was not one mention of the fact that the supervised injection site was saving Canadian lives. That has been made abundantly clear in a number of ways.

Could the hon. member elaborate a little more on the opposition to Bill C-2 that has come from various sources?

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member for Trois-Rivières, this is the second time I speak to Bill C-2. I made a speech before the holidays and, today, I am pleased to voice my opposition to the bill once again.

To begin, Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome you to the start of the spring session. I would also like to extend my best wishes for a good parliamentary session to your entire team—the House clerks, translators, pages, security personnel and all of the members, regardless of political stripe.

Today, there are many topics I would like to discuss in relation to Bill C-2. For example, I would like to talk about health and public safety, the Conservatives' fear-mongering campaign surrounding the InSite safe injection site and the Supreme Court decision in 2011.

I would like to begin by talking about health and public safety. A safe injection site is a sanitary, hygienic location where intravenous drug users can shoot up under the watchful eye of trained staff, such as psychologists and nurses.

Drugs are not sold there, despite what some might think. It is often the place where support personnel make first contact with a user. InSite in east Vancouver was the first of its kind to open in 2003. Since then, more than 70 cities in Europe and Australia have set up similar services.

Since InSite opened, Vancouver has seen a 35% decrease in overdose deaths. Furthermore, InSite has been shown to decrease crime, infection rates of communicable diseases, such as HIV and hepatitis C, and relapse rates for drug users.

Before InSite was set up, the rates of communicable diseases among injection drug users skyrocketed in Vancouver. There was also a 12-fold increase in overdose deaths between 1987 and 1993.

As a result, community partners and the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority decided to set up the InSite project. In addition to a 35% drop in the rate of overdose deaths, InSite had a positive impact on a number of other levels, in public health and safety alike.

According to a 2004 study by Wood et al, there was a significant drop in the number of discarded needles and injection paraphernalia and in the number of people injecting drugs on the street, just in the year after the site opened.

In addition, 80% of respondents living or working in Vancouver's downtown east side support InSite. Over 30 studies have shown the benefits of InSite as a supervised injection site. Not one study produced evidence of a possible negative impact of a place like InSite.

I would also like to briefly speak from experience. As a mother of a young daughter, I am increasingly aware of the potential dangers in our communities. I am seeing public safety in a new light.

I have already said this in my first speech on Bill C-2, but I think it is worth repeating. Montreal has no injection sites. When I was little, my mom and I used to walk around Montreal. Whenever we walked through a park, my mother would tell me to look on the ground. Whether we were walking on grass or gravel, we had to look down on the ground in case there were syringes or things like that. We had seen syringes before when we were walking in the parks or on the street. I was struck by that. Unfortunately, that is what many people have to do to avoid stepping on a needle, especially in the summer when they are wearing sandals. It is unfortunate and sad, but that is the way it is.

I am the deputy critic for public safety. I did research on InSite to see whether a site like that actually had a positive impact.

Looking at the studies and personal experiences of people, especially those living and working in east Vancouver, there is no doubt that InSite has had a positive impact on people's quality of life and that it has made communities safer, especially in an area like east Vancouver, which, as most members in this House know, is unfortunately a place that is home to a large population of injection drug users. It is a unique little pocket of Vancouver. It is important to be aware of this when talking about InSite.

I believe in the importance of safe communities and to achieve that, it takes work. As legislators, we have a responsibility to not be complacent when drafting bills and to take action in the best interest of Canadians. This brings me to my second point, which was mentioned in the last couple of speeches, right before I rose to address the House. It has to do with the fearmongering and fundraising the Conservatives are doing in relation to Bill C-2. There is a campaign on the Conservative website called “Keep heroin out of our backyards”. I would like to quote from the text written on that page. It reads:

Do you want a supervised drug consumption site in your community? These are facilities where drug addicts get to shoot up heroin and other illicit drugs.

I don’t want one anywhere near my home.

Yet, as I write this, special interests are trying to open up these supervised drug consumption sites in cities and towns across Canada—over the objections of local residents and law enforcement.

We've had enough—that’s why I am pleased the [Conservative] government is acting to put the safety of our communities first.

It goes on to say:

The...Liberals and...[the] NDP are against us. They want to repeat the experiment of Vancouver’s Insite facility across the country — maybe even in your community.

This is fearmongering, as my colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord pointed out. It is absolutely unbelievable that they are fearmongering and spreading misinformation about what a supervised injection site like InSite actually does. What bothers me even more is that the Conservatives are using Bill C-2 to raise money. The more they talk about it, the more they create fear among the public, the more they raise money to fund their next election campaign. It is absolutely unbelievable. It is disgusting. I cannot believe that they are using a topic as important as supervised injection sites to try to raise money. This takes the cake. If you do not have good arguments and resort to fearmongering, as the Conservatives are doing with this, I think it means that you have already lost the battle. Not us, but them. This is even worse than electioneering. There are so many adjectives I could use, but I will leave it at that.

As my colleague from Trois-Rivières pointed out, what happens is that people either start to fear the unknown or are unable to properly explain a subject, or maybe they simply do not understand exactly what a supervised injection site does. They are playing politics here. They are not able to explain why these supervised injection sites are in the best interests of Canadians, in terms of both health and public safety. The Conservatives are trying to convince the public that they are the champions of public safety because of the measures in Bill C-2, but that is not the case. The Conservatives are using these measures to try to win votes. They are also trying to mislead Canadians, and that is sad.

I would like to take a few minutes to talk about the Supreme Court's 2011 ruling. This bill is contrary to that decision, which called on the minister to consider exemptions for safe injection sites as a way to reconcile public health and public safety issues. The ruling urged the minister to examine all of the evidence in light of the benefits of safe injection sites, not to devise a long list of principles on which to base his decisions. The NDP believes that any new legislation about safe injection sites should respect the spirit of the Supreme Court ruling.

That is not what is happening with Bill C-2. The NDP believes that harm reduction programs, including safe injection sites, should benefit from exemptions based on evidence that they improve community health and save human lives, not on ideological beliefs.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if I led anyone to believe that I agree with Bill C-2 through anything I may have said, I would like to set the record straight right now: Bill C-2 is a bad bill. I decided to instead talk about empathy.

My colleague wants to know how the Point de Rue organization works. The organization has street workers who are the point of first contact with vulnerable individuals. That is essential.

However, the problem is not solved in the streets. Solutions are found when we convince people living in the streets to visit an organization such as Point de Rue. Point de Rue is not an injection site, but rather an organization that helps the less fortunate. Once these people are persuaded to come in, we can help them regain their humanity and tell them that we will support them in their decision to overcome their addiction. There is much to be done.

Time and space are required to build relationships with these individuals. It is important to provide a physical location where they can feel that they belong, that someone is listening to them and that they have a network of people to help them overcome the feelings of isolation that are unfortunately often associated with drug use.